What is Church?

10May08

Thank you all who commented on my post about stewardship and tithing. Many people have said that we need to tithe to “the local church.” While I’ve grown-up believing and doing this (I still do), I’m no less convinced this is the case. BUT – assuming it’s true, that I must tithe to “the local church” then I ask:

What is “the local church”? Aren’t we all The (big C) Church? What constitutes a “church”?

Is a mega-church more legitimate than a house church? If not, is my fellowship with Daniel a church? When does something become worthy of receiving tithes? Can I simply start a church at my house and tithe to it and use all that money to help the poor? If so, how many members would I need to do that? Is one enough?

There is a “priesthood of all believers” – what does this mean? Does it mean that we are all “priests” and therefore all responsible for one another, and equally responsible for our resources?

The more I think about this, the more I fear that we have developed a tradition that only a building, 501-c3, with a fancy speaker, some lights and a guitar player – is Church? No, the Church is all of us, it’s Christ’s body – and each of us is an important part. If we’re all important parts, who is entitled to collect and spend God’s tithe? Biblically, who has that role?

Those roles are clearly defined in the OT: tithes go to the temple and the officiating priests, who use them for their own livelihood and the upkeep of the temple. There was a clear delineation between priests and non-priests – you’re born a priest! Now God is in all believers, He’s torn the curtain. Do the OT roles somehow carry over to self-proclaimed priests of our day? People ambitious and charismatic enough to buy a building and hold our attention for an hour?

Please give your thoughts. I’m open to changing my views – I sound more radical than I am. I want what’s best for the Church – whatever that is, whatever’s most biblical and godly – whatever God wants. Please dialog with me.

Advertisements


20 Responses to “What is Church?”

  1. 1 Patrick

    Jesse:

    Good thoughtful questions/article. I think it is clear that tithing is a key principle and like all commandments is given for out benefit. (Malachi 3:8-10). As to who to pay it to, it sounds more like a question as to what constitutes a church and if there really needs to be some sort of formal organization, and what organization is that?

    I think the Bible clearly outlines that when Christ was on the earth he organized a specific structure that was his Church. He called apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers and evangelists and so forth. Most of the epistles in the New Testament were Paul writing to the various leaders in other parts trying to give them counsel on what doctrine to teach how to administer Christs Church. The apostles were the central governing body of Christ Church after he left because he had given them power and authority to administer in those offices. They had the right to receive revelation and lead the Church. They could interpret the Scriptures and even write new scripture to let the Church know the will of God.

    Therefore i would try to find a Church that was organized and governed the same way Christ set up his Church. And that since that organization would be Christs church that is probably where you want to pay you tithe too… I personally believe that not all Christian denominations are Christ’s church. Most teach great principles that will bring a man nearer to God. The trick is to find the one with his authority (the same authority given to the apostles). Good luck…

  2. 2 jessephillips

    Patrick,

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking time to comment on my post.

    I think I would disagree with you when you say that “the bible clearly outlines that when Christ was on the earth he organized a specific structure that was his Church.”

    What scripture are you referring to here?

    You said that “The apostles were the central governing body of Christ Church after he left because he had given them power and authority to administer in those offices.”

    I don’t get the sense that it was as organized as you indicate in your email. How do you define Apostle? What do you do when the Apostles die? Paul, Barnabas, James (the Lord’s Brother, not one of the 12), Apollos, Lydia, others, were all leaders in the Church, not one of the 12 – were they apostles?

    I don’t quite understand the apostleship idea. Are you saying every church should be run by an apostle? Certainly, with all of Paul’s missionary journeys there were more churches than apostles to officiate – not all “churches” had an apostle to make their ministry official. As you understand it, what makes a church “Christ’s church” and therefore one that has his authority?

    Please, explain what you mean. I get the sense from the New Testament that Christians were composing the body and meeting in homes, giving sacrificially to one another, helping the poor, everyone using their gifts as equal and important parts of the body, leaders leading with humility – often being surprised by God’s graciousness and their own lack of love (i.e. not believing that Samaritans could be saved, then not believing that gentiles could be saved, then requiring gentile converts to live like Jews).

    Patrick, thanks for taking time to comment on my blog. I think this is a VERY important issue, one that isn’t necessarily agreed upon by us all, one that has gotten confused and twisted with time.

  3. 3 Jeff

    Hey Jesse,

    I stumbled upon your blog through the FB group and just wanted to comment. I get the sense from this and your previous post that you have doubts as to how Church is “done” today and almost this skepticism that any church with a building and a pastor is doing something wrong.

    While I share that sentiment that many churches today give the appearance of being centered around this kind of social club or theatre atmosphere, I would caution on “swinging the pendulum too far the other way”, so to speak.

    Scripture tells us that where two or more are gathered, there Christ will be. Our church is currently going through a series on Acts where we read about the early church and just a huge move of the Holy Spirit enabling them to do awesome things for the glory of God. This includes all the things you probably think of, caring for the sick and poor, spreading the Good News, etc.

    Many churches start out the way you describe, in someone’s house or a small group of people and as this body grows there are very real realities that it will struggle with and cannot be trivialized. For instance, when you have a large group of people, somebody needs to “guide” it and help it move. And to your other point in the other post, I think perhaps your view of church is a little mis-informed. For instance, most churches I know of (including my own) do not have a pastor deciding everything. It is governed by a board of elders and every decision is put through a vote by the congregation. This includes distribution of resources as well as other decisions, so in a sense the Church decides how to use funds, not just one person.

    I would encourage you to not focus so much on peripherals like a building or a pastor, but rather the heart behind them. When you have a group of people who are meeting together to fellowship and pray, learning more about God’s word and encouraging each other to grow in Christ then that is Church! Whether this be a group of 20 people in a house or 2000 people in an auditorium it should all be for God’s glory.

    Yes, there are examples where we can look at Church and see it as some kind inefficient vehicle for doing God’s work, but when it is “done right” I believe it is truly something to behold.

    GB

  4. 4 Jeff

    Ah, and to add…as to the tithing point

    I tend to agree with u. I often times hear people give a hard/fast 10% rule to the local church, but I think we need to examine it more, perhaps. I mean don’t get me wrong, I think tithing to the local church is important as well, but we shouldn’t limit the scope to that. Especially in this age when we have the means to participate in things on a global scale.

    In any case, I think we are all called to be good stewards. I believe that means being able to give generously while having a healthy examination of how our giving is being used. And even then, there sometimes there are instances where we may be called to look like a fool with our money for the sake of the Gospel, but I’ll save that one:p

  5. 5 jessephillips

    Jeff,

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what you had to say. Good point about swinging the pendulum too far – that is what we always seem to do – swing too far the other way. Also, very interesting about a church’s resource decisions being decided by committee, rather than by one person (I mean, obviously it’s not one person, I’m not suggesting that, but still – committee … interesting – haven’t been a part of that kind of church). Still – if the committee decides to continue paying staff, buying buildings, giving a mere 10% 20% of church funds to helping people, I just don’t think, from my reading of scripture, that this 1) what God wants 2) most helpful for the body 3) most helpful for evangelism

    but I want to discuss this. I’m not gunning for “CHANGE NOW!” – no, I want to dialog about it and have an honest discussion about what the bible says, and what our experience is with church and outreach and stuff.

    I honestly feel like we’ve gotten off course way far back, and now we just accept what we’re doing as biblical. I don’t think it is – b/c it feels very little like what I read in the bible. Also, whatever we’re doing, it’s not working. We’re not known for being like Jesus at all. They Like Jesus (at least his message) but they hate us.

    I think we’re much more like the Pharisees than Jesus – myself included. And I think it’s our way of doing things that has caused this. – Therefore, I believe our way should be reexamined

  6. 6 Ryan

    The church…

    Without making an awful lot of assumptions about what happens after the early church we can only know a few things.

    1. It is intentional. Frost makes this point in The Shaping of Things to Come. So you and your buddy are not the church unless you have come together with the intent of exemplifying the kingdom in a unique and powerful way.

    2. It is not a building. I know we have heard this before but I wonder how you answer the question “what are you doing thing sunday?” I would bet cash money that in general we would answer “I am going to church.” Now someone might accuse me of playing word games here but the way the body acts today suggests that our poor use of language accurately describes our belief about where it is that we perform the functions of the church.

    3. It is a community. This is a literal statement. Unfortunately we have bought into the American/Suburban gospel which has taught us that getting together twice a week was the spiritual equivalent of literal community. The scripture teaches that we (plural) are a city on a hill or the salt of the earth or the light of the world (these are all presented in the singular) meaning that we are not any of these things alone.

    4. The church gathers regularly.

    5. At these meetings everyone brings something (teaching, gifts, prophecy…) “…When you assemble each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.” Additionally if revelation comes to someone other than the guy who is speaking he is supposed to sit down and give way. Hmm…

    6. It is powerfully gifted. It is supposed to be the group to whom people come to be healed through prayer (not just a house of prayer) It is a group which exhibits supernatural love, hope, peace and so on.

    7. It disciplines its own and does not judge those outside.

    8. It meets the needs of 1. the brethren and 2. its local community.

    9. It prays

    10. It testifies of Christ.

    11. It is governed by elders.

    12. It is the body of Christ, meaning that it represents [re-presents] Christ in the world.

    13. It is a body that worships

    These are the things i think of off the top. I will agree with you though that I see a lot called church that is not on this list. This reminds me of what Augustine said once, “The church is a whore, but she is still my mother.” This is a sentiment articulated by old testament prophets with regard to the Jews. I want to be lovingly cautious with the Bride of Christ, but that cannot stop us from asking important questions or making necessary corrections. We know the love of those around us by their willingness to correct us. We should be so loving toward the church.

    Ryan

  7. 7 Ryan

    As a point of clarification, I am not sure where the smiley face came from but it was unintentional and bears no significance on my comment. thanks for your understanding.

  8. 8 jessephillips

    Ryan!

    Thanks for your comments, I appreciate that you took time to write. Wow, you made some awesome points, that seem very biblical, and off the top of your head – no less! Let me question you:

    1. let me respectfully say that your first point is from a book, not the bible. Not a big deal, but since this is the crux of my argument, show me biblically that 2 people meeting are not the church.

    DUDE, your point about community is HUGE! (your building point too!) Our current “churches” have so little community, it’s so depressing and lonely – this is a huge problem in the Church, we must correct it!

    13. What is “a body that worships” what does this mean? Is singing worship? – that’s my next post, maybe.

    Ryan, I love that you stopped to comment, you seem very … great. Please answer my 1. above – it’s central to this blog post.

  9. 9 Ryan

    OK.

    1. I think the greater burden of proof has to be on the positive assertion, so I would respond first with the same question, where in the scripture are two people gathered without intent referred to as the church? I am sure this will head toward “… where two or more are gathered…” but this only affirms my point for the two are gathered in the name of Christ, which is intent.

    2. Also I am not sure that intent would be enough if there were only two people, though it seems possible.

    3. Paul gives instruction for what should happen when the church gathers. i would be uncomfortable with the idea that these instruction would need to be followed every time I wanted to connect with a friend.

    4. Though it is not the scripture I will cite Frost/Hirsch here for the sake of greater understanding.

    “Michael when to dinner with some young men. At one point someone said, “I agree with you about the church. It needs a complete overhaul. I mean we are, six guys eating together, talking about Jesus. We’re a church now!” It’s tempting, in our efforts to strip back the church from the empire created by Christendom, to overdo it and end up with the belief that any old bunch of believer sitting together in the same room is a church. But the six of us sitting around that table that night were not a church. We had made no mutual commitments, shared no long-term calling, were completely unaccountable to one another, and our purpose for gathering was mainly social.”

    Frost’s point is what I mention above. The scripture always refers to a plurality when it speaks of the church. Additionally, the plurality, when described, is ALWAYS described with 1. a group of more than two that are 2. gathered intentionally and which 3. perform particular functions.

    Thus to make the “me and my buddy argument” you would have to take the same kind of liberties with the text as the guy from the last post did when he assumes the birth of the mega church simply because a lot of people came to faith at pentecost (most of them went home after the festival by the way). I am not saying that two cannot be a church without intention, but I am saying the ‘me and my buddy argument’ is as baseless as the mega argument from pentecost. Both positions look to the text to find what they want.

    That probably sounds more harsh than I mean for it to be. Frost is the one who set me in the right direction on this topic. I had to work through this very idea but have found no direct support for the idea that the church manifests when two believer sit in the same room without intending to be the church.

    As for worship, I will wait for your post to get in deep. I will only say that christian worship is any act which intends to rightly align the relationship between God and man. So when we submit it is an act of worship since in it we acknowledge God’s worth. When we ask God for help, that is worship. When we testify, that is worship. And yes, when we sing that may be worship, but only if the point is intended to rightly align the relationship between God and man.

  10. 10 dewde

    This conversation has been valuable to me. Thanks guys!

    peace|dewde

  11. Jesse,

    After talking your ears off at lunch yesterday, I’m hesitant to add much more…OK, I’m over it.

    I realize that there are really two definitions of “church”, big C and little c, if you will. Unless I’m mistaken, the churches in the NT were mostly identified by their location. The church at Corinth was one church though they probably only meet as a whole occasionally. Whether this is a model that we should follow or simply a necessity due to physical space, persecution, and culture is up for debate, I guess.

    Speaking of culture, think about the difference that wealth, entertainment, transportation, and communication have made on the North American church. Realize how hard it is to compare our churches to those of the NT when you visualize a culture with no TV’s or cars. Meeting together as a church was probably far more important (and convenient) for them since they lived close together and were not distracted by the abundance of entertainment and busyness we experience. My commute only steals 10-15 hours a week from me.

    Life was different 2,000 years ago, especially between the first century Middle East and 21st century North American. With that in mind, we need to discern how much of what we read about the NT churches was a product of the times and how much is instruction on how the church should operate today.

  12. 12 jessephillips

    Ryan, thanks for the dialogue, I really appreciate your comments and your knowledge on the topic!

    Allow me to respond:

    1. Well, I think there’s not direct proof for or against this – at least not that I discern. This is frustrating b/c it seems very directed by a “sense” I get from scripture. I do want to use scripture to define my understanding of “church” – and you gave several and confidant assertions about what “church” is. If the above are correct, then perhaps a meeting of only two body parts is not “a church”.

    I think to properly answer this question we have to dive into all those points you mentioned above and solidly verify them from scripture. This is not a great medium for this.

    For an answer: My sense is that
    1) we’re all the body, just as important as another member (see Ephesians, 1 Cor, Galatians – um some other passages)
    2) we are a royal priesthood – not sure what this means – it feels like we all have access and empowerment from God – again, we’re all important – able to make decisions. Not sure if I can take all this from that Hebrews verse.
    3) where two or more are gathered – empowering to small meetings
    4) “church” doesn’t seem to have clear rules – emphasis seems to be on having correct doctrine, building each other up, living rightly, loving, reaching-out and making disciples of all nations.
    5) Jesus had his 12 disciples – I can’t have 12 disciples, but if I have one disciple, is that “a church”

    It seems to me that what a church is is somewhat open to interpretation.

    However, we do have:
    1) Jesus writes “to the church at” – in Revelation
    2) I think Paul refers to other churches and such
    3) the epistles talk about obeying your leaders
    4) paul talks about appointing elders and deacons “in the church” – seems to be referring to a local body.
    5) other stuff too I guess?

    Can we address all of your assertions about what the Church is in separate posts? That is, if I make several different posts talking about what “a church” is, would you engage with me in dialogue still?

    as an aside:
    So what should I do? I feel that most of the local bodies are wasting God’s money. In our entrepreneur culture, any guy can go-out and start a church. While it feels like in the NT all the believers in a local area would meet together – thus disqualifying my idea that I can meet with whoever I want – we don’t do that. We meet in whatever body we like, and many of us disagree with each other and do things differently.

    When Pastor Joe is first starting his church, with 5 buddies and families, are they still tithing to their old church? Probably not, they’re tithing to their own movement. Then, when they get a few hundred people, they demand that I should tithe to their movement – that they’re officially ordained to demand, receive, and steward God’s money (the portion I’ve been given). What’s the difference between my little thing (really nothing, just myself) and Pastor Joe’s ambitious thing?

  13. Dang, there’s some pretty in-depth conversation going on here! I won’t contribute too much but I do feel that sometimes we take an old testament principle and turn it into law and then try to live by the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

    There is no question that tithing (or giving our first and best back to God) is a principle that God honors and I do think it is a great principle to live by. I also think that we’re told to bring the tithe into the “storehouse.” In most cases I think it should be your local church, because it’s a healthy way to be part of your local body. But it could go elsewhere if God led someone individually.

    Anyway, that’s my two cents.

    Brad Ruggles
    http://www.bradruggles.com

  14. 14 jessephillips

    Michael! – Very well said, thank you. Very succinct, clear (unlike my stuff), yes, thank you!

    You make a great point. How much of what they did is just for them, and what’s for us.

    Please know that I don’t advocate smaller church or house church simply b/c it’s what happened in the early days – although that is part of my motivation. You make a good point, that they were restricted and we are not.

    It seems to me that:
    1) we’re missing community in The Church today.
    2) we’re missing authenticity – b/c we’re in such large, formal, anonymous meetings – can’t be real about what’s going on.
    3) we’re missing care for outsiders – non-Christians don’t want to come to an anonymous service – outsiders – maybe more my generation of 20’s – want something real, something valuable, something spiritual, but you can’t get that in a large, anonymous setting.
    4) we’re missing good works – all our resources are tied-up in buildings and staff. I’ve been church staff (sorta) and I saw how that money is super wasted!
    5) we’re missing impact on peoples’ lives – most people hear the sermon and forget it next week. It has no impact. I believe impact is greatly enhanced when the message is given in a smaller group of disciples, who keep each other accountable and encourage each other to live the vision.
    6) we have a HORRIBLE reputation – people are distrustful of “church,” but they are more trustful of organic, non-institutional stuff – house church has that feel, therefore it has an advantage over big church.

    There’s more I could add to the list if I thought about it. This is just off the top. So, with all these things in mind, that’s why I propose something more intimate, and less resource intensive. I wonder if it would be better for the Church in the long run. It’s at least something I think we should experiment with, and really test thoroughly.

  15. Jesse, to your most recent points, here are some other things I’m kicking around as a result:

    1. What produces the kind of community we’re missing?
    2. What makes something authentic or not in the context of ministry?
    3. Do you think there is more than the pragmatic reason that twenty somethings may want it, that we would not want a large anonymous setting?
    4. How would teaching need to change if it’s not a sermon?

    I know that might not hit every point, but those are some questions from my end that might help me engage this conversation. Obviously, I have more thoughts, but would love to draw more out of you as well.

    Grace
    Mike

  16. 16 jessephillips

    Thanks for your comments Mike. Here’s my initial thoughts:

    1) produces community: I feel it’s life on life, weekly (or multi weekly) hanging-out, sharing your struggles, praying for each other, (like small group style), eating together, discussing the bible together, ministry together (maybe volunteering, visiting elderly homes, engaging non Christian friends, whatever) – doing life together, with the same group of people, I think. Being able to share sin struggles, fears, difficulties, get help, help others, – the relational side + studying the bible, discussing it, praying, seeking to grow spiritually, together – the spiritual side, I think these are necessary.

    2) Authentic or not. GREAT QUESTION! authentic is such a buzz word, means different things depending on what you’re talking about. I think authentic, in relationships is being “real,” not trying to act better than you are. Being authentic, transparent is difficult, but that’s where growth, healing, community come from. Can’t get this in a large anonymous group. In the context of a church and sermon, I think “authentic” is not trying to boil life down to 3 alliterative points. Talking about real subjects, and making it clear that after all you’ve said, you still don’t know. Most sermons/churches don’t have this authenticity – they know that they know, but as I read the bible more (I’ve read it a few times through now) things are getting more confusing. This must be acknowledged and dealt with to reach these postmodern generations, perhaps.

    3) reasons for a non anonymous setting: a few
    1) the anonymous doesn’t facilitate community, need a non anonymous setting to get community – we need it anyway
    2) anonymous setting is very expensive (building used once a week, staff, programs), but is it helping us reach our goals? I feel we’d better spend the money by solving the AIDS crisis in Africa, helping our neighbors, – ie PR for Jesus.
    3) The HS has gifted all of us, several of us to preach and teach – they don’t need to be paid to use those gifts. In the anonymous setting we’re not using our gifts, we all sit docile and don’t use them during the week to edify one another either. Need to be meeting in a setting where we can use our various gifts to minister to one another.
    4) anonymous setting affirms the idea that only the guys on stage know stuff and are important – but biblically, we’re all important to the body, need to recognize this and act in it, we’ll get a lot more done this way. I think this will best happen in hundreds of asynchronous cells, rather than one consolidated bucket.

    4) not a sermon? sermons don’t seem to be changing us. Just sitting and downloading information is too easy to ignore, dismiss – further, it can not make sense, you have no ability to clarify, or ask for practical application, and no one keeps you accountable to applying it. What might be more helpful: teaching, discussion, ask questions, give pushback in an intimate discipleship setting. This is how the ancient greeks would teach, I think, and the Rabbis, I think it will work better. Also teaching by showing, doing stuff together – “but there aren’t enough qualified pastors to lead small groups and teach in this manner.” I would say there are, or at least there should be, b/c the HS has given us all gifts to build the body – the HS does not require us to go to Seminary to activate our gifts!

    Perhaps if we had a time for feedback, pushback, clarification in our regular church services – I know the reason not to is b/c it would just get out of hand, and be too difficult, and maybe dishonor the pastor, or whatever. But without this pushback,questioning,discussion it’s not really helping – though I have gained a lot through sermons and grown, still don’t think it’s the best way at this point.

    Mike thanks for your questions. This may not be the best forum to dialog, would love your pushback!

  17. Yeah Jesse…I’ll get a hold of you and at least take this exchange to email for a while if not the phone!

    peace

  18. 18 Paulg

    Mike and Jesse, I hope I’m not over stepping any boundaries giving my thoughts to some of the last two posts.

    The difficulty I see in Jesse response to number 1 is that we do all of those things mentioned already and yet most of us are alone. I think one of the primary reason for this is what I mentioned in another post about individualism. You can have people do all of the actions of community but if they don’t have the heart of community it won’t matter. So, I think it’s one of those “both and” situations we teach people the importance of the actions while also teaching the importance of letting go of their right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

    2. Authenticity: Jesus called us to love people with our hearts, minds, soul, and strength. The sum total of these is authenticity. Our culture is very logic/reason centered so we’re good at loving people with our minds. So, in a typical ministry setting, we make logical strategies for bringing people to Jesus. We know intellectually that it’s good for people to know Jesus, so we try and create communities where that can happen. Sadly, we often don’t have a real desire for the people we minister to, so our efforts come across as inauthentic. Further, we make these wonderful plans to reach people, but the effort we put into them betrays a lack of soul (faith) in what we’re doing and a lack of strength since usually what we do is a strategy for getting more bodies into the seats on Sunday. Even when we do try really hard, we still miss some of the components so people feel manipulated etc. Only through capturing true love for people as Jesus described it (heart, mind, soul, and strength) can we actually be authentic.

    3. I would suggest reading this article from the NY Times(nytimes.com) called “The Odyssey Years” by David Brooks. It details how our culture has yet to adjust to a new life stage what he’s calling the Odyssey Years. That we’re working under the paradigm of having Children’s Ministry/Youth Ministry/College Ministry/Adult Ministry, but that in the past few years a new life stage between college and adult has developed. It’s interesting…as for the autonomous services, I think a better way to look at it is to ask the question “what do people in our churches need” vs “what do people want” Many people want autonomy in our churches so they can have their God quota without actually having to give up their independence. But, of course, to truly know what a community needs involves being deeply connected with that community.

    4. Sermons no longer work, much like schools/universities no longer work because of the way technology has affected the knowledge process. Prior to the last 30 to 50 years it was a necessity to have an ‘expert’ teach a “learner” because this was the primary way knowledge was transmitted. But, today knowledge is outside of us no matter what place( ie whether we are the expert or the learner) in the knowledge process. Lyotard called this the “exteriorisation” of knowledge. I think what he means is that if you’re the teacher you have to come to grips with the fact you are no longer ‘necessary’ if someone wants to learn. Likewise, if I am the ‘learner’ I don’t need the expert anymore either. This has led to sermons and the such ‘not working’ and is one of the reasons why churches are so busy trying to attract people to their churches. Since teachers are no longer necessary if you want to learn an intellectual idea, as a learner I can pick and choose whom I want to listen to because knowledge is so available via the internet especially. The church (and most of the major institutions) hasn’t caught up to this reality. Today, the ‘experts’ are the people who can actually put into practice the knowledge. Thus, life coaching has become the hot item everyone wants. So, when Jesse is calling for an end to sermons, he hinting that in many ways they have become obsolete due to the change in technologies.


  1. 1 The Church 01: Not a Building « Jesse Phillips
  2. 2 2 likes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: