καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς--Hebrews 10:24

It is not uncommon for preachers to use Hebrews 10:25 as an exhortation to the congregation to get themselves to the Sunday morning meeting. I may have done that myself at some point. Upon closer examination, this seems to limit the depth of the exhortation. Actually, the main verb controlling this verse, κατανοῶμεν, is in verse 24. It is in the subjunctive mood, classified particularly as a hortatory subjunctive which gives it the sense of an imperative. It is then translated thus: “let us consider.”

Most English translations translate παροξυσμὸν of verse 24 as an infinitive, thus “to stir.” It’s not actually an infinitive. It is the object of the preposition εἰς, which here might be translated something like “for the purpose of.”

Both love and good works are genitive nouns which seem to me most likely objective as παροξυσμὸν, the lead noun, is a verbal noun.

The translation of verse 24 could then be something like this: “Also let us consider one another for the purpose of the provocation of love and good works…”

Clearly the main verbal action here is “consider” one another. Love and good works is then not limited to stirring “others” up, it is that these actions be provoked in “reciprocal” ways. Verse 25 tells us what is critical for this to take place, namely that we not neglect the meeting together.

It is worth noting that NIV translates in such a way that ἐγκαταλείποντες (neglecting) is treated like another hortatory subjunctive verb, thus giving it force equal to the command to consider one another. NIV translates thus: “Let us not neglect…”(v. 25a). However, it is not a verb and therefore not hortatory. This is a participle with a negative particle controlling it so it translates: “not neglecting.” Not neglecting what? Not neglecting the meeting. Why? So we can have a big crowd on Sunday morning? No. It is so we can have appropriate means to “consider” one another. Again, it should be stressed that “consider” is the action commanded.

The meeting must be of such a nature that it engenders provocation of love and good works among all who are members one of another. We should teach this passage in such a way that exhorts our congregations to “consider one another.” The meeting together is the place where provocation to love and good works happens. The meeting then should be of such a character that it easily provokes reciprocal love and good works that are tangible. I submit that meetings in addition to Sunday morning and of a different nature are required for this “consideration” to appropriately take place.

Every-member participation meetings are the norm for Mountain Community.

Christology->Missiology->Ecclesiology

 I attended a three-day SynergyIGNITE conference addressing the development of "missional communities" last week. It was a good conference. It helped me to put language to what Mountain Community is doing and experiencing as we follow the Lord's leading; it also affirmed our efforts and the struggle. The conference was mostly geared toward traditional largerish churches changing their direction from an emphasis on providing consumer products (eg., self-serving programs and a professional Sunday morning show) to sending disciples out to make disciples in places where not-yet-disciples live, work, and play. Mountain Community is a bit different. We started out missionally. The Mountain Community mission was missional from the beginning. Even though we don't have painful transitions to incur, we have incurred suspicion from the church at large, tension with church planting networks, and a very difficult learning curve in which we still abide. One of the topics discussed at the conference was the need for Christology to define our Missiology which in turn defines our Ecclesiology. I would like to mull this over a bit more, both biblically and historically.

In recent history, the chain has been reversed to Ecclesiology determining Missiology defining Christology. A church expression is assumed based on tradition and then we start with, "oops, we have huge maintenance project providing these programs and a big Sunday show," then our mission becomes "create a financial engine to perpetuate it" and Christology then is prone to error through an inappropriate view of the church and its mission. There was a good deal of honesty at the conference that the mission becomes "drag them in" so we can continue to justify and finance what we're doing.

Biblically, Matt 16:13-20 addresses the paradigm to arrive at ecclesiology. Christolgy, vs. 16: Jesus is the Christ, the son of Living God. He has the authority to set the mission. Missiology, vs. 13 with portions of 18: The Gates of Hades was located in Caesarea Philipi. It was a rocky cave, one of the two primary sources of the Jordan River. It was also a place of worship to pagan gods, particularly Pan. Lewd sexual things were done here to entice the gods of Hades to provide water which was associated with fertility. So, I suspect that when Jesus said "on this rock" (without diminishing the importance on the petra/petros word-play) he was also saying "right here" and "in places like this." It's the place where people are in bondage to things that impose death. Here the gates of Hades (not the gates of Hell as some translations hold) means death. Ergo, the church's mission is to rescue people from death in the place where forces of death enslave people. Ecclesiology: Those places are transformed through the church's (i.e., missional communities) presence in those places. The church should remain quick and nimble. The church's financial engine serves the mission at the Gates of Hades. This provides a clear picture of Christology: This is what Jesus did and does and where he does it.

Historically, I don't see the "kind" of emphasis on a Sunday morning event we see at present. (I'm not saying there should be no Sunday morning event. How we typically do it and emphasize it I do question.) At the conference, we used the pre-A.D. 310 period of church, which was as yet untainted by Constantine's influences in the areas of hierarchy, basilicas, formal proceedings, and etc. I don't know of any post-A.D. 70/pre-A.D 310 evidence of church behavior that could have developed into a huge and highly resourced every Sunday morning event apart from the Constantinian influence.

I find the second-century church at Rome a great example of a conglomeration of missional communities thriving apart from a large event. The prefect Rusticas attempted to locate the approximately 15,000-member church in Rome in A.D. 165 by interrogating Justin Martyr, but could not. Here's the exchange:

Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?” 

“Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?” 

Rusticus pressed him, no doubt for information that might compromise others: “Tell me, where do you meet? In what place?” 

Justin said, “I have been living above the baths of [text corrupt] for the entire period of my sojourn at Rome … and I have known no other meeting place but here. Anyone who desired could come to my residence, and I would give to him the words of truth.”

I think this is very interesting. The church was invisible in a way, but unavoidable in another.

I'm super excited with the direction the Lord is leading his church; in it we still have some hard questions to reckon with. In our generation, it's difficult to imagine what the church can and should be without out emphasizing the Sunday morning event as it is and as the priority. We tend to protect our regular, large, and highly resourced events, but I wonder if we should? Maybe it's impossible to emulate this period of history or a close biblical precedent, but maybe it's not. Maybe it's unnecessary to emulate this period of history and a close biblical precedent, but maybe it is. Maybe it's pragmatic to use the largerish prioritized Sunday morning event to create a financial engine to support our missional communities, but maybe we're missing another way. Will you wrestle with this along with me without taking offense at the asking of these questions?