Week 7 – Fuellenbach; Chapter 6

After an extremely detailed description of the manifestations of the church, Fuellenbach concludes with a warning about either a cohesion of all the models strengths into one model of church, or the concretism of identifying or using only one model as the model for ekklesia.  My immediate response is that it is good to be reminded that there are different models that express the mystery of the Trinity and it’s incarnation in the followers of Jesus.  I get lost sometimes in my response to the negatives of the models we have experienced here in the US.  My other thought was his warning not be stuck with just one model, but to be willing to use several models at the same time, that flexibility is key.  (:165)  Is this speaking from the standpoint of a single community of folks; i.e., Lake Ave. Church?  In a town/city/region; i.e. Pasadena/LA?   Or within the national/worldwide ekklesia?  Further, how would that look in these respective contexts?  The larger the scope, the easier, I suppose.  But how would one maintain clarity and stability within a community if flexibility is such that the model of community is in a constant state of flux, or potential change?

Advertisements

~ by Brian Shope on November 5, 2007.

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: