Shaun Groves
We took the leap and started visiting churches last week. We haven’t done this in nine years. We haven’t done this before, partly because we didn’t know what we were looking for. I’m not talking about understanding our preferences (hymns or rock band, suits or shorts, coffee bar or coke machine in the youth department), I’m talking about understanding why local church exists and why we’d be part of it.
There’s no sense dragging the kids (and me) out of bed every Sunday morning, buckling them into car seats, writing the checks, spending the hours, if we don’t know why we’re doing it.
Community?
Well, I already have Christian community. The cul-de-sac we hang out in every afternoon is the closest thing to community I’ve ever experienced. If anyone in the cul-de-sac needed me they’d call. I’d call any of them too. We discipline each others’ kids. We cook for each other every night. We laugh together. We stress together. We are as close to a cult as you can get without swapping wives. I’ve got community where I can be served and I can do some serving, be accepted and be forced to accept others. I’ve got it.
Learning?
I can learn from a church but I don’t need a church to learn. New knowledge and the push to live it happens, for me, in conversations with people in my every day life. Conversations birth by something I read or listened to in a podcast or a song. Most churches are focussed on teaching the seeker and the newcomer. Great! But if a church does that it shouldn’t be surprised that I no longer consider it my primary place of learning.
Seeker Serving?
There are some who’ve told me I’m needed in a church because there are new believers and “seekers” there. They say I need to have those kinds of people in my life. Like learning, I can do this without being in a church. I have loads of these folks on my blog, e-mailing me. These folks are at my work (concerts) and on airplanes with me, and sacking my groceries, and living next door, and… Again, I agree that being in close proximity to people outside the Church and new to it is something every Christian should do, but I don’t need church for this. I have this on my own. In my own sphere of influence. In fact, these folks seem, in my experience, to be far more open and honest outside of a church – say, talking in my front yard – than they are inside it. I’m more likely to spent tim with the real them in my neighborhood tan I am sitting in their Sunday School class.
Tithing?
Well, tithing isn’t a New Testament idea. We’re to give all we can to all who are in need. The ten percent tithe was a Jewish nation tax that I’m not bound to in a post-temple faith. I give to Compassion International, to people I know who need help, to buy sonogram machines for crisis pregnancy centers, to the homeless mission in Nashville etc. I give more than ten percent. And because I know how much good my money can do I don’t relish the idea of giving to a building program or a sound system overhaul or a twentieth staff member, or new parking attendant uniforms. Most of my giving to a church is not, I believe, spent on the things Jesus cared about most. The things I’m to care about most.
Music?
Music is not essential to worship. I don’t need it. I definitely don’t need it to be whatever “good” is. Music is a non-issue for me.
A place to serve?
I serve people every day. If I don’t serve folks then I don’t truly love God right?. And so I should serve where I live and work, not just where I go to church. And the truth is most folks who go to church are going to be served, not to serve. Why else are pastors constantly begging someone to work in the nursery? Which brings me to the one thing I really do need in a church, I think. What I’m looking for now.
Allegiance. Slavery. Collective Mission.
Allegiance…
I want church membership to be meaningful, first of all. It shouldn’t be easy to be a member. Most people in a church on Sunday morning won’t be able to commit to what I believe churches should ask of their members. I’d like members to sign their lives over to serving and giving. I’d like them to agree to being called upon to give their occupation and their skills when there’s a need for it that the church knows about. If you’re a plumber and you join the kind of church I’m looking for you will be called on to donate your services when we build a Habitat house, or rescue a single mom from a busted water heater. I’d like membership to be enlistment in an army. Soldiers can’t say no. They hold nothing back. They’re allegiance to the king doesn’t even consider it and their formal commitment won’t allow it. They’re slaves.
Slavery…
We are no longer slaves to sin but slaves to Christ right? And, I think, to each other. I want to be bound. That’s what religion means in Latin – to be bound. I want to be committed to a larger group of folks who are committed to me and to my God. Commitment trumps soccer practice, sleeping in, demanding my way. In a culture that tells me I can have everything I want the way I want it and when I want it, I need a place that isn’t doing things my way all the time, that doesn’t cater to me, no matter how semi-famous I am, how smart I think I am, how loudly I complain. I need to be a slave, to be second to something greater than myself. I need to not be in charge. I need to surrender my desires and agendas to the mission of the whole.
Collective Mission…
I can end need in my cul-de-sac. I can tell a neighbor about Jesus. I can live like Jesus where I am, in my small sphere of influence, and make a difference, bring wholeness or shalom to my corner of the world. But with you, and you, and you, and you my reach and power are multiplied. It’s addition by subtraction. Subtract from me control, power, personal space and preferences and melt me and my time and talent and cash into your church and – if every member is expected to do the same thing – we can bring shalom to a much larger corner of the world. Have you seen 300, the movie? 300 guys accomplished what 10,000 would ordinarily accomplish in warfare, because of their commitment to each other and the cause at hand. Problem is, in my experience, the cause at hand isn’t clearly articulated. If it is, it isn’t often invested in as fervently as it is preached about, and isn’t sacrificed for and held out in front of every member as their reason for being together in a thing called “church”. The mission is unclear. The people are uninspired.
What I desperately want is a church that requires it’s members to give ALL to the mission, and clearly articulates the mission – a mission so large that it will never be accomplished and can’t even be attempted without US working together. I want a church that paints a picture of a mission that big, the size of the hundreds and even thousands of members it’s enlisted. I want a church that regularly refocusses us on that shalom-making mission while investing staff, brain power, money and time in the mission constantly. I want a church that cares more about this mission than it does creating mere believers, more than attracting seekers with entertaining services (mission, oddly, will attract non-Christians), more than building more buildings and increasing staff size and producing staff that are sought after conference speakers and authors.
I want everything this church does to reflect the mission. Our sound system isn’t cutting edge why? Because the best sound isn’t integral to the mission – here’s the mission in case you forgot. We’re meeting in houses instead of Sunday School rooms why? Because 50 classrooms that only get used for an hour one day a week isn’t the best use of resources considering all that’s needed for our mission – here’s the mission in case you forgot it. Or…our 50 Sunday School classrooms are dirtier than they were last month and wearing out quickly why? Because we started small businesses in them that run all week long, to save people from the slavery of welfare and give them skills to support themselves and pride to go with it. That’s key to our mission. Here’s the mission in case you forgot it.
That’s what I want. I’ll drive a long long way for this. I’ll give up Sundays and all I have for this.
Is this what you have at your church? If not, then why are you there?
Karen says:
I hope someone in Nashville is able to help you… I do think there are probably other folks out there who feel somewhat the same as you. Your list sounds pretty good to me, actually. Although I do look to the church for community; it’s not happening in my neighborhood.
DrewbieTech says:
My church is somewhere between what you describe as wanting to leave and what you describe as wanting to find. It is my hope and prayer that we will continue to move in a direction similar to what you are looking for, and I think we’re headed that way, but we have a long way to go. As far as why I am there, it’s because I want to help affect change to make my church look more like what it ought to.
Shaun, you may be interested in my friend Alan’s blog. His blog is dedicated to understanding what it means to be the local church to experience what Christ’s community is supposed to be like. Check it out: http://assembling.blogspot.com
Brant says:
Shaun—You wouldn’t believe the stuff that’s been happening down here, in our neighborhood, since we quit “going to” church.
I say this, because if you join another church based on the “attractional” model, they’re going to try to schedule meetings on you, programs on you, demands on you that may well take away from your cul-de-sac. Be wary.
We don’t have meetings and programs and practices anymore. We do have time to throw our garage door open and cook for our neighbors, and laugh and talk with them and know what’s going on. It’s been flat-out stunning, and some of our neighbors are even “plugged in” with churches—churches with excellent everything—but churches who have no clue what’s happening in their lives (like arrests for spousal abuse while the abuser remains in good standing in the church programs.)
One neighbor happened by, and said, “You guys should just put couches out here so you can counsel the whole neighborhood.” We didn’t mean for that to happen, we just have time to love our neighbors.
So be wary. They’ll give you many, many very good things to keep you busy, especially a guy with up-front gifts, like you, who could help with the attractional programs. You can go in the building and try to attract your neighbor to it, or you can free up time to actually be in your neighbor’s kitchen.
By the way, I consider buying grilled food and chips and pop and stuff—part of our ministry money. You can feed a lot of neighbor kids on that, and they’ll let you play on their skateboards for free.
truevyne says:
Church for me has mostly been a painful prospect. I stopped asking God for the perfect church(mythical), and started asking God to direct my husband and I toward the place He’d have us serve. It’s no picnic in my current church body as my strong ideas clash like the Titans with what actually happens inside and outside the church. My role is to keep asking God, “Now what do I do?” in the midst of my inner conflicts.
There are pastors (I know one in Nashville, in fact) who believe the church is your cul-de-sac, grocery store, work. While that is true for me, I am also called to a specific body.
God bless your search.
Todd says:
Shaun, I’m with you 100%, even though I didn’t have the words to explain it. I’m feeling this incredible tension where I am, struggling to discern if I should stay or leave and if I leave, I feel like I need to give some explanation. So far my explanations have dealt more with doctrine and personal frustration, not mission. Reading your post highlights what I’m truly feeling and helps provide some meat to what I’m feeling.
Thanks.
RevJeff says:
Oh sure, question WHY we do what we do… Make us think about WHAT we do… next thing you’ll be challenging us to get off our “pews” and follow Jesus too! SHEEESH!
Great stuff Shaun. I’m gonna steal it for my “thoughts for the deacons” tonight.
Cory says:
Your thoughts on collective mission remind me of a quote by Frederick Buechner: “A miracle is when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A miracle is where one plus one equals a thousand.”
Trey says:
I’m with you, Shaun! If there’s a church or even a group of Christians who live in community with each other like that in Tallahassee, someone let me know.
Christians believe it’s nearly impossible to experience Life like that and it’s no wonder after all we’ve experienced in churhes today. But what we need to do is recondition, rebrainwash, relearn who Christ is and what He’s all about and forget what 2,000 years of religious tradition has taught us.
In the NT, you don’t find tithing, pastor’s salaries, cathedrals, liturgy, etc. All you find is Christ and how to live Life in Him and Him living through His church without the religious burden that’s been placed on Christians today to follow a system instead of Christ Himself.
Zach Nielsen says:
Historically the marks of the true church are threefold:
1. The preaching of the Word
2. The administration of the sacraments
3. Church discipline
I see these as hugely important for me in terms of the church attend.
I am currently working in a church that I feel is very healthy. Granted, we are all sinners and we’ll never find some type of utopia that is free of flaws due to sin, but I think it’s way more about leadership than it is about structure.
Are some churches jacked up with all the wrong emphasis? Sure, but does that mean we should forsake the official assembly? No way!
Fayola says:
Great post. I’ve been a fan of your blog for a while. Good stuff.
I totally agree with you on the tithing part, which, incidentally, was so freeing once I “got it.” Coming from churches with building funds and regular sermons about the congregation’s lack of giving, it’s fun to now “tithe” and know my money is helping a Compassion kid or build a well in Africa, or wherever there’s really a need.
Now, if I could just find a church like the one you described above…
Zach Nielsen says:
At some point I think we need to quit bitching about how jacked up The Church is and pick one, dive in, and serve!
Zach Nielsen says:
These are great thoughts Shaun. I think expectations are key. It sounds like you need to either start your own church and be the lead pastor, or you need to find a church that will let you be in some form of leadership. That way you can be held responsible for all these idea being implemented and not waiting around or searching endlessly to find it. Sounds like you need to do it.
Brant Hansen says:
Zach—What’s the “official church” you refer to?
Curious on your thoughts.
Best,
Brant
Brant Hansen says:
Sorry—“official assembly” is how you put it. Didn’t meant to misquote.
RBerman says:
Serving is absolutely crucial as part of the Christian calling, and I’m excited and inspired to read Shawn’s vision. I am however concerned that he thinks that podcasts, songs, and random conversations will provide him with the learning he needs for the long term. That just sounds like an awfully scattershot approach to Christian growth.
Church history is full of people who thought the institutional church had nothing more to teach them. Unfortunately, we remember their names primarily for the cults that they started because they didn’t feel the need to put themselves under the discipline (a word, by the way, which means “learning”) of older, more mature Christians. But we live in an increasingly anti-authority society, and postmodern notions about self-created meaning and direction creep in easily. Paul told Timothy to appoint elders in all the churches for a reason: Because without healthy leadership (including people willing to live under leadership), error creeps in, and error has consequences.
If Shawn’s (or your) current church offers nothing but Christianity 101, then I do see the need for a new church. That’s a long way from chucking the institutional church wholesale.
Todd says:
I’m a pretty extreme anti-institutionalist, and therefore, I really struggle with the notion of “official assembly.” I think that it’s important to meet together with other Christ followers, but that doesn’t have to happen just because some elders decided that Sunday is the best time to bring everybody together.
That said, elders are important, though not necessarily in the context that we’ve created. It is essential to have older, wiser shepherds for groups, but not older, louder “deciders.”
While I don’t buy into the idea of “self-created truth,” I dislike the idea of “declared” truth – that is, somebody telling me what is true without allowing the opportunity to question or deconstruct it. I fear that many misunderstand the postmodern position as one that denies there is any truth, when in reality, we’re merely attempting to discern what is true based on experience, study and conversation.
Darren Davis says:
I believe that the Church you want is what God had created it to be, but that we get it wrong in our sin and selfishness.
Personally I think it’s a scary thing to go off and mention that church can be obtained outside of what God created it to be as though we have better ideas. Sure, it’s not a building, but is leadership, structure, and commanded that people corporately worship and that we see each other communing with the living God through the scriptures.
I also agree it’s important that you are intentional in your sphere of influence, i.e. neighborhood, work, rock shows as you are a light in a dark world. But the Bible does not say forsake church to witness and influence. I’m always leary of when my thoughts are filled with “I want” or “I have” or “I’m doing” because I’m not focusing on Christ but myself.
There are scriptures we should all know (pointing the finger at myself) that lay out the way church is to be done, and I would bet that it isn’t what we want, but what we need.
Todd says:
Oh, and Shaun, I don’t know about Nashville, but I do know we’re trying to start something very similar in Wichita, if you’d like to move here.
We need a resident musician for Creel, I’m sure.
Shaun Groves says:
At some point I think we need to quit bitching about how jacked up The Church is and pick one, dive in, and serve!
Zach, there’s no way you could know this so I understand why you say what you said. But I’ve been in the same church for ten years. Before that I was a chaplain at a Childrens Home – essentially a pastor. I’ve served. I’m not claiming any church is “jacked up.” I’m claiming that being not-jacked up isn’t reason enough for me or you to be there.
Why do we go to a church? My reason is what I wrote about in this post. I’m not there for all the things that get bitched about. (to use your word). I’m there for allegiance, slavery and a mission that requires both from ever member.
No bitching here.
T. J. says:
Todd…
River Community Church is the closest thing i’ve experienced that Shaun is talking about. Its worth giving it a look.
T. J. says:
Todd…
my bad. thought you were looking for a church and not starting one, sorry. hope your guys thing brings much honor to jesus.
Todd says:
T.J., no worries. I’m active with an organization called Youth Horizons, so I’m quite familiar with River. It does seem like a great church!
Are you from Tah?
(Sorry to hijack the thread…)
anne jackson says:
have you read “being the body” by colson? although i am not quite as conservative as he is politically (which comes through in some parts of his writing)…it is been a great read for me…who grew up in a church as a PK…who works in a church as a graphic designer (the term “artist” is questionable in job function…if you like francis schaeffer you’ll get what i’m saying)…and yet am still looking for church
Shane S. says:
Thanks for your thoughts, Shaun. I have heard similar opinions before, so I will admit that I started reading this with a closed mind. However, your true concern for the church of God became evident as I continued reading. I would love to be part of such an assembly, and I am inspired to share these ideas with my own church!
Cali Amy says:
So, Shaun, have considered a church plant? maybe starting with the same people you fellowship with?
Frank Chiapperino says:
There are churches that are like your description. There is an excellent book that actually describes this as well. Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer.
I am fortunate enought to be a part of a place that is quite similar to what you describe. We are not perfect by any means but we strive to do this life in the way God asks us to and I hope we can do better to transform the Philadelphia metro area.
Seth Ward says:
I have already commented here but I am sick today so I’ll go for number two.
I just wonder if you or Brant or anyone who has a heart for vocational ministry but not really “vocational ministry” in the classic sense would feel differently about all of this if you were all engineers or bankers…
The people that go to my church are for the most part businessmen and women, housewives and their kids and they seem to pretty cool with how things are going.
I have decided that from now on, anywhere I move, I am going to do one of two things. I will either team up with another friend and we will start a small “house” church (totally accountable to orthodox Christian Theology) or I will be attending the nearest church to my house every Sunday.
At least thats how I feel about it today.
Zach Nielsen says:
Shaun and anyone else who cares,
My wife just rebuked me (probably rightly so) for my use of the term,”bitching” in my post above. She said it made me sound like I was angry about all this. This was not my intent. We all know that church is really jacked up, but I do appreciate the increased thinking about what The Church is supposed to be and how to make it that way.
Shaun, my comment there was not directed at you concerning the “bitching” but just my over all feeling that I get from the blogsphere and people who always have much to complain about about the Church in general, but don’t do a lot of serving and or leading. Thus, please don’t take offense Shaun. Again, I am learning that the printed word in a comments section needs to be tempered with much discernment since there is no non-verbal communication. Again Shaun, not an attack, just a more general comment about my feelings on this issue from a variety of experiences in the last six months or so.
Brant,
My understanding is that the three marks were taught by protestants (mainly Puritans) from the reformation on in response to what Catholics were saying what a true church was. If you want more background on this I can certainly find it for you. Most likely you could find any number of Puritan “big wigs” saying these things.
Thanks for the good conversation on this.
Zach Nielsen says:
Oh yeah,
Shaun, one of my buddies that is a worship pastor in Iowa told me that he passed your writing here on to the whole pastoral staff at the church where he works and it has been fuel for great conversation for them. Just wanted you to know that it was making a difference for some folks in a church far away from your immediate context.
Brody Harper says:
Shaun.
I missed you at church today. We were all in the cul-de-sac hanging out and you weren’t.
I have already sent out the postcard with the sad puppy on it that says “Missed seeing you today”, as well as your tithing “statement”. Remember if it’s late there is a $10 late fee.
Grovesfan says:
You’re such a smart **s sometimes Brody, but God knows I love ya anyway!
Beth
Tim says:
Just something I noticed that I’ve been thinking about a lot in this Internet age. No where (that I noticed) in this discussion is there is a need for a shepherd. Yes, Christ is ultimately our Good Shepherd, but Christ turned to Peter and said “feed my sheep.” This isn’t just education, it’s submitting to a body of brothers in faith and having them vow responsibility for the care of your soul.
Shaun Groves says:
Somebody here said…Church history is full of people who thought the institutional church had nothing more to teach them. Unfortunately, we remember their names primarily for the cults that they started because they didn’t feel the need to put themselves under the discipline (a word, by the way, which means “learning”) of older, more mature Christians
I don’t know if this is a response to my post or on someone else’s comment, but I’d like to make very clear that I have not given up on institutional church, not do I believe I have nothing to learn from a local church or anyone else.
Again, I have not given up on institutional church. Honestly, I’m not quite sure why. But I haven’t. This post was an attempt to figure out two things by talking out loud: 1)What is essential about church to me. And “to me” means as I understand God’s mind on church. 2)Where to go from here, realizing that I’ve never experienced the essentials in any church I’ve been part of for any extended period of time. There are always glimpses, months, even years in which the essentials have been obviously present around me, but it never lasts. The church grows and adopts a new paradigm. It swaps out missional leaders for good men and women with different agendas. Something changes. It always does.
Sometimes institutional/”brick and mortar” church feels like Kim – the girl I “dated” from 7th grade to 10th. She was a habit – or our relationship was. We didn’t really love each other, not in any adult way. We didn’t really connect on a deep level at all. Unlike the way I feel about my wife, Becky, I didn’t feel like I needed Kim. She didn’t “complete” me. And I itched constantly to try life without her but she was all I’d known for so long. Four years! To a kid that’s a long time. A fourth of my life when we broke up.
When we parted ways I mourned – not the lost of her but the loss of the idea of us – the familiar I think. Habits, whether relationships or philosophies or a combination of both, are hard to break.
For now I’m not looking to abandon institutional church. I believe the institution of church, the hierarchy has preserved the faith from heresy. (I believe it has also opened the faith up to heresies as well, made the Church a victim to political maneuvers made by the powerful, resulting in unbiblical theologies by the dozens.) I’m not abandoning her. But I wonder why, now that you bring it up. Is church a habit? Or do I really need her? Does she complete me in a way nothing else can?
Shaun Groves says:
No where (that I noticed) in this discussion is there is a need for a shepherd. Yes, Christ is ultimately our Good Shepherd, but Christ turned to Peter and said “feed my sheep.” This isn’t just education, it’s submitting to a body of brothers in faith and having them vow responsibility for the care of your soul.
Tim, in any social network, whether it be a circle of friends, a fortune 500 company, a church or a pack of wolves, there is an alpha. There is a natural leader that arises, people the rest of the herd turn to. In some cases every member of the herd sheperds different folks at different times on different subjects. I go to my friend Brian with parenting problems. I go to Brody with creative ideas and blog quandries. I go to my friend Nancy when I need to know if I’m communicating well and how to undo bad communication. I go to my father-in-law for financial advise and questions about Greek and Hebrew. I go to my wife for everything. It occurs to me though that I don’t go to my pastors for anything anymore. I did once, when I was younger, and they were closer because the churches were smaller. But, honestly, how many of us KNOW our pastors enough to be truly sheperded by them?
You mentioning taking responsibility for the souls of others in a church body. That’s everyone’s job, is it not? Not just the main sheperd’s? I think it would be good to discuss Peter’s special role and what the present day equivalent of that might look like but we can’t say his role was to look after souls and everyone else’s was not. That was not a duty given only to Peter. What was Peter’s special role?
Ryan G says:
This is fantastic. I read it yesterday. Thought about it, read the comments, came back today, read more comments. Good stuff.
I think Shaun has what was envisioned in the NT for a NT church. A growing local community of Christians who share their lives. I’m jealous.
I think most of the institutionalized Christians who attend the brick and mortar building on Sundays, would be “willing to drive a long way” to get what you have in your cul-de-sac.
Todd says:
Is there a modern day equivalent to Peter?
Todd says:
Sorry, that was potentially confusing.
Is there a modern day parallel to the role that Peter was given/played?
Ryan G says:
Some would argue it’s the Pope, others would say it’s your local Shepherd figurehead.
I think it’s not person specific, but timing specific. If God calls you to feed or to be fed, then do it.
RBerman says:
Shaun, my comments about the instutional church were directed at your original post, so thanks for clarifying your thoughts. You also said, “ It occurs to me though that I don’t go to my pastors for anything anymore. I did once, when I was younger, and they were closer because the churches were smaller. But, honestly, how many of us KNOW our pastors enough to be truly sheperded by them?” This is a huge and great point. Megachurches have been the death of good shepherding. But for the last ten years I’ve been attending church with less than 100 people. My wife and I meet weekly with my pastor and his wife. We discuss the Bible, we exchange parenting tips, we plan ministry to the hurting members of our church community. I see the cell church movement as an overcorrection to the megachurch mentality, but it has the right idea that smaller numbers are more effective for many things. God told Gideon to send most of his soldiers home, and fight the battle only with the hardcore folks. Not a bad model.
keith says:
What was Peter’s special role?
He preached the great Pentecostal sermon at the birth of Christianity. He took the gospel message to the Gentiles or, as Jesus put it, the sheep that were not of this (Peter’s) fold. Special roles, indeed.
Brant Hansen says:
Shaun—When you say, “institutional church”, what is it you mean?
I’m always alarmed at what American evangelicals consider non-negotiables for “church”, that are simply not present in, say, the exploding early church, or, say, modern-day China.
I’m sure you don’t concieve of it this way, but for many, it’s not enough to be the movement of Jesus, in mutual submission, sharing life together, meeting regularly to worship. You simply must have an audience-event, with titled experts and programs and a corporate structure, or, well, you’ve left the institutional church. It’s not enough to have people functioning as shepherds, not enough to be seeking God, not enough to be for the world what Jesus was for Israel. We need, above all, to “go to church”—something we’re never once told to do in scripture.
Small groups of believers living in community aren’t an “over-correction” to American megachurches. They have been a central expression of the body since the very establishment of the church.
I, for one, as a non-Catholic, can’t imagine arguing that one shouldn’t go beyond the status quo, the official/institutional/whatever/mega/attractional/whatever church. Where do we think our church plants and brands came from?
By the way: Even by our entrepeneurial church standards of “institutional church”, it’s not working. The attract-people-to-our-programs churches? They’re getting smaller. 94% are getting smaller in America, relative to community population growth. Chinese churches, many without bibles, with imprisoned pastors and theologians and no coffee kiosks—kaboom. This should matter. It’s not about “home” church, it’s about loving and empowering people instead of calling them to be in the audience of our expert selves.
Shaun Groves says:
When I say “institutional church” I mean “an audience-event, with titled experts and programs and a corporate structure” gathered in a building with a steeple on top and a sign out front. (Cheesy slogan on said sign is optional.)
That’s what I’m accustomed to and am in the habit of thinking of as “church” and find difficult to let go of completely.
I’m looking, at the moment, for an institutional church that is a gathering people living out a “movement of Jesus, in mutual submission, sharing life together, meeting regularly to worship” with “people functioning as shepherds” and being “for the world what Jesus was for Israel.”
Trey says:
Comments have gone a new direction, but I started writing this morning and decided to finish and post anyway regarding pastoral leadership in the church.
The more I learn about God, the more I learn that His mind is very contradictory to my own. It’s that old “His ways are not our ways” cliché. I challenge everyone to question everything they believe, compare it with the heart of the scriptures, with the spirit of God and ask yourselves, “Is this the way God sees it?”
Rethink why we need a pastor or even elders in the traditional Protestant or Catholic sense? All around us are companies with CEO’s or committee boards. Army’s have generals; clubs have presidents. All of these organizations have some form of hierarchal leadership in place, a top to bottom chain of command. Have we projected the world’s idea of leadership on to the Church? The best scripture that hits this nail on the head is Matthew 20:25-27:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.”
Also, 2 Corinthians 1:24, Paul says:
“Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.”
I think Christians have adopted that “We want a king” mentality like the Israelites did. And so we’ve placed responsibility and authority that lies with the entire Church on a more educated caste of believers who have graduated from seminary and met the minimum qualifications of a licensing denomination, without having been dealt with by Jesus the same way men like Peter and Paul were, men who knew what being a slave to Christ was all about.
Of course there are men like Peter and Paul who God has especially prepared for certain tasks in the kingdom, but to be ruling authorities within the church in the sense we know today was never intended.
I would recommend a few books for those of you concerned with organized religion and who still have a lot of questions:
Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament Church by Frank Viola;
Going to the Root by Christian Smith; The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee; So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore by Jake Colsen.
There are many great books on the subject, but those are a few I’ve read. They may not have all the answers, but they certainly have a strong hold on what it is to BE the Church, rather than merely going to church.
Seth Ward says:
Brant,
“It’s not about “home” church, it’s about loving and empowering people instead of calling them to be in the audience of our expert selves.”
Awesome.
Except if you use this rational to build a model of church, as it should be, then you would have to say that the church is only healthy when persecuted. Whenever I hear this argued, the examples given for comparison are only the churches knee-deep in persecution. The early church was under persecution until about 313 and the only reason they did not meet in designated Christian buildings was because of the persecutions. No doubt the church thrives under persecution, but wouldn’t it thrive differently or at least look different in a free society?
“We need, above all, to “go to church”—something we’re never once told to do in scripture.”
I like what you are saying and hate to be all anti-disestablishment but the only problem I have had with this scenario has been authority. I know that this is not a popular subject but it is indeed inevitable in any circumstance. Yes, what you mentioned is most important “loving, empowering…” but as we know, after this initial growth in a small cell of on-fire believers an “institution” is always established and people who seem to know what they are talking about take the leadership, which then leads to some sort of hierarchy in the system. I.E. preaching, congregation, teaching, learning, building, tithing… This happened in the early church when they started meeting in basilicas and appointing bishops and will happen in China post persecution. These “institutions” often resemble what has always been “the church.”
Forgive any total missing-of-your-point.
Brant Hansen says:
Persecution IS horrible. But it forces us to burn away the cultural chaff, and return to a simple Kingdom message and life together that becomes contagious.
Can we recapture this without persecution? Yes.
Citing fallen human nature—the seemingly inevitable fall into power structures—is understandable. But I can tell you, when less is at stake (less power to be had) there are fewer power trips, if that makes any sense.
Trey, your point about “wanting a king” is so dead-on. When we Americans say, “authority”, we have an idea in mind that does not capture Jesus’s very embodiment of it.
It’s stunning how often preachers/leaders will invoke Israel’s kings, like David, as examples of what leaders should be. And yet, Samuel was “crushed” when people said, “We want a king to rule us!” God says, let them have their king, but warn them what they’re in for. Samuel tells them they’re going to become very, very busy people, and that’s it. Congratulations.
And boy, are our churches busy. There’s no doubt about that.
We embrace the idea of king-leader, and Jesus gives us a homeless servant. But we still think authority means visionary, educated, learned, alpha males that just happen to fit our ideal of entrepeneur, too. Wow.
Shaun Groves says:
I’m very pro-authority. This is the one think that has kept me from chunking the traditional church model (The American one) and starting a home church as Brant has done. (Would you characterize what you have as a home church, Brant?)
BUT, to play devil’s advocate against myself…I was talking last night about this sticking point with Becky and she made a great point by asking a simple question.
I said I thought authority (a bishop, pastor, etc) was needed to combat and prevent heresy – especially in places where “what do you think that means” is the way the bible is “taught.” She asked, “So who makes sure the pastor isn’t a heretic?”
Well, the deacons were established, in part, to do just that. But do they? And if they do, who makes sure the deacons aren’t heretics? And on and on…
My point, if I have one, is that I’m not so sure “authority” in today’s churches does what I’d like to think it does. Who holds my pastor accountable? A denomination head? What’s his standard for behavior or good theology? How often are pastors – the authority – really corrected in their theology? How may pastors would take such correction? Maybe most, maybe all, I don’t know. I’m asking.
I know the Southern Baptist church very very well. I know the President of the SBC is voted into office in an election in which only 5000 people participate. 5000 people who don’t pass some test or make some vow before being allowed to vote. The largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. is headed by a man put into power by a handful of votes, less than %1 of the entire denomination he will head.
I could literally use my blog (50,000 unique visitors in three months) to win the presidency of the SBC. Is that valid authority?
(And Baptists don’t like the idea of popes?)
Again, the idea of authority is a great one. I don’t think, in practice, though that it’s working as we think it does. No one is in charge. And those with the titles aren’t respected enough to truly determine what is true and what is ethical for the lot of us. Can a home church not do just as a good a job as the (dis)organized church at combatting heresy and providing leadership?
Just thinking out loud. I’m arguing with myself here. Feel free to jump in and argue back with either one of me.
JD says:
Shaun,
I’m starting this church on April 13, 2008. You don’t know it but you’ve already been slated to be there.
It will be a long commute to Northwest Indiana each Sunday, but you sound like you’re up for it.
http://s192612095.onlinehome.us/
Seth Ward says:
“Can a home church not do just as a good a job as the (dis)organized church at combatting heresy and providing leadership?”
I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, h-e-double hockey-sticks no. But that is why if I could design my own denomination it would be called bapticatholicostal. It is funny, in my opinion, to read the Baptist Faith and Message. and note that it is pretty much a longer version of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and that the Baptist Church does not hold to any creed accept… “you better follow these … sentences here… describing.. what we believe or you aint a Baptist or a Chrisitan for that matter.”
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
Whether we like it or not, as protestants we submit to the teachings and interpretations all the time, guided by the Holy Spirit, kept in check by Church Doctrine i.e. tradition. (The Doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine that says Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man- “hypostatic union” -to name an important few.) You won’t hear a hard-core Baptist for a thousand miles admit that those doctrines came from the Catholic Church voting on them. (as a matter of fact I am probably being monitered right now by some Baptist Central Intelligence Agency.)
So its either, no one is in charge… or Church tradition is in charge we just like to act like it isn’t.
Brant Hansen says:
Shaun, I don’t think we’ve started a “home” church, because no one cares whether we meet in homes or not. “Homeless church” might be more apt. It’s not even a church start or plant.
As far as authority in the protestant churches: There are 25,000+ (!) splits in the protestant church. 25,000+ divisions.
I’m with NT Wright:
“Jesus…envisaged that, scattered around Palestine, there would be small groups of people loyal to himself, who would get together to encourage one another, and would act as members of a family, sharing some sort of common life and, in particular, exercising mutual forgiveness. It was because this way of life was what it was, while reflecting the theology it did, that Jesus’ whole movement was thoroughly, and dangerously, ‘political’. And…the main characteristic of the cells that Jesus called into being was of course loyalty to Jesus himself.”
I’m very pro-authority, too. Jesus is Lord.
Brant Hansen says:
By the way, that last line sounded way too self-righteous. But I do mean it. Ultimately, it’s about our submission to His Lordship, and I’ve seen authority/submission played out in much more real ways in groups of people who really know each other, without titles, than I have in attractional models.
I don’t say this *because* I’m now in a homeless church, it’s why I’m in a homeless church.
There are heresies/mis-teachings/disagreements aplenty in modern churches.
In fact, a report for the SBC says church discipline has been generally abandoned in modern American churches.
Take a look at how many times the word “pastor” is used as a noun in scripture. And yet, the position is completely central in our modern understanding of authority. If you’re a part of a group without someone taking that official title, you’re presumed to be dissing authority.
Mature friends who are allowed to speak into your life, who actually act as shepherds? Priceless.
Shaun Groves says:
So would you say, Brant, that a David Koresh is just as likely to be birthed in the institutional church as he is in the home church or the homeless church?
Zach Nielsen says:
Shaun,
I think I disagree with your comment about authority.
“Again, the idea of authority is a great one. I don’t think, in practice, though that it’s working as we think it does. No one is in charge. And those with the titles aren’t respected enough to truly determine what is true and what is ethical for the lot of us”
Do we HAVE to submit to authority? No. But I think many people choose (by faith) to submit themselves to a group of leaders or leader in the church.
BTW – for a great book on Biblical leadership in the church check out “Biblical Eldership” by Alexander Strauch.
Shaun Groves says:
I agree with that, Zach. Some don’t “submit” to leadership. Why? Is that why what keeps some folks from seeing the value in church altogether? I don’t know. Just asking.
Brant says:
David Koreshes split away from other groups, and start their own.
So do countless others, whose ideas would not be questioned, simply because they’re church plant looks like the American expectation. Again, 25,000+ splits, and they were borne out of disagreements. There are plenty of wayward teachers with big crowds and TV ministries and beautiful institutional settings.
Viewing human nature as I do, I think where there’s more power to be had, there’s MORE likelihood of abuse, rather than less.
Ultimately, I agree with Seth, that we depend on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. I believe I’m a part of the Church.
Fact is, if we called our group a “church plant” and sent out flyers and called several of our men “elders”, and had an event-driven model, most evangelicals would think we were just fine, thanks—even if we didn’t practice love. They’d say we haven’t “left the church”, at all, because we embraced the cultural trappings and the attractional model.
But since it’s not event-driven, but relationship-and-neighbor driven, focused on “one-anothering”, and we have people shepherding each other, but without titles, well, we’re in grave danger, indeed.
And we don’t have an official sermon-person. We all know what the Bible says about not having an official sermon person talk to the same people every week. We may be able to speak into each other’s lives, but without the sermon person, well, we’re not submitting to authority. I’ve lived this point of view…but I don’t get this point of view anymore.
(I’m very pro-preaching. It’s just that “preaching” in the N.T. was *public*, folks. Grab a guitar, grab a radio microphone, write a book, write stories, get a teaching job—lots of great ways to do this.)
Trey says:
I feel like what is being said regarding authority is that it exists or needs to exist for damage control. We need authority and leadership to provide the watchdog function to insure that no heresy or theologically unsound teaching comes into the church.
It seems to me, that system let us down a long time ago. Like Brant was saying, when authority has stepped in to say, “No, it must not be done this way”: Boom!!! The people have a new denomination, where new teachings and new ideas of what heresy and sin are abounds.
People are going to do what they want, when they want to. David Karesh happens. It’s a fallen world and Christians are going to be enticed away from Christ into their own vile ways of thinking, and in the process will pull away many susceptible Christians with them.
My many hours of Biblical & historical research have given me this, and this is what I believe with my whole heart:
I think Christians try way too hard to make sure we keep everyone in line. Why should the churches appoint a few men to keep the rest in line? OR could we go to the NT model of “One-Another Submission”. There is just too much this idea of submitting one to another in the NT for me to overlook. Authority does not lie with just the upper-crust of leadership that has become institutionalized in the church today. There is the huge idea about being of “One-mind” in the NT, not just of the mind of the leadership of the church. Could it be that we Christians should be accountable to our entire church, where mutual care and concern exists, and not just with the appointed leaders who are trying to keep everyone from being dragged away with David Karesh.
Christ puts the responsibility of accountability on the ENTIRE church to correct, counsel, and comfort those within the church who go astray into sin or heresy. Likewise, submission to the church is the responsibility of every Christian, to listen to and respect what the assembly of believers instructs.
Now, here is where elders come in. These are the older, wiser ones who people look to for instruction and direction. These elders DO NOT RULE the church, they GUIDE the church. Just as Shaun said earlier, when he has a problem, he goes to a certain person for help, because they are experienced and knowledgeable about this matter (sorry for paraphrasing so poorly). The elders exist for such a reason as this. They are guides, leaders in love and wisdom. Their age, experience and love for Christ’s church IS their authority. They are appointed not to rule the church with an iron fist and make all the decisions, but to lead the Body of Christ into one-mindedness, mutual submission, and a daily growing love for Christ and His Beloved.
When the apostles went into these far away cities to plant churches (a community or local expression of the body of Christ, not the First Baptist Church at 105 President’s Blvd.) and to make believers, those men who had that special spark in their eyes soon emerged. Were they always charismatic personalities? Did they have great ideas about employing new fad outreach tactics? No! These are men who lived in accordance with Christ’s commands, were firmly planted in the truth, had servant’s hearts and who had a genuine love for God and the Church. Then these men were appointed to be elders, appointed to “pastor”, to lead by example. Paul told them to serve the church and lead in love, not to command the church. He told the churches to honor and respect the elders because they had been appointed for the churches well-being. They had been appointed to be the example to be followed by all and to be submitted to the Body just as much as anyone else, if not more than anyone else, because they’re sole purpose was to care for the flock.
But somehow we lost that. Because men had to be in control, and I believe, we saw the world’s model and that seemed to work, rule by oppression, where right and wrong and consequences were decided by upper management. Then, of course, we wonder why it’s so hard to keep our upper-management in check. We need an elite few to tell us how to be good Christians and to give us blessed crackers at communion, and encourage us to tithe and decide how the tithe is spent and to be the only one with the authority to preach, and anyone else who wants to speak and share what the Lord has done for them in the meeting has to go through him.
I don’t mean to make light, but it’s what’s become of us, our new state of being. I really feel like Christians are really missing out on the Kingdom of God, and blessings overflowing because too long we’ve needed an intercessor or someone to lead us other than looking to Christ, our High Priest, the true Head of the Church and being guided by His spirit. We’ve forgotten how to know the Mind of Christ and share that one-mindedness as a whole, as the church living in communion with each other. We have forgotten what it is to be mutually submitted to one-another. These are all concepts we talk about in ambiguous terms, but it’s something we neither practice nor really understand. I wouldn’t even admit that I understand it fully, but I want to know it. I want to see it working in the Body today.
Trey says:
I noticed Brant mentioned the use of titles above and just to address titles, I think “elders” has become the status quo because it’s in the Bible, but I wouldn’t have a problem referring to these men as “Big Brothers”. Like Brant was saying, it’s scary to get caught up in big titles because then people start valuing “that” guy with the title as spiritually superior to the rest and soon there’s ego tripping and dependency issues and so on and so forth. I don’t think “elders” should be thought of as a title, but more as a role of stronger guys who watch out for the weaker, less experienced ones, there to encourage and support them in the faith. Sorry, I thought that might help kinda clarify something, though I’m not sure what.
tithe says:
I like your analysis on tithing. It’s amazing how we’ve been blinded by the OT on our strict interpretation on how we should give. It’s funny how tithing crosses the boundary lines of all denominations. One, either it’s truth or two, its effects on greed of people are true. http://churchtithesandofferings.com
Seth Ward says:
“Could it be that we Christians should be accountable to our entire churchI”
I agree with this but I also think that people in the upper crust can be a part of that authority if it agreed by the whole body itself. I also agree with much of the rest but I don’t think you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because someone wants to start a cult and it happens doesn’t mean that it is God’s will or that it could not have been avoided. In fact, one of the reason David did what he did was because he had no one to tell him “ummm, no my friend. You are off here. Lets go have a beer and let me explain why.” They might have after the fact but while he was developing his theories it was just him, his wild imagination, and the bible.
I think we have a real problem with people telling us what to do. Whice was the Devil’s problem and A & E’s as well. They can be called “elders” but not people who tell me what to do. Submit to the Holy Spirit and one another but if my Holy Spirit tells me something different than the rest of you, don’t tell me what to do. If you press the issue, I’ll start my own denom. Screw unity.
I have come to the conclusion that I need help with scriptural interpretation. Yes the Holy Spirit guides me on a day to day walk in my prayer and study but what about those days when I say…”hmmm. Ya know, Jesus never actually SAYS ‘hey disciples I AM FULLY MAN AND FULLY GOD, THREE IN ONE A PART OF THE BLESSED TRINITY’ So I think to myself that maybe he was just half man and hlaf God. Or maybe he became God at the baptism. And then when I am baptised I become one with God like Jesus” (I had these thoughts when I was bout 13) And, if you don’t think these things are common then go sit in on any Sunday School class and at least one heresy is usually innocently offered as a solution per class, by someone if not the teacher.
These are the places that old Sethro needs help. This is why our rich tradition GROUNDED and GUIDED by the Holy Spirit is soooo important. And this is where I say “okay, I’m not the boss.” I not only submit to my church, but beyond that, I submit to the doctrine upheld and tested by fire for the last 2000 years.
Its not sexy, its not in my American-I-can-do-and-think-whatever-I-want genes but God’s kingdom doesn’t follow the constitution. It’s not a full-fledged democracy or republic. I can’t change the doctrine of the Trinity with my vote. I either except it, or I’m out. If I accept it then I am submitting to the Authority of The Church Teaching and tradition, (the Body of Christ) no way around it.
Love this talk. Only frustrating part is that there is hardly a way to make a short statement here.
Brant Hansen says:
We’ve talked about David Koresh.
How about the “fastest-growing Christian denomination”? It’s highly institutionalized, and very authority-centered. But does that protect the Mormon Church from heresy?
How do we feel about indulgences, or crusades-teaching, for that matter? The Watchtower Society, millions-strong—very authority-centered. The Episcopal Church in America—lots of authority…and drifting they are. There are countless examples of hierarchical institutions that have themselves drifted into false teachings and heresy.
In fact, it’s more dangerous. The institution can put its imprimateur on harmful beliefs, and it becomes The Way. People sense attention and money and power at the top of them, and jostle for primacy’s spoils.
As far as institutional accountability, it should also be noted Eugene Peterson says the role of American pastor (in an institutional church) is one of the least accountable jobs you can have.
Agreed, it’s not a democracy, as many denominations are run. We don’t elect presidents, and we don’t need kings, and not even CEO’s.
I understand the American desire for autonomy, Seth, but I also see Americanism meaning a tendency toward mass production, commodification, corporatization, markets, entrepeneurialsim, service-delivery focus, consumerism, expert-culture, and religious compartmentalization, and we’ve got all that driving us toward our current institutional forms, not away from them.
My situation is the opposite of autonomous. If I beat my wife, guys in my group would be over here in a second, beating me. They know what’s happening, good and ill.
Trey says:
Right on, Brant, and that’s the beauty of this “accountable to all” business. It’s a big family isn’t it where every one is held accountable to everyone for their sin. We all mature and grow in the faith when we’re all learning together and looking out for one another’s growth and relationship with Christ. Not that we become hyper-judgmental, but like Brant said, if the guys in his group saw him doing something he shouldn’t be doing or saying something he shouldn’t be saying, then they’d be all over him like white on rice, showing him the err of his ways and encouraging in love, and not telling a pastor what he’s doing wrong to be judged. Not that I know his friends, but I’m sure it would go down something like this:
Friend 1: “Hey Brant, we heard you beat your wife…” *Sucker-punch to the ribs*
Brant: *Gasping, teary-eyed*
Friend 2: “Brant, ya know what Jesus says about loving your wife, right? Love her as Christ loves the church, stupid!”
Brant: “You’re right; Thanks guys.”
Now, why did we need a pastor for that (pardon my exaggerative tone; I certainly don’t condone physical violence as a practice of Christian discipline). It’s the responsibility of the entire church to do this. If anything, most of the pastor’s I know could use a bit of that action themselves. If anything, I’ve seen a lot of pastors struggle because they have no one to keep them in check or even share their burden with to seek help and encouragement with the issues they fight. They’re supposed to be keeping others in line, and they themselves have struggles with lust, greed, whatever struggles are common to man. Most of them are too scared to share that with their church for fear of unemployment. They are just Christians themselves struggling with the same temptations we all face. So why would we put them on a pedestal and in a place of higher authority?
When it’s broken down, rationalized and we get away from this mentality of keeping vain church traditions that are more man-made then God-ordained, this will start making sense. I say that in part. I know it’s ultimately up to God in His good time to reveal this to people’s hearts where true change is cultivated.
Believe me, discipline is much better carried out when a group of loving Christians surround, confront, encourage and hold each other accountable, because that involves the entire community, where life happens everyday and no one is safe from the love of a Christ centered community of believers living and loving the Lord Jesus Christ together.
seth ward says:
“There are countless examples of hierarchical institutions that have themselves drifted into false teachings and heresy”
But what standard are you using for your heresy rod? You might say the bible but I doubt you’ll be able to convince me that you or any one individual has the singular market on interpretation.
I feel like I have to mention very quickly the difference between indulgences and the Mormon church. The leap is huge. (not trying to be nasty to ANY Morman, just going to quickly show how fundamental doctrines differ) Jesus:one of many sons. God: God of just this universe. Joseph Smith is written INTO Old and New Testament Scripture. The Holy Trinity, behind the surface claims, is broken down. They also believe in reincarnation of sorts and the the universe is eternal. (all found in the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine of Cov.)
Indulgences were something that were used and abused by appointed bishops who were more in tune with their personal power than the Holy Spirit. Many were not even Christian and came from Pagan backgrounds. It was an abuse in the Church and a corrupt pope, not corrupt doctrine. It would be the same as saying that there were priests that molested Children and their bishops covered-up these sins as proof that the Catholic Church has had heresy. In their defense, There has not been one doctrine that has changed or been altered in all of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox history. As for Crusade teaching, that is debated in the Catholic Church but in the beginning it was about taking back cities that were being sacked and burned by Muslims. Did bad things happen? Yes. Did the bad things have ANYthing to do with church doctrine? Other than Just War theory, No. Crusades were not doctrine. I can always use a good thing to do a bad thing. I sex bad? no. Is having sex with any women besides my wife bad? Yes.
If you do not believe in Just War you are not considered a hereitc. If you believe that Jesus is one of many sons, you are a heretic. If you DON’T believe that you can do something nice for someone and your grandma will get less time in purgatory, you are not a heretic. If you believe that God is one of many Gods, you are a heretic.
I would venture to say that we have the tendecy to sluff off a couple thousand years of tradition so we can get back to basics. That has been tried before many, many times. It is the very spirit of the Reformation. It is that same spirit of don’t tell me what to do. Only MY interpretation of the scripture counts. And while i’m at it, let me snag a couple dozen doctrines that I like and oust the rest and make up my own. This, I believe is where the problem starts. In fact in just about every one you mentioned.
My point? Someday I think this will Change. Jesus prayed for unity in the Garden. In fact it was the last thing he prayed for before being crucified. He prayed for us. So the Spirit does not bring division. Man does. I don’t think that division comes from Church tradition. I think it comes from a sense of “me” I submit only to me. I can’t be wrong because God told me so. An honest question: who here has been educated by Chesterton, Lewis, Aquinas? All men who recognized the Authority of tradition and Church doctrine. We like to have our cake and eat it but remember who has been your teachers and has helped you to understand that still small voice dwelling in your hearts. Certainly not men who sluffed-off authority.
Sorry if I sound like a rigid jackass. Again hard to put it all in a few paragraphs. Thanks for the good discussion fellas.
Brant Hansen says:
My point was simple: Large institutions with authority structures do not prevent abuses, misteachings, heresy. I’m not saying, say, the Episcopal crisis is, in all moral respects, akin to the LDS teachings, or TV preachers, or the abusive teachings endorsed by the Catholic magisterium in all moral respects. I’m just making a simple point.
Of course, Chesterton and Lewis are instrumental as teachers. I find Chesterton especially unconvincing in his entreaties to the reader to be Catholic. I’m actually amazed at how weak his arguments are, to be honest.
I think I agree with you a lot. In fact, I think stepping outside First Presby and being the “simple church” no more puts a person out of church tradition, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, than John Wesley. Leaving America’s corporate church structures is not departing from the Church.
We want order, neat little packages, capital “A” authority—I even yearn for it. But I love this from Jacque Ellul:
“No doubt some will reply that God is not a God of disorder, incoherence, or arbitrariness, but a God of order. Of course he is. Unfortunately the whole of the Old Testament shows us that God’s order is not that which we conceive and desire. God’s order is not organization and institution (cf. the difference between judges and kings). It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit. On the contrary, it resides in the fact that it constantly posits something new, a new beginning. Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized. If the gates of death are not going to prevail against it, this is not because it is a good, solid, well organized fortress, but because it is alive; it is Life that is, as mobile, changing, and surprising as life. If it becomes a powerful fortified organization, it is because death has prevailed.” — Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity
I, too, am sorry for the length. And thankful for the discussion. Seth rules.
Seth Ward says:
Great quote! I was also surprised by the Chesterton arguements. I think he just assumed that if you were reading him, you were Catholic. I doubt he thought there would be a throng of children-of-the-reformation like us reading him. Its a good thing he didn’t try harder or we would all have probably taken the plunge.
I am not suggesting a mass return to the Catholic Church. (however it might be better than the phenomenally divided body we have now, a world Baptist Church wouldn’t be bad for that matter) I have stayed at my Baptist Church and feel just fine. Again I think it is not about me so I am not going to run off to the nearest denom that meets my needs. (It wouldn’t be Roman Catholic btw, more Eastern Orthodox accept with the Augustine)
Imagine the impact on the world the Body of Christ would have if it was totally united. World hunger? gone. Poverty? gone. War? gone. Massive natural disasters? Needs met in a orderly fashion.
Even though I agree with that quote, in the end I think that the quote is a little bit to the far right as far as that kind of thinking goes. The church is still young and when it matures in a few hundred or thousand years, (if the Lord hasn’t returned) it will probably look and something like both: a solid Orthodox, unified body in doctrines and infused with a freedom that gives people in different places freedom to express their “sameness” in different ways. Right now we still have the gloves on and we like to point and accuse but there will come a day when all Christians will have to get it together and unite.
Seth Ward says:
Last thing:
The Ellul quote is not far of from a quote in Chesterton’s Everlasting Man where he says soemthing like:
“God is like gallery of Art with no beginning and no end” -(from memory so paraphrased)
My last paragraph in that last comment;- didn’t mean to sound like I was sluffing of that quote. It is beautiful and thought-provoking, it just feels like Ellul is using God’s creative qualities as an exuse for man’s indecisiveness and inability to get it together. But maybe he’s not.
He says: “It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit.” I would disagree a bit with this. What about the Lord’s supper? The Lord’s prayer? Baptism? Surely he doesn’t mean that these should be optional …
You can infuse life into repetition. The whole universe works on a kind of a repetiton. It just takes discipline and the Holy Spirit.
This is REALLY nerdy. But in the Baroque period, after people played their sonatas or whatever one time through they kept the basic sturcture but added ornaments, and things to give it life. The basic structure stayed the same. Wow am I sounding like an old coot or what.
Brant Hansen says:
I don’t Ellul is suggesting that all truth is optional. I think he’s still viewing things sacramentally.
“Order” is clearly valued by God, given what we can infer from nature. But so is dynamism. The human organism, itself, retains its coherence, despite the fact that every atom in our body is replaced in less than ten years. Every single atom, changed, and yet “Seth” is still “Seth”, and “Brant” is yet “Brant”.
Our body is composed of interchanging dust; we are “more wave than particle”, and yet we continue our spiritual coherence.
God values order, yes, but also clearly values dynamic change, in mysterious ways.
I do not believe it is human structures that keep the Church a coherent concept. I believe it is the Holy Spirit, and it’s far more mystical than any denominational or hierarchical structure that we can possibly fashion.
It is the Holy Spirit that binds us, not a need to belong to the RCC or EO or any of thousands of offshoots.
I don’t think it’s “structure” that must stay the same. I think the Holy Spirit must stay the same, and He does. I see the Body of Christ then, composed of dust particles (us) which constantly change and are interchanged, but the Holy Spirit mystically guides it and leads it.
Yes, men WANT to “get it together” and be “decisive”, but I think the Body is far more mysical than that. We tend toward order and structure, and away from dynamism; we tend toward rules and law, and away from grace; we tend toward the concrete, and away from mystery; and we tend toward kings, and away from being truly led by the Holy Spirit, which binds us in ways we cannot see or structure or plan.
Seth Ward says:
Great thoughts, love the idea of dynamism. I just believe that order is the conduit for that dynamism. If the laws of gravity were not in place then our atoms would have nowhere to go and God is the source for both so I always come to a stalemate when I ponder this balance. Sort of like the Law and Grace… Fatih and Works… James and Paul… ooooOOOoooo.
I think we may be saying the same thing here…
“I do not believe it is human structures that keep the Church a coherent concept. I believe it is the Holy Spirit, and it’s far more mystical than any denominational or hierarchical structure that we can possibly fashion.”
Couldn’t agree more. It all starts with Him. I just think that a dependency on the order instead of on Him is the reason for stagnation. But again, there is nothing more mysterious than a galaxy and nothing more boring than random t.v. static. So being mysterious doesn’t mean that the order is inherently doomed or a bore. Or that churches will not look similar someday. One day the Church will be “The Church” again. I think you see this trend already. Churches are dropping the denom. names like “Baptist” and saying “The Church at…” instead. More and more Protestant churches embracing the Creeds is another sign. Even in the Catholic Church. Most Protestants would be stunned by some of the Vatican II stuff.
An interesting thing to note about order, even in the Catholic Church, is that it all came out of necessity. Bishops, Church Calendar, etc. So I just feel that once you shake the shackles of order then you start re-inventing the wheel out of those same necessities. But maybe re-inventing it is a way to keep it dynamic. Could be… I guess I am tired of re-inventing and am ready for something else. I mean, do we have to go back to the drawing board every… single… time??? I heard someone say one time that “I just want to go to church, take the body and blood an know that I am okay.” That’s kind of me these days.
Again, excellent stuff my friend.
It is a well-known fact that BRANT, in fact, rules.
Brant says:
Oh no—it is Seth who rules, and Shaun, for providing us unlimited bandwidth to have this discussion between the two of us.
I agree with you that order is something God values. (“His divine nature is clearly seen through what has been made.”—this is why I’m ultimately an absolutist in artistic terms.)
I’m just wondering if the way WE have fashioned order isn’t a function of our weakness, rather than strength, which is akin, I think, to what you’re saying.
Could the lifestyle of the Sermon on the Mount be the true order of things? We’re not told to behave any old way, it’s not chaos-as-lifestyle.
Like the physical body dynamism I was talking about: I’m thinking the goal is for the Holy Spirit to animate us to live in a way that makes people think, in the midst of our changes, through the centuries, “That’s Jesus.”
And I think it’s really the living that provides the right and beautiful order, which is why I think Jesus, smartest teacher ever and God incarnate, spent so much time talking about that and so little about forms and titles that we spend our lives dealing with.
I’m just thinking this stuff through, though. Clearly, part of our lifestyle of love means, for example, actually acting as shepherds, elders, those who serve in an other-centered way, taking responsibility for others. That’s what I’m *trying* to do, myself, now that I’m old and stuff.
Brant
Shaun Groves says:
All this is great but let me interject a not-so theological or heady thought for a moment. What if, all the learned experts and quotes aside, this issue of kind of church and kind of leadership and what not has more to do with personality and ability than anything else.
I’m just thinking this after a long evening of “church” in the cul-de-sac yesterday. It dawned on me that these people I sit in a lawn chair circle with every day are unique. Most of them are extroverted and none of them are shy. Most of them like to learn, to figure things out, to research and study and ask questions. They’re teachable for the most part. Etc. Etc. And, this is odd and maybe not a factor at all, but none of us work in a traditional office job. Two of the guys work for corporation with hierarchies but they are in charge of people in that structure, not on the bottom of it. And they have access to the top guy and a freedom to innovate and dot heir own thing to some degree too.
I’m wondering then if we do the cul-de-sac thing so well because it fits our preferences and personality – because it works for us and not because it works for everyone.
I know no one here is saying ditching the institutional church model is for everyone. But it sure is implied…at least as I read over my own comments.
Could church in the cul-de-sac work for a bunch of accountants who have worked years within a corporate institution and even love that? I’m thinking of Seth’s church (my father-in-law pastors it) full of business men – millionaires galore. Structure is, for many of them, part of who they are. They would fold without it. Without a bulletin giving the morning some order. Without a CEO/pastor making the calls. Without committees informing and over-ruling those calls.
What we have in the comments is Brant (an artsy guy with a somewhat flexible life and somewhat egalitarian job) talking with Seth (a composer and film maker with a very flexible life and job) talking with me (an independent artist who is his own boss and who has the most flexible life imaginable) about how not ideal structure and hierarchy is in a church. COuld it be guys that we’re defining “church” for everyone else in a way that really best suits the few who think and live as we do?
Not rhetorical. Serious question. I don’t want to be doing that but I fear, in the moments when I’m pro-ant-institutional church, that I am, in fact, that guy.
Brant says:
I feel like “church” has been defined for me in a way that best suits a lot of people. But I think the definition has been damaging to a lot more.
Yes, I think some are going to be more amenable to abandoning “as we’ve always done it” than others. There’s a tremendous power, there.
And it’s also true that modern (American) churches have largely adopted corporate models. This is now spreading around the world, which should be no surprise, as corporations and American culture spread, as well.
But I do agree with what you’re saying. I don’t think it speaks to whether or not our current attractional, expertized, corporate approaches are ultimately damaging to our conceptions of what “church” is, but I think it’s valid.
Just the same, we might consider the difficulty of challenging the status quo for those with a financial stake in it, and there are many.
It should matter that I’ve grown up in churches (many) and had “success” as a paid church minister, and could yet be a successful preacher. I’ve also been offered (twice) music minister jobs. For people with certain abilities, there’s more than just money at stake: the corporate arrangements we now have can be huge for ego. You can be a sort-of star, in a little world. So, actually, for my personality and ego, there are big pluses for the status quo.
Up-front skill people can go to the front of the line. And ego, how we feel about ourselves, is a huge, huge motivator. Advertisers figured this one out.
How we define “church” should be, I think based on the way we live our lives together. I have to admit, I filter everything—including Paul’s wisdom on having shepherds, etc.—through Jesus’s teachings and example. And I think the “structure” we need is the Sermon on the Mount.
We worry that we’d be afloat in heresy-land, but Jesus doesn’t say the hierarchy, the educated, the truly informed, would lead us into all truth. He said the Holy Spirit would. It’s a little too mysterious for my rationalist tastes, but that’s what he said.
Zach Nielsen says:
Have you guys heard of this book?
Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology
Doug Wilson is the author. I have heard it’s amazing. Probably a bit of a different perspective than what is being discussed here, but I’m sure there would be some overlap.
http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Kirk-Essays-Practical-Ecclesiology/dp/1885767722/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6889914-2951815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176141197&sr=8-1
Seth Ward says:
I think that is a good point Shaun. Don’t you wish some days that you could be so lucky and be that other way?
Brant, we might even be discussing two different things. My main point is that I think tradition is there whether we like it or not. You can no more break away from it than you can gravity. It is more than the denom’s we go to or if we take the Lord’s Supper before or after the “Anthem” or even if you decide to not “go to church” in the “show-up-on-sunday-at-a-designated-building-for-christians” way.
To me tradition is more about the Legacy of truth about God left by the Holy Spirit working in his Church. The Holy Spirit leads the Church to the truth, to Christ. These “truths” or revelations about what is recorded in Scripture have been recorded and kept. They will not change. They were recorded because they were stamping out un-truths about God and Christ from here to wherever. They are our doctrines, our interpretations, and our very outlook on life. You could even say a kind of blueprint for sanity. When Jesus said “on this rock I will BUILD my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,” He meant it. And build it He did. He is still building it.
Tradition and authority also means that we can know that there have been those that have gone before us, who are connected to us that have known the same things we are knowing, by the same Holy Spirit; therefore reinforcing and proving our own small revelations. In a way, tradition is our “revelation measuring stick” when it comes to biblical interpretation. I find a great deal of comfort in this.
I wonder if what I hear you talking about is mostly Christian living. (Not meant to oversimplify) – Which just happens to be the most important and vital vehicle for the Good News. And the dynamic changes you are talking about are in format rather than authority or tradition. Where does tradition and authorit come in? Well, they are the great well that you or me or any other Chrisitian have to draw from when trying to communicate about our mysterious God. Real question in the end is: who do you listen to when checking those revelations?
Zach, I haven’t read that. Sounds pretty cool though. Nice Lewis reference in the title.
Dan "da Man" says:
Shaun, I thought you may like to know that I wrote a response of my own last week at my blog and you can check it out here:
http://www.da-man.com/blog/2007/04/04/what-is-church/
I would have let the usual systems get back to you, but it seems that right now I’m being considered a spammy site by the powerful Google (even though I’m a stockholder).
jony says:
Fortunately,there is a feeling of enthusiasm to furnish u a beautiful vivacious dresses,for instance cheap bridal dresses,infant dresses,Ivory,princess and fancy with amazing and suitable discount.Apply with acclamation!
Charlotte says:
Jesus saves all who believe in him!