The Church Growth Movie
Posted on April 4th, 2007 by Reformed Pope into the Uncategorized categoryCheck out this link to a short production called The Church Growth Movie.
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.239
It gets right to the point.
Check out this link to a short production called The Church Growth Movie.
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.239
It gets right to the point.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Excellent!
Church growth equals:
How crazy that we’ve ever settled for anything else.
If we do this, then the Church will grow in numbers of itself. Just read the book of Acts for verification…
April 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
RP, I’m sure you meant this as a point against CBC, but I got something to say about this…
On the one hand, I can see the abuses of the commercialization of the IC. Plasma TV’s, coffee bars, valet parking, special seating, etc. all seem like excesses to make church more comfortable for its members. They’d rather have “hip” multimedia presentations than spend time teaching from the Bible.
But on the other hand, I can see the value of being culturally relevant to the people who are your target audience in terms of preaching the Gospel. Too often, the above argument is used to justify antiquated church traditions that are either culturally irrelevant, awkward, and sometimes even offensive to those who might be reached. These preferences of older churches are propped up through the mistaken belief that religious forms and practices are the equivalent of sound doctrine.
Both viewpoints make the mistake of equating cultural values with doctrinal values!
Paul’s recommendation to not be conformed to the world was an encouragement not to buy into the world’s system of beliefs and moral values. It was NOT an indictment of world cultural values. In fact, Paul goes on to say that
I think that our churches (or gatherings) should reflect our own cultures without compromising our doctrine. I think the two can coexist and I don’t see the need for choosing one over the other, except when there is a clear contradiction in moral values. Even more, I think we should present church to the unchurched with an attitude of excellence! Why should the church look like a slouch to those from the outside? People are drawn towards things that look and sound successful. Why should the Gospel get any less treatment? In our post-modern world, that *could* mean things like multimedia, contemporary music, and professional child care, etc. If people are being reached and discipled, what is wrong with that?
April 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
FICM,
Coming from the perspective you hold…that Church as business/organization/institution is an ok thing, I think your logic has merit to it. If we are going to present the Church to the world as a business then why not match it one for one, in terms of excellence relevance, and glitz.
BUT, and you knew this would come from me…WHY would we ever want the Church to be a business/organization/institution? Can it be demonstrably proven that the Church having become these things has caused the Church to be what was originally in Jesus’ mind?
If we don’t see anything of this concept in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, why would we move in this direction?
I know it is awfully difficult to step back, outside of Church history, and just look at the simplicity of the Church the Apostles established, and ask it if there is something inherently deficient about it that has been significantly improved on over time, but I believe this is a valuable exercise.
I just can’t see any improvement that has been made on the original plan. I’m aware of the Church philosophy that the Apostles did not provide a specific blueprint, which the Church was encouraged to maintain throughout the centuries, but I believe we can see, by the development of Church as a b/o/i, that such development has done more to lead the emphasis and focus away from Jesus and simplicity, and towards things that have caused the Church to be the moniker in society it has become.
In other words, let’s take an issue that you are deeply concerned about - the invalidity of the tithe. But, where do you suppose that arose from? Isn’t it likely it was developed as a means of supporting Church as a business, lining the pockets of the elite clergy, a support system for the government, and a means of controlling the saints towards hierarchical leadership goals, and not towards worship and adoration of Christ alone?
The very moment Church becomes a business, in that exact moment there is an undeniable necessity for a CEO to emerge. No business is going to be successful without one. Someone must become the BOSS, set the standards, raise the funds, hire and fire the staff, set job descriptions, develop a vision and mission statement, promote the business, develop a marketing strategy, and maintain a solid grip on the controls of that Church/business, otherwise it will flounder and fail to meet its objectives.
Have we seen sufficient evidence of hierarchical/CEO leadership being a plus for the Church? Has not Jesus’ Lordship, time and again, been usurped as a result of it? This is a large reason why so much has been written here regarding CBC…they are BIG BUSINESS, and Frank is the quintessential CEO, if there ever was one. Bar none, the best way to promote Church as a business is through teaching the false doctrine of the tithe. If pastors can get the people tithing there will be plenty of money to develop their plan for the Church. There is not so much as shred of NT evidence the Apostles taught this either, but the same guys who so adamantly promote Church as a business know that teaching the tithe is the best route they can cut to achieve their empire building vision.
Church became a business from this doctrinal detour. Once it became the business it became it has simply morphed throughout Church history into it various business forms up to the current day, where it models itself off of the Industrial Revolution, where more is better, bottom line is crucial, keeping up with the technology and entertainment demands are everything. Are you so certain this is a move in a direction of health for Jesus’ Church? Are you certain this hasn’t done more to distract the people from simple love for Jesus and simple love for one another, and become some very complex organization that is ever changing and eclipsing Him?
I just don’t see how the b/o/i approach has done enough to validate it. I see tons it has done to invalidate it.
How say you, and any others who want to comment? Please help me see how the pattern the Apostles established is deficient…
April 5th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Tom,
Come down off your soapbox for just a minute. Your kneejerk reaction is to take anything as an opportunity to rant against church as anything but meeting in homes. I even went out of my way to mention “gatherings” when I spoke about being culturally relevant.
So, my question to you then: Is meeting in homes culturally relevant? Would people in America (let’s restrict it here for the sake of argument) accept and embrace the idea of church as meeting in homes?
My gut feeling is that most people would find it odd and unusual for various reasons. I think it goes against American culture.
1) People are used to the traditional idea of church in a building on Sundays. It’s part of our culture. I remember being part of a church plant where we experimented with meeting on Saturday nights (for a season, it was a necessity), and people didn’t show. They are used to the idea that church happens on Sunday mornings. Changing people’s ideas about things like this is EXTREMELY difficult.
2) Americans are becoming more and more isolated from society in terms of private life and the home. Having anyone over for dinner or a party is a huge event and a disruption into normal family life. It’s not normal for for a typical family to have guests on a weekly basis. Our culture reflects the idea that the home is the private place for retreat from the world and not a place for social interaction outside of family.
3) Most people are not comfortable sharing personal information or talking about their ideas & feelings in a group setting. I can remember plenty of “Home Cell” meetings where one or two people dominate the conversation and it just becomes a small traditional church meeting or just a very awkward one. The most successful ones I attended limited that aspect to a few minutes and left the rest of the time to just hang out and allow people to connect.
4) Most people actually like to get involved with something bigger than themselves. They join volunteer organizations and churches and clubs because they feel like they can be part of a greater good, even if the only advantage is greater numbers. They want community, and that word tends to mean a large group of people for most people. Attending a home meeting doesn’t give that same benefit.
5) In many places in America, especially large cities, the average family simply does not have a home large enough to accommodate more than 2-4 guests. It’s hard to have a sense of community when you can only share with just a few people at a time.
Those are just some of my reasons why I think home meetings as church are not a good fit for American culture. I understand your points about the abuses of the IC and treating it like a business (heck, it’s why this blog exists), but I don’t think it’s a good idea to equate cultural values and logistical necessities with doctrinal absolutes on “how to do church”. I think it’s a mistake to decide that American church is invalid because we don’t meet in homes like the Apostles did. Hey, Tom, remember those Apostle guys? They didn’t just meet in homes! They were at the Temple almost every day! How does that fit with your pet theory?
Taken from Acts 5:
April 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
FICM said,
And,
I apologize if I have created “ire” for the perspectives I’ve brought. It’s not my intention just to be contentious, so I accept your reproof and will try to do better at communicating myself.
I’d like to comment to what you are saying here. I understand better what it is that you were trying to saying now. Thanks!
To your first questions…
I know I am being labeled as a “house churcher,” but actually, in other blog entries I’ve tried to disavow that connection. I don’t see myself as connected to either the house church movement, or meeting in houses, … per se…
I’d rather see myself as a promoter of “small simple gathering,” and not limit it to any specific location. I think there are many believers who would be as uncomfortable as you mention, with meeting in someone’s home. And, I don’t think that is evidence of a backslidden condition or lack of submission to Christ…they just wouldn’t fit in that setting for a whole host of personal reasons. No problem…
But, having dispatched with the home setting, I still believe wherever we gather there must be clear encouragement and opportunity (not necessarily requirement) for contributory involvement.
Paul describes the gathered Church as something in which members contribute to the increase of spiritual growth in others, exhortations can take place, admonitions, prophetic, teachings, spontaneous songs, encouragement, edification, etc. So, can these take place, in any meaningful way, when the regular or only gatherings are beyond 20 to 50? I doubt it.
Social psychologists tell us that rarely will people speak up when groups are larger than around 12. If the description of the gathered Church, as given by the apostles, implies group participation, rather than passive spectating, then however and wherever we gather there needs to at least be the opportunity for and encouragement of individual participation. If this is not the case, then the definition of the gathered Church is entirely different than what the apostles envisioned under divine inspiration.
Sooo, does that need to be a home? I don’t think so. It could be a large variety of places, but wherever those places are they imply some form of privacy so as to encourage a non self conscious expression of spirituality without unbelievers being put off by it, due to it being in a place where they would never anticipate such behavior would take place. I “hate” the idea of “in your face” evangelism, that invades the spaces of unbelievers, where believers tell themselves it is ok to act out their spirituality, so the unbelievers present get a Gospel witness. It is weird and offensive, and does more to drive them away than to draw them near. At least as a rule it does…
As to how the early Church meeting in the larger “Temple Porch” setting fits into my “PET” doctrine…(can’t say I appreciate the mockery…but oh well…) I do believe there is a place for the larger gathering, just not as an “only” thing approach.
I envision a day, where the Church has learned to come away from “ministry as business/church as a business” and into the smaller and simpler participatory settings, and also into the larger “non ministry as a business/church as a business” gathering.
I love the idea of bringing large numbers of saints together for spiritual hoot’n'annies. I think it would be awesome, but I don’t think the majority of those who have come out of the IC are ready for that. It would currently tend toward someone marketing it to death, someone controlling it with their personal agenda and their charismatic personality, and making it something that is more about entertainment and emotions, than large numbers gathering to Jesus Himself, and letting Him be the Head of such a large gathering. If we find it sooo hard to gather productively in small settings, and we’ve over traditionalized and top down controlled it in the IC environment, I hardly think the body coming out of the ICs is ready to take on regular large gatherings.
Sooo, my challenge to you, if the majority of believers attend non participatory “churches as a businesses/organizations,” how does that square with what the apostles led the early church into?
Secondly, where do we see “anything” of a “church as a business/organization” in the NT? If its there I have never seen it. I see this to head off an answer of “let’s have cell oriented churches.” These fail the NT example, because they incorporate the invalid “church as business” model, with small groups that are most often controlled by the hierarchy and not given the freedom to see themselves as full Church gatherings under Jesus’ exclusive headship.
Sooo, I’m only open to something that doesn’t add a concept of Church that inherently violates the simple principles the apostles established, where Jesus is easily the focus, and the agendas of man have virtually no room to expand and develop into a business, or a set of man centered controlling traditions…nullifying the Word of God.
Can we meet in places other than homes? Absolutely…many other places.
How say you? Any of the you’s out there, or just FICM if he’s the only one interested in this discussion.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Tom,
Great explaination….
Now get back up on that soap box…. wait second , here, stack these 2 boxes on top of that box so they can hear you in the back row!
FICM, how inner circle were you? One Dick Iverson’s elder’s? Frank’s elders? Board of directors? PBC instructor?
April 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Ha, ha…thanks Keith!
I admit…I’m very passionate about the HUGE changes I see the Spirit bringing to Jesus’ Church…emphasis on Jesus’ Church…not Frank’s church, my church, or any other human’s church. It is Jesus’ Church, and it is super high time that it be returned to Him, placed under His headship, and focused squarely on seeking Him, loving Him, knowing Him, and not some man’s agenda.
This is one of those “once you’ve seen the real thing,” sort of passions, you find it hard to not get up on a soap box and shout at the top of your lungs - “FOLKS THIS IS SOOOO MUCH BETTER.” But, I do need to honor the different place that each member of the body of Christ is at, in His processes and purposes for their lives. I admit…it’s a little hard for me to tone it down at times…my bad…or not bad…depending on perspective…
April 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Keith, What does it matter who I am? I was close enough to know what was going on, but thankfully was never on staff. I could give you a laundry list of my “accomplishments” at BT/CBC, but what would that prove? I do remember you, though.
Tom, I think in some ways we agree and our ideas are probably more convergent than we’d probably initially admit. I’m rather busy today and will respond more later, but the short version is that I think the things that you and I disapprove of in the IC are the result of a false system that is the result of the abuse of cultural values (organization & leadership) that are then propped up to appear as doctrinal values (the pastor is always right). But I still think it is possible to remove those abuses and retain cultural values (organization, leadership, community) and maintain them separately from doctrinal issues. How that works itself out should be reflected in the culture of the people doing church, and shouldn’t be mandated by someone’s spin on our brief glimpses of church life in another time and another place (i.e. Acts). I’ll graciously disagree with you on that one. If you love doing church at your home with friends, then that’s awesome for you and it reflects your preferences and values. But I have a hard time believing that it could or should be that way for everyone regardless of where they are coming from.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
FICM,
Ok, sounds fair, but, when you have some time, I’d love to hear how you feel about the following passage not working in any kind of a one for one application in the modern Church in a building, with over about 20 to 50 people in attendance?
Or,
I’m struck by the “ALLs,” “EACHes,” “WHENEVERs,” and “ONE ANOTHERs” in Paul’s description of gathered body life. How do you see this regularly happening in the traditional Church setting? Is this just an optional approach to Church? Are we so certain that God hasn’t designed things, as Paul describes, for very important spiritual growth and life reasons?
And a couple more questions…where, in all of the Apostles teachings, do we see a single pastor/person dominating the speaking time, week after week, as opposed to an open forum? Where do we see one person as having the right, responsibility, calling, etc., to be a monologue preaching voice into the congregation, while the body sits quietly (can’t even be allowed to raise their hand, and ask the pastor for an opportunity to share what the Spirit is putting in their hearts) and passively receives his singular voice?
How do I reconcile the “optionality” of your approach, with the things that appear to be lost by the current traditional model of Church?
Thanks for entertaining, in a gracious way, these questions. I don’t want this to degenerate into an argument, and if my questions are doing more to irritate than stimulate, then let me know and I’ll desist.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Tom,
I’m happy to answer your questions.
I don’t think that 1 Cor. 14 applies to our discussion. Paul was laying down some guidelines for using spiritual gifts during a gathering (church), so that the unbelievers would not be offended or confused but convicted. His use of the world “all” is a generalization of the members in a meeting, and not an indicator of how many people should or shouldn’t attend a church gathering. The principle holds regardless if the meeting is 5 people or 500. If “all” were to speak in tongues then “no one” would be prophesying and bringing conviction to the unbeliever.
I don’t see how Eph. 5:18 plays a role here either. It is simply an encouragement to encourage each other whether the gatherings be large or small and no guideline for gathering size is inherently implied.
I don’t know if you’re testing me personally, or just trying to keep up the discussion. But I worry that you’re doing the same thing that the CBC folks are doing: interpreting isolated verses out of context and deriving meaning to support your cultural values or doctrinal preferences. If this is true, then shame on you, you should know better.
As far as the format of church services or gatherings in Acts and the rest of the NT, you’ve gotta admit the details of such meetings are rather scarce. Usually, the account given is a transcription of a speech given by someone important (Peter, Paul, etc.), so it’s easy to see how we could lean towards that model. We simply don’t know exactly what went on in the early gatherings, and it could have been wildly different from meeting to meeting, or from city to city. For example, we know the Jews continued to meet in the Temple, but when the Gospel was brought to the Gentiles in other cities and countries, there was no Temple to go to. After the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish Christians couldn’t use it either. During the centuries of heavy persecution, Christians couldn’t meet in the open they had to meet in secret, and many were driven underground (literally) to tombs and catacombs. Shall we assume then that the correct way to do church is to meet in a graveyard? Hardly!
Are there examples of one person dominating a meeting? How about this one:
Paul preached so long he caused a man to be bored to death! *badumpsh*
I’m not sure I have the perfect solution, but I think we begin by bringing correction to the church and removing the abuses and the abusers, and failing that, by writing a blog.
Seriously though, I think there are some churches that do “get it”. Ironically, I think BT/CBC was heading in the right direction with the Home Group meeting concept and I know that many other churches have embraced the idea and have had great success in establishing smaller communities within a larger community. It gives the opportunity to do the things you advocate without completely dispensing with the values and benefits of a large church community.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:04 am
But FICM, are you sure you aren’t missing the “participatory” element, so clearly emphasized in Paul’s writings?
You reference Paul’s message in Acts 20, but are you aware of what the Greek says, as regards the methodology of his communication?
While I think there is a place for monologue, Paul doesn’t appear to have used this method in this passage. Why? Probably because he doesn’t suffer from the prideful malady of most modern day preachers. He didn’t think of himself as the sole revelator in any gathering, even though he was a hand picked apostle. An amazing thought really!
He dialogued with them, hour after hour. Why? Because he knew Jesus was just as able to speak through others as through him. He valued what others could contribute to the discussion. He knew even their questions could represent the mind of Christ, and provide a platform for yet further revelation to come through him and them.
I think you seriously miss the participatory element of the NT teachings of the gathering of the saints. I honestly don’t know what to account this for, except that you are clingling to a form you have supported for so many years that letting it go feels just too “open ended” to feel comfortable with. I don’t know FICM. If you don’t see what I’m sharing then I suppose the best thing for us to let this rest for a season.
I truly believe, if you look at the whole religioius system of the modern Church, you will realize that with even just the one area that bugs you - Tithing - if you pull that “Janga” (puzzle block game) piece out the whole thing begins to totter, and as you find what it is connected to, then it, and then it, over and over again, you will discover there is truly a manmade system that holds it all together. Eventually the whole thing topples, and what is left is the simplest form of gathering, and it is all about Jesus and nothing else.
For whatever reason, I believe God has opened my eyes to see many of the connecting links, and because of it, I’m ruined for systems religion. I know some of my writing sounds like CBC approach to interpreting the bible, but as I’ve said in other blog entries, while I love and respect the bible in its inspiration, I do not stop there. I am deeply committed to revelation, which I believe is essential to properly interpreting the Bible. I admit it is problematic in fallible humans, but I’d rather cling to a living Jesus, than a dead letter. I’d rather trust Him, as a living God, to interpret His Word to my heart, and help me understand His plans and purposes, than to think that by my own intellect I can interpret scripture and get it right.
I’m doing my best to listen to the voice of Jesus these days. What I’m hearing are the things I’m writing of. I connect them as best as I can to scripture, but scripture is not the end of God’s storyline. He is still teaching, still revealing, still opening blind eyes and deaf ears. The scriptures say things the natural mind cannot see and hear. I hope I’m hearing the living Christ, but in the end, each of us must walk out what we believe honors Him. I trust you are doing so.
Thanks for the dialogue. It’s much more interesting than just me monologuing…
April 9th, 2007 at 8:37 am
That “participatory element” is absolutely essential to a healthy church, Tom.
One of the reasons for “silencing the lambs” has been to prevent error from being perpetuated in the assembly, so only the most highly educated / mature can speak. Yet it once occurred to me that it is through our sharing, even error / woundedness, that we identify the need for healing / correction / deliverance.
Karen and I once had a small home study group that was affiliated by the IC we used to attend. The age of members ranged from 40-65. It was a topical group and we were focusing on the spiritual gifts. After several months of meeting, people began to open up, and some of the questions were indicative of the bondage and hurt some of the people had. Turns out some had prayed for the gifts, but had never received them and were hurt by that. Others were afraid of them. I remember one woman in her 50’s asked me about speaking in tongues - “does it completely take you over (in a convulsive way)” or “if you start speaking in tongues while driving, do you have to pull your car over to the side of the road” or “does God ever make you speak (yell) in tongues in the middle of Walmart”?
Each of those sorts of questions indicated a need for a loving and healing touch to answer them - at the root was revealing to them the real and loving God who is, not the God who guilts, shames and embarrasses that they have been indoctrinated with over years of sitting through hell-fire and brimstone in the IC.
Such things are like weeds of the soul - and only loving, vulnerable sharing can identify them where they can be pulled up and thrown on the burn pile.
….
You know, this weekend as we visited mom-in-laws church, I was struck by how our culture has redefined even the simplest of terms, which has in turn effected our understanding of the gospel. For example, the simple term “neighbor”. The church took up a special offering via dedicated envelope, on which it said something about “who is your neighbor”. As they hyped the offering before taking it, they identified what the money would/could go for … and I took note that ALL of the uses cited by the pastor were foreign / 3rd world country recipients. So apparently, their “neighbor” is a farmer in asia or a starving child in africa.
As I pondered how “neighbor” has been re-defined, the absurdity of a CBC-type church seemed so apparent, as week after week, people drive in from as much as 40 miles away, where they sit next to someone who in all likelihood they have never met or who they never see outside the context of a CBC service. Yet for some reason, people consider their ‘pew mate’ or church friends as their “neighbor”, while in all reality, they do not know the people who live in the house across their street! Such was true for me when attending an 800 member church in Kent, WA.
One of the things that has changed for me since leaving the IC, is reducing the size of my neighborhood - there’s no IC trying to tell me that my neighbor is overseas - no pretending to have a relationship with my pew-mate whom I never see other than during Sunday service - I now know my neighbors for a block in each direction, talk and visit with them when we run into them outdoors, on walks, at the stores - and in so doing, there are occasionally opportunities to minister through love - whether a compassionate heart, a listening ear - relationships are formed … in fact, it is the forming of relationships that tells me I’m on the path of truth and that God is in the midst of this walk …
I don’t know why I never questioned the chronic ’substitution’ of new / different ideas as the deception of the enemy … I mean, the Bible makes clear the idea of loving your neighbors (the people you live with), of getting along, of community, of honest communication … and the IC seems to suppress ALL of those things, substituting performance, segregation and isolation for the simple Church approach of Jesus and the apostles.
I remember one of my “wake up calls” came when Karen and I moved from Kent, WA, to rural IL … I had attended that IC for 5+ years, had played in the worship band ever other week for all that time, taught Sunday school, played guitar in the various church musical prodctions … finally it came time to move - and NO ONE volunteered to help us despite weeks of asking for help via the bulletin - Karen had just had major surgery and I was alone in packing and loading the truck - until the last minute when 2 church members showed up on the day we were loading and worked for a few hours.
Conversely, when we arrived in rural IL, our next door neighbor came out to help unload as soon as we pulled up in the truck, and he called in his soft-ball team mates, where we had about 2 dozen helpers in 30 minutes.
To hear my former IC mates talk, it was a church of fellowship and relationship, yet in reality, it was just an hour a week of exchanging plastic smiles …
If only people would take time to take an honest inventory of their Christian relationships … they’d likely discover there’s no substance to them … women are likely to be far more sensitive to the quality of relationships than guys …
Sam
April 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Excellent descriptions Sam! You write with such clarity and preciseness!
I’d love to hear from some of the other bloggers, who attend an IC. Do you find you are experiencing strong community, both in your local Church, and with your neighbors? Do you have a place where you can speak the things you hear in Christ and it is received and appreciated? Do you regularly have opportunity (as with Paul) to dialogue with those who are the more “trained” ministers in your midst? Does what you have to say matter as much as any “trained” minister, when led by the Spirit? Are you allowed to give according to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and if He were to tell you to give all your “tithe” to a poor neighbor would your senior pastor be ok with that? Are the gifts of the Spirit flowing through you respected and appreciated? When you gather, and God speaks to you, do you have opportunity to share that and find people are eager to receive it from you? Are you in a spiritual gathering environment that is free from man’s controls (stand up, sit down, give now, be quiet and listen now, turn to your neighbor and…now, etc.)? Do you find yourself longing for such an environment? If not, why not? If so, what is keeping you from pursuing it?
I’d really love to hear from some folks in the IC who just love the place they are at. Do it annonymously, so that if you want to express your concerns, your doubts, your questions, or your frustrations, you won’t get in trouble with those who would seek to control your every thought, belief, and move.
Is there anyone out there who is finding that deep inner hidden place within your heart being ministered to in the IC of your choice? I don’t know…I haven’t talked with anyone, in a long time, who could say “yes” to this question. Each one seems to say, well…my friends attend there, or, occasionally the sermon is really good, or, I feel I owe it to God to go there, or I’d be afraid the devil would hurt me and my family if I went somewhere else.
How many of you out there are really happy with your IC?
This is your chance…sound off. We haven’t heard from you for awhile. I can’t speak for everyone here, but I commit to respecting your comments. I hope many of the blog observers are totally at peace with the Church they “attend.” I hope most of you, who are still in an IC, aren’t there for reasons that fail to connect you with God in deep ways. I know our family, even at the height of our involvement at BT/CBC, never felt good about things there. We stayed because I had a job there, or I loved my students at PBC, but we didn’t stay because we truly believed the philosophy of ministry in the Church was healthy or a right. How about you?
April 10th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Strangely quiet, Tom … perhaps the people who want to respond are off asking their pastor for permission to speak on the subject?
Lex
April 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Mmmmm….if so, then we ought not to hear from them any time soon…
April 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Or maybe some of us are very happy with our IC church and just don’t feel compelled to share any of this with Tom.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Ok…that’s fine too…
April 10th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Oh brother, just because no one responds doesn’t mean you win the “argument”. People probably fall into lots of categories and you shouldn’t assume so much. I would imagine that many of the disaffected ICers, especially those of BT/CBC, no longer attend any kind of church at all! Those that still attend some CBC are more likely just to bash this blog rather than have a constructive debate. Really, what did you expect?
April 10th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Hmmm, sounds like you are reading into my response something that wasn’t intended.
If people don’t wish to answer my question that’s fine. I don’t consider myself to be a “somebody” that people “need” to respond to. I’m fine with no response if that’s what folks prefer.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Tom, it’s just that your question implied an argument. If people couldn’t affirm in the positive that they experienced spiritual growth and real community in the IC, then it’s points for your opinion on gatherings vs. the IC. It’s not a real argument because there’s no means via this blog to validate or invalidate your premise. That’s like saying that skinny people are healthy and happy because they never eat pizza. But if no skinny people respond to your argument with “I eat pizza and I’m happy and healthy” then your point is seemingly validated even though it’s entirely possible that those people just failed to respond to your question.
If you had phrased it such that it was obviously a rhetorical question, then I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that. But you threw down the gauntlet, and no one picked it up. If you were truly interested in such info, you would have to take a more scientific approach where the questions weren’t implying a bias one way or the other. I think it would be an excellent insight into the lives of Christians in America, but I wonder if anyone would be willing to take such a survey.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:22 am
A: The sound of crickets chirping.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:25 am
FICM,
Obviously I do have a bias, as all of my blog entries clearly note, so I freely admit that bias is reflected in my question.
Forget everyone else for the moment…since you are “somewhat” responding to my question. This is a genuine, no argument question for you, are you happy with your current IC experience? If you do not desire your answer to be challenged, but just want to express your “yes” or “no” then feel free to say so. I don’t want to force you into a discussion about it.
My suspicion, and I will admit to this freely, is that those who frequent this blog, and who are still at least “somewhat” connected to an IC, are not very pleased with their overall experience there. I may be very wrong in this suspicion, but I’d be interested in knowing.
I suspect they are remaining where they are not very happy, for reasons that just might represent the octopus tentacles of that environment, or some form of legalism, or fear, or a powerful person’s control, etc. If I’m wrong in this suspicion I’m ok with being wrong.
I know no environment is perfect, and thus there is something wrong with every form of gathering, so I don’t hold to some utopian potential for gathering the saints, but I guess I doubt that those of you who are still connected to the IC are very pleased with that experience.
Let me put it another way. The Church, as near as I can tell, was designed by Christ to be an environment that was Christ centered, not man centered, and the further the IC has developed the further it has moved away from its Christ centeredness. If that is the case, and if we had built into our “born againness” an internal longing for a Christ centered church experience, then the further the IC has moved away from that, the more internal dissonance is experienced and an unsatisfied longing knaws at the believer’s soul for more of Jesus.
I don’t know if I’ve been clearer, or more or less rhetorical, or not, but these are some of my thoughts in my question.
I think folks are hungry for more of Jesus, and are tending to get more of man in the IC than their soul is hungry for. Wrong? Right?
Only answer if you want to. If not…then ignore these questions.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I was, for many years, Tom. A few questions about the Holy Spirit troubled me from time to time, but there was always an answer from the pastor or doctrine of the church I attended that put those questions to rest as often as they came up. The church gave me a place to satisfy my need for God, which in hindsight was very little because everything was going well for me and I believed I was happy.
But then came the Job treatment and I learned that the church I attended was not at all prepared to deal with people facing crisis. I was treated like a leper - isolated and avoided. During the healing process, a small in-home men’s group provided the understanding, compassion and love I needed, as well as taught me how to love the walking wounded, since they too had been Job’d.
Tom, I think asking someone if they are happy with their IC experience is a relative question - the IC is a great place for people with little need. But when life-circumstances bring about long-term extreme hardship, or when God takes hold of someone and begins a radical pruning and growth program, the IC often (not always) will expel such persons because most ICs are set up to receive, not give.
Being brutally honest with myself, the IC was great for me, because I once liked to keep everyone at an arms-length, I liked having no real personal responsibility to the brethren, rather the impersonal involvement with an institution where it was always someone else’s responsibility to deal with people directly. I liked the scheduled meetings meaning the rest of the week belonged to me. Etc. It was the perfect place for me, as someone who needed to maintain tight control of my commitments / relationships so as to avoid anything that would require more of me than a token involvement.
Personal hardship / crisis exposed that for the superficial life that it was - I received from the IC back that which I had given. Perhaps people who are happy with the IC have sewn better seed than I did and therefore reap better fruit from it?
Jack
April 10th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Crap… just when I thought I was mature enough to check out the blog from time to time without feeling the need to comment!
Tom, your assumptions and generalizations are killing me!!! I go to a church that meets in a church building on Sundays, the whole home-style church is so… unappealing to me in too many ways to even get into with you. I am very pleased with my overall experience there - I’m being fed, the pastors (there is no Sr. pastor btw) are very personable and friendly, the people are genuine, etc. Our church is far from perfect, but what I most appreciate about it is that they’re very down-to-earth; this is probably the only church I’ve ever felt 100% comfortable being myself, just as I am! If I weren’t so pleased with what’s going on in our church I would simply leave. I have no fear of as you
disturbinglystrangelyfreakishlyput it, “the octopus tentacles of that environment, or some form of legalism or fear or a powerful person’s control”. That’s just so weird of you to say and a little creepy too… do you think all us bloggers are weak little wussies who can’t stand up for ourselves and take responsibility for our own decisions???Good Lord, where do you get this stuff, what on earth happened to you to make you think like this (completely rhetorical, PLEASE do not answer the question, I beg you)?
I’m sure I’m going to be “in trouble” now, so this will probably be my last comment…
April 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Not to worry Churchgirl, I think you have an imagined perception of how I might respond to you, that is way beneath my actual thoughts.
I am truly pleased you are so happy. I doubt you believe me, in light of how strongly you know I feel about the IC, but as I’ve said soooo many times in these blogs, if you are where Jesus wants you, and you are at peace with Him in your church, then the last thing I would want to do is unsettle that. His timing is perfect, and His plan for His people is so personally tailored, that I can easily believe you are right where you belong.
I’m sorry if I’ve left you with the impression that I wouldn’t think this way about you. I admit I’m passionate about the things He’s called me towards, and I know of 50,000,000 more who are hearing similar things that I am, according to George Barna, of the Barna Research Group, but that doesn’t mean God is saying the same thing to you that He is saying to me.
His plan is a mysterious and wonderful thing. Who am I to understand all the ins and outs of His great plan for His people.
Thank you for your response, (minus the rude reprisals), I’m sure my words have stirred up your ire, so I’ll take responsibility for that too, since you anticipated I’d attack you for them.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Jack’s brutal honesty hits me smack in the bullseye. I attend an IC every Sunday for many of the same reasons he mentioned above…albeit with one addition…cause it’s something that makes the wife happy and I’m not about to rock the household on such a trivial matter.
Years after detox’ing from CBC we attended a Vineyard church for a few years, but grew increasingly annoyed with their constant nudging, pushing, shoving for everyone to be in a home group (ie. weekly small group meeting). We just aren’t into that, and hated the not-so-subtle judgment we’d get when we replied that we didn’t feel the need to attend one. Beyond that inconvenience the church had very genuine worship, took a tithe but rarely preached/guilted about it, and had an awesome pastor who preached a practical gospel that spoke to my spirit frequently. Unfortunately a few issues (child resources and home groups) wore us down to the point we felt we needed to move on.
We now attend a “Church of God” church, and I have had up-down feelings about it. When we started the pastor at that time was a good ole boy from Kentucky who often referred to himself as a hillbilly. He shot straight from the hip and called things like he saw them. I loved his “this is the truth, sorry if it offends you” attitude, but unfortunately last year he moved back south to another church. Since then we’ve had various speakers and an interim pastor, who continually grates on me with (as I see it) “off-at-best, abusive-at-worst” interpretations of passages used to emphasize a point that is watered-down and more than often hard to follow. He’s an older gentleman that strikes me as politically-correct in a time of transition.
This church has great children’s resources, though, and doesn’t push small groups, doesn’t hammer on tithe (although it takes one weekly), and has great worship. My big prayer is that God will bring in a new pastor that can at least preach a practical and accurate passage from the Bible.
Regardless…I guess I’m here just to admit that I’m a hypocrite when it comes to the IC, cause while I see how it is flawed it is at it’s core and want little to do with it, I still attend regularly.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Grey Sheep,
Thanks for your candid and insightful comments.
In my experience the sense of “hypocrisy” you are feeling is often the gateway to that which He is leading you towards.
Look, I know I appear to be pushing for “house church,” but I’m really not. What you just shared with all of us looks sooo “the real thing” to me, that when I experience that face to face with another believer or two, I can’t escape the sense that the Church just gathered and the truth as it is in Jesus just surfaced.
I hear both your and CGs concerns about not enjoying the small “house gathering” environment. I’m convinced, though it is often not easy for me to articulate, that whatever it is the Jesus is moving us towards is far more significant than just small home gatherings.
We’ve all experienced that weird “home group” thing, and I think that is what you and CG can’t stand. I share that same repugnance. It is often canned, contrived, forced, and sickeningly weird and religious, and can’t possibly be what Jesus and the apostles had in mind, or what the early church experienced.
I guess the only thing I know to offer, as the “true” compared to that thing you react to, is “relationship.” The Church can never be made the church by living room meetings/services, or canned prayers, or a “kumbaya” atmosphere. I can’t escape the relational aspect of true church, as presented by the apostles. I desire to know Him, and I desire to know those who are His. When I have seen and heard Him in my brothers and sisters then I have experienced Church. It’s not much more complicated to me than that.
I would no more go to some sickening “house group” meeting than I would to an IC meeting. Relationship is everything to me. I deeply and affectionately love those I gather with, whether it is in a coffee shop, restaurant, our living room, on a hike in the mountains, or a walk on the beach. The focus has been on knowing one another and the Jesus within them.
As I hear you transparently express yourself you sound exactly like what I’ve grown to love and appreciate about the notion of Church I see in Jesus.
Sooo, thanks!
If there are still some areas you are working through, well…join the rest of us…I have no where near arrived myself, and find I’m learning daily what it is that He has in His mind for His Church.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Tom,
Thanks yet again for your feelings. I had no intention of my “admission” passing any type of reflection on your “passion” of whatever style of church you enjoy. I was more just jumping into the dialogue with a “hey, I’m just like Jack used to be” more than a “Tom (finger wagging) you’re still preaching home groups” type of vibe.
Truth be told…I have very little preconceived notions about where I’m at now-a-days with my walk with Christ and my feelings toward “church.”
I spent 20 long, sometimes painful, sometimes wonderful years at BT/TCS/TCHS/PBC/CBC, and after getting to a point where the Holy Spirit within me just couldn’t stand to be there any longer, I now…after years of detox from it…am so thankful to be out and to be discovering a Savior that is about so much more than the elitism, legalism, judgmentalism, tithing, etc. that CBC and those type of mega-church/IC’s have evolved into.
I’m thrilled that I can sit back and know that you and I are brothers in this cause, and while we may “drink from different watering holes,” we still finding refreshment and fellowship!
You said it best when you said…
Right or wrong…”church” to me has nothing to do with a building or program any longer…and has everything to do with how I battle to pull myself away from “life” and humble myself quietly before my God and then turn to follow His promptings to touch people (believers or not) in the myriad of ways He points out to me.
The greatest part about evolving in our relationship and understanding with God is that we are never right or wrong in where we are at during any given point. In other words…there are many inside the IC that can be finding the same truth we are finding outside of it at the same time. I used to find truth there. FICM used to. Many did. But now many of us don’t. And that’s ok. And it’s ok some still do.
That is the illuminative beauty of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t care if you’re on a hilltop or hell-hole…it will still find you!
Thanks to everyone on this blog for their opinions. I know it will make some people cringe (especially current CBC’ers), but to me…this place is as much my church as the church I attend on Sunday. It’s a place I can have relationship (albeit passive) with brothers and sisters who all desire a common goal.
To know Him better!
April 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Sorry…in my thought about I stated…
I meant Jack used to.
Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth FICM.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Jack’s a dork.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Grey Sheep said:
That works for me Grey!
Defining what Church is, from what it isn’t, is not an easy task. I think most of us who are in transition wrestle with this on a daily basis. I know for me, while I’m passionate about what I believe I’m seeing in Christ in these areas, I don’t enjoy arguments and clashes with those who see it differently. Spirited discussion?…yes!
I like too, the place of rest you are discovering. I just finished reading through the recent article put out by the CHCRN - Canadian House Church Resource Network, and much of the discussion was on how brethren, all around the world, are weary in the midst of the transition, and all that Jesus is calling us out of. There is a commonality among many of the challenge of such huge paradigm shifts.
If you are interested in being on their email list you can contact Grace Wiebe, at: gracew@idmail.com .
Most of us who have made the changes we have, have paid dearly for those changes. Add to this the addition of years, personal tragedies, and difficult life experiences, and the older we grow the harder it is to cling to the old rugged cross, but cling we must, because to do otherwise is to move away from the “center” that holds us steady.
Thanks for your words…they are refreshing waters indeed…
April 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Paul Vieira, has written an interesting book, titled “Jesus has left the building.”
I just had the opportunity to read his first chapter and thought of this blog string. If it is too long to be of any interest then of course just ignore it, but if you have the time to read it I think you might find it interesting.
Paul writes:
“Your ministry must die!” I remember those words like it was yesterday, and yet they were spoken to me well over a decade ago. At the time, there was probably nothing more horrible that could have been said to me. After almost five years, something so precious was coming to an end. I was perplexed. To be honest, I cried like a baby. This was my baby! How could God be telling me that I had to let it go?
COME TO THE CROSS
It all started back at a Christian family camp when I was fifteen years old. Under a beautiful night sky, I asked God to take my life and use me in any way He wanted to.
The only way I can explain what happened to me in that moment was that God lifted me into His loving face, speaking these words, “Paul, I need you.” I know that this doesn’t make any sense theologically. God doesn’t need anything. He is perfectly complete in Himself. And yet, He graciously spoke to this young teenager, to enlist me into His purposes. I accepted.
The next evening, after the worship service, I took my guitar and gathered the youth together down at the beach to worship God. We did this night after night for eleven days, crying, laughing, praying, bowing and dancing on the sand. A fire wasignited in my heart and in the hearts of a few of the friends I had made. If I only knewhow deep this flame would burn.
The fire came home with us. What happened at camp did not stay there like aburied treasure. When we returned to Winnipeg, the city where we lived, I asked these new young comrades of mine to come over to my parents’ house to pray and worship together. We would gather officially once a month and unofficially all the time. We loved to be together with Jesus. It started with ten of us, but after only a few months we had fifty youth cramming into the basement of the house. We knew that God had lit a fire and it was going to spread.
One afternoon, a few of us came together to talk about the direction we were to take. We felt God was calling us to move from my house into something more public. We decided to start a ministry called Come to the Cross where we would hold monthly youth meetings, focusing on praise and worship, preaching Jesus, and delivering young people from oppression through the power of prayer.
We held our first public meeting in September of 1988 and over 100 youth
stormed our doors. The momentum continued each month and one year later we had over 700 teens coming every month to our gatherings. The meetings would last for more than four hours. We would sing and dance like King David. I often think back to those times. Hundreds of youth didn’t come to listen to a tight band, watch a smooth running operation, or be entertained with a high gloss, semi-professional presentation of religion. It was raw. It was real. It was passionate and the teachers were their peers.
The worship team, the preachers, and the ministry team were all under the age of twenty. How can this be that God would use untrained youth to carry such significant ministry responsibility? That is a question that some of the older leaders in the churches around us were asking. The religious elite in the fourth chapter of Acts followed the same line of questioning when a few uneducated fishermen started turning Jerusalem up-side down with the kingdom of God. I’d have to say that, in most ways, I was a better leader when I was seventeen years old. Since then I learned from
my mentors on how to operate without dependency on the Holy Spirit. Tragically, you can learn to study without revelation, to preach without anointing, and to lead with words but not by example. Ministry itself became sour to me and I came to a place where I had to repent for depending on myself and the “tricks” I had learned in ministry training. I have now come back to where I started - dependency on Jesus. This
book chronicles the journey. In those days, since we did not know what we were doing, we desperately needed the help of the Holy Spirit. On the morning of our rallies we would arrive at the building at 10 a.m. to set up the sound equipment. We would then have a short music practice, order a bucket of chicken, and break for lunch. This was our ritual. After lunch we would retreat into a small, dark room in the basement of the building and lie there until the meeting started. We would wait on God for five to six hours, sometimes praying and sometimes sleeping, but mostly praying. We would wait to hear His voice. We would get instruction from Him on everything that was supposed to happen that night. Our sensitivity to His Spirit would be sharpened in that room, so that we could follow any slight changes in the blowing of the wind of the Spirit. The amazing thing was that He would always show us the way. He was faithful in leading us. I believe that God prefers to lead than to have us tell Him what He should do.
One of the outcomes of these extended times of waiting on God was the release of miracles and healing. One particular night comes to mind. Before our Come to the Cross meeting, that afternoon in the dark room, God spoke to me that someone was coming to the meeting who was deaf. God wanted to heal that person and showed me that He would indicate the precise time in the evening that this was to happen.
That night, during the singing, I kept asking the Lord if this was the moment. I received no answer. Then it was time to announce some of the upcoming events. I did not for one moment think that it would happen during such a “non-spiritual” part of the meeting. Sure enough, as I was relaying the information to the people, the Holy Spirit interrupted my train of thought with the word “now!” In my mind, I had a very brief objection to God’s timing and that perhaps after the preaching God could heal this
person. As you know, it is futile to argue with someone who literally is always right.
So I stopped in mid-sentence and asked if anyone in the room had brought a deaf person with them. Out of hundreds of youth there was one person who was fully deaf in one ear. He came forward, in front of the whole crowd, and I prayed for him. We performed little tests as to what he could hear before and after we prayed. God healed him. The whole place exploded with praise and faith. The next thing I knew people began to line
up to be healed. God did many miracles that night. There were individuals who had come into the meeting on crutches and by the end of the evening, were running around the room unaided. The tears flowed, hearts were encouraged and God was glorified. It was a holy moment.
“I WANT TO DO THIS STUFF OUTSIDE THE WALLS”
For much of my teenage life, I experienced a localized revival. We had seen thousands of young people come through our doors. Many of them became followers of Jesus through our ministry. We saw dozens of miracles and hundreds of teenagers spiritually revitalized. This momentum showed no sign of waning. I had great plans for this ministry. We were hoping to plant churches around the world and I thought I would be working with these people for the rest of my life. There was nothing on earth more important to me. I couldn’t understand why God would be ending a good thing.
I sobbed and grieved over this. I told Him that I truly needed Him to confirm it by speaking to the others on our team. Soon after, we had a team meeting and one by one each member began to share how they felt that Come to the Cross was supposed to end. There was no obvious
indication that things were winding down. In fact, we had seen more fruit and maturation in our ministry the last year we operated than ever before. I did not understand it but I knew what God was saying. So, we obeyed Him and held our final meeting in September of 1992.
We went out with a bang. We celebrated all that the Lord had done in the five years of this spiritual youth revival. There was an excitement in the air, as well as, a sadness that something so wonderful to so many of us was coming to a close. I preached a message that night that was more relevant than I realized at the time. I felt that God had given me a small glimpse as to why He was ending this ministry. He truly was moving among us but most of it was contained behind the four walls of a church building. This is the declaration that came from my mouth that night,
our last night: “God wants to take this stuff and do it outside the walls.” God’s heart was to bring His glory into plain view, into the real world. Jesus was leaving the building.
To be honest with you, I had no idea what God meant by this statement “outside the walls.” God wanted Come to the Cross to die because He was going to do something new for us. Somehow I knew that if we were to continue the way we were going, we would not only miss this new thing, but perhaps even resist it. When I woke up Monday morning that next week, I said to the Lord, “I’m ready for it - bring it on!” I had no clue what this fresh move of God was about, nor did I expect that the next ten years of my life would be filled with pain, disillusionment, and obscurity. He was preparing me.
A PASTOR WHO HATES GOING TO CHURCH
After Come to the Cross, I threw myself into serving at my local congregation. I was a young man full of vision and excitement for what I could do in the church. I quickly “moved up the ladder” of ministry, and caught the attention of leadership. It wasn’t very long before I was hired for youth work and evangelism. Here I was, in my early twenties, now on staff at a large successful church. I sat with the elders at the very top level of church government, learning and being groomed for leadership. However, something started dying in me. I began to ask the question.
Do you know the question? It is the question that drives innovation. It is the question of reformation. It’s what Martin Luther asked that fateful day as he was crawling up the stone stairs of the cathedral, paying penance for his sins. With bloody knees, he asked himself, “Why?” “Why am I doing this?” “Why are we doing this?” The question “why” is a good question. Children ask it instinctively. This is why they are always learning, adapting, changing. Many of us adults have stopped asking. We have learned to just accept the world that we have inherited, lulling us into a deep sleep of passivity and stagnancy. Perhaps, it is because of this question that you are now reading this book.
I began to experience distaste for organized “Christianity.” I found myself
asking the “why” question incessantly. I had to learn how to be quiet, keep my thoughts to myself, and not rock the boat. I learned quickly how to change who I was, to be able to fit in to the corporate mandate. I lost myself to the pressure of pleasing men and seeking placement. Why were we giving more time to the building project, when the marriages of our leaders were falling apart? Why was our staff cutting their salaries to pay for the ever growing financial needs of our building? Why did we spend so much time trying to figure out how to organize the church, when there were people hurting and lost, right across the street? Why did we spend thousands of dollars and hours doing evangelistic outreach, and saw little to no fruit? Why did everyone have to talk and look the same to be accepted? Why were we all so lonely, even though we saw each other at church meetings three or four times a week?
An opportunity was presented to me to become the pastor of a small church, just outside the city. I desperately needed something new. My view of ministry in thechurch needed major resuscitation. I accepted the position, naively thinking that at least as the “pastor,” I could avoid falling into some of the pitfalls I had experienced in the previous church. I was mistaken. I didn’t know it at the time, but God was leading me into disillusionment. He wanted to bring me to a place where I longed for
something different. He was positioning me to be right where I needed to be.
The question continued to haunt me. “Why?”- is what I asked myself every
Sunday morning as I drove to “church.” For a whole year the depression would hit me each Saturday night, as I anticipated the church service the next day. What was happening to me? Something was wrong. My belief in what I was doing was diminishing. I guess I was feeling many different things at the time. As the “pastor,” I was under a tremendous pressure to make things happen. I hated the feeling that I was a performer. No matter how much I preached about that all believers were ministers, I was fighting against hundreds of years of tradition that said otherwise. It was bigger than me. I also felt that the people that I was leading didn’t need anymore “feeding.”
There comes a time when believers should mature to a point where they are able to feed themselves and others in need. We know so much today. Why are so many Christians staying in infancy? I also came to the realization that I was lonely behind the walls of the church, and had no friends outside those walls. What I was doing was completely
irrelevant to the people in our culture, especially to the emerging generations.
Do you know what I’m talking about? Don’t you feel like there is something
wrong? Our culture seems to have a problem with “institutional religion.” Do they see something we are not seeing?
ORGANIC?
It was in this time of extreme dissatisfaction that I began searching the gospels and the book of Acts to see if what I was doing matched up with what Jesus did. As a result, I got more depressed, yet not without hope. I longed for what I read in those pages of Scripture. There was another pressing question that drove my quest for an authentic expression of church for me: “Which church did Jesus go to?” Have you ever
asked yourself that question? It seems like Jesus’ church was the gang that hung out with Him, and they gathered in a house, or by the sea, or in the desert, or wherever they happened to be. Jesus did not start a religion or an organization. He lived a lifestyle in the context of community and mission. The word radical is a Latin based word that means “to get back to the root.” The church Jesus started looked very different to what we call “church” today. I believe God was leading me back to this.
My journey over these last several years has taken me from an organized
expression of Christianity to an organic one. I would like to give you a primitive definition of what I mean when I say the “organic” church. I say “primitive” because the rest of the book will complete the picture. You might want to look up the word “organic” in the dictionary. If you do, you will discover that this word describes things that relate or belong to the class of chemical compounds that have a carbon base. This is important because only living things have a carbon base. Therefore, organic is the word for “life,” right down to the chemical construction. If it’s organic, it is alive or the product of something that’s alive. The church is a living, breathing entity. It is the body of Jesus.
Organic can also refer to something being clean of any synthetic chemicals or injected additives. This is what we mean when we say organic food. It is clean, simple, healthy, and close to nature. Unfortunately, many of our churches cannot be described this way. They have been injected with synthetic material, man-made toxic compounds of the carnal nature. What we traditionally call “church” is often two entities, a blend of mechanical
and biological elements held together by a form of fusion. There are two churches, the institutional church and the organic church. The picture that I see is that of a living plant intertwined with a lifeless silk plant. The silk plant looks real, but it is not alive and doesn’t produce fruit. It is the inorganic, fake plant that is falsely called the church.
It may be an organization of the church, but not the church itself. The question arises, “Is this organization perfectly suited to fulfill the basic mandate of Christ’s ministry on earth?” Furthermore, all too often we see that the mechanical parts inevitably only restrict and repress the genuine life of the organic members.
In my experience, I loved being with God’s people. But there was something else interfering with our relationships and life together. This subtle, but very powerful system of values and practices does not seem to have its root in Jesus. I often use the following words synonymously (sometimes humorously), to describe this hindrance: institutional church, organized church, the religious system, the system, the corporate
machine, the monster, the building, the matrix. Periodically, I will make statements that question the legitimacy of “church.” When this happens, please know that I am not referring to the true church, made up of all believers in Christ, but to the organization typically called “church.”
So, how would I define “the building”? What is it exactly that Jesus is
supposedly walking away from? Well, you might be dealing with an institutional understanding if you maintain or accept the following ideas about “church:”
• it’s somewhere you go
• it happens on a special day of the week
• you have a professional to tell you what to do
• all it requires of you is attendance and fees paid
• there exists a hierarchical command structure
• meetings come before people
• it has committees
• it has programs
• it has a corporate vision
• it has a corporate name
• it segregates itself from other believers
• it is more concerned with structure than content
• quality is sacrificed for quantity
I risk being quite easily misunderstood. You may think that I am against
structure. However, that is not what I’m trying to communicate. Structure is a characteristic of life itself. To remove structure is to bypass productivity altogether.
Our bodies wouldn’t be able to do anything if it were not for the delicate balance of our skeletal and muscular systems. We would literally be a blob on the floor, not capable of activity necessary in keeping us alive. However, are the structures we customarily call “church” appropriately designated?
Structure is only an extension of function. What we envision and value will
dictate the nature of how we organize our activities. This book attempts to look deeper into God’s heart for the church, and will by implication uncover where perhaps we have strayed from the original design. Church as we know it today looks extremely different from what it was in the beginning. But things are changing.
Structure will change only because that which needs to be contained is
something brand new. Whenever you have new wine, as Jesus put it, you must put it into a new wineskin. Christianity, as we know it, is morphing and its appearance will be a reality that we haven’t seen in a long time, perhaps two thousand years.
Now I probably really have your attention. Trust me, if you continue with me on this ride, you won’t believe where we’re going. Jesus is the one leading the way.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Scrupe said,
D - Down
O - On
R - Religious
K - Knuckleheadedness
?????
April 11th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Thanks, Tom. ‘Scrupe, you suck.
As for Mr. Viera, I find the passage you posted very perplexing, Tom, because of how much he pimped his book via email while writing it and after its release. He emailed me so many “buy at a discount” offers that I finally asked him to remove me from his mailing list. I tried to strike up a little dialog, because his book “Jesus has left the building” had that Elvis flavor to it, I had written as much in my own writings, and even wrote that Elvis spoof song “Just One King”. As I recall, he wasn’t interested in dialog at all, just pimping his book.
In my view, Paul may have been directed to let his OLD IC ministry die, but he’s just replaced it with his book and speaking ministry now, and clearly from the text you posted, there’s an element of riding on the waves of his former IC success.
I know several brothers who have written the same basic message, but without all the fanfare, book hype, fire sales, speaking engagements. The need to be someone in ‘ministry’ is still alive and well in old Paul. And for that reason, I can’t read / receive what he has to say, because his conduct seems to contradict his message. (Probably true for all of us, right ‘Scrupe?)
Jack
April 11th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Good observation John444 !
I have to agree with you for sure. Coming out of the system is one thing…getting the system out of us…is quite another. I think Paul is in the early stages of coming out, has seen some of the early revelation that so many of us have seen, and is writing and marketing it. My confidence in Jesus, is that if Paul continues his “coming out” the Lord will show him the error of marketing, and “my ministry is a business,” and all that junk will get flushed out of his system. If not…then, oh well…just another house churcher who is developing a smaller version of the larger IC he says he’s come out of. Let’s hope he doesn’t stop coming out.
I liked some of what he had to say, because it rings true with so many who are hearing the same thing, but I don’t like marketing of ministry as a business, soooo thanks for reminding all of us to complete the “coming out” journey.
Tom