The trouble with words: "reforming" the church

"Reforming the church"

Isn't that more of the same of what's wrong? If the problem with the church is an inordinate focus on the church, rather than Jesus Christ, how is an additional focus on the church via "reformation" going to solve the problem?

I like Jesus' comment to Peter at the end of John's gospel where he essentially gives Peter the MYOB lecture, with, "What is that to you? You just follow me."

What is "reforming the church" to me? I think if we follow Jesus, imitate Jesus, emulate Jesus, etc. that the reformation will take care of itself one life at a time.

This was a comment to Monday's blogcast, and I thought I'd respond to it as the more I thought of it, the longer it got.

Reforming is a poor word that has gotten watered down in use. Reform is to "re-form", or rather, to form again. But how often is reformation a tearing down from the start? Luther certainly didn't "reform" the church. What he did was the equivalent of giving a car a tuneup. He may have changed some spark plugs, messed with the timing, but he didn't reform the car.

No, the last reforming that happened to the church was in the 4th century. We got the institutionalism of the sermon, we got the building formalized into the "traditions" category, we got the separation of clergy and laity - a step back to imitate the old covenant priest system that Jesus eliminated, and a bunch of other reformations. We went from participatory gatherings for the purpose of encouraging one another and spurring on to love and good deeds to the "Show" that gets labeled worship. Hmmm, worship in the new covenant was clearly described as service to God, not a service for God's entertainment.

Ok, I've ranted in this blog before about that. But the answer is not the MYOB, you follow God your way, I'll do it my way that so many are tempted to practice either. Scripture is clear that we are in this together. One does not journey alone. There are too many one anothers; there is mentions of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (and few who wear any of those titles are that in the biblical sense) given to the church; and much more.

What should the church look like? The problem with answering that is that Jesus did say he will build his church -- it isn't my job. So while recognizing "church" as it is isn't what God intended is one thing, to "cast a vision" of what it should be like is probably just as wrong. And what it looks for one set of people in one locale in one culture in one time in history is probably fairly unique. We get too much cookie-cutter in churches, which I believe feeds the largest reason 80% of church plants die in the first couple of years -- we follow someone else's pattern rather than listening to the Holy Spirit. Our churches are man-made, not God made. How many times did the Israelites use the "Jericho" method for conquering a portion of the land God told them to take? Once. What about that Gideon strategy that works so well, with the trumpets and the torches in jars? Wildly successful, used only once. Again and again, yet why do so many say "looked, God blessed it when they did that way, we'll do the same". Umm, would read your Bible? GOD DOESN'T DO THE SAME THINGS THE SAME WAY TWICE.

No, reformation of the church is less about structures and methods, and about process. We need to be communities that listen to God and let God form us. In the first century, those communities seem to be centered and organized geographically, but nothing in scripture seems to bind us to that. We have the benefit of faster transportation, so for one person their church may be organized by whose their neighbor, for another God leads them to community by common ministry passions, another is around a recreational passion. With phones and the internet, others may find their church almost virtually. The process, follow God, follow the Holy Spirit, and let Jesus form our churches.

Another thing on that process -- I don't believe God intends for one church to function independent of another -- not talking a hierarchy, but rather -- to use a modern concept reflected in the ancient -- a network. Evidence suggests that in the late 1st century to late 3rd century, there might be a church that meets in one home in one city, but the churches in the homes together were the church in that city. Somehow, they were interdependent -- the home church was a cell in the greater body of the church in that city. Again, should that be our model ... maybe not around geography again -- modern technology has allowed the geography barriers to fall, so we again need to listen to the Holy Spirit about what to do in this day and age and our cultures.

So, to return to Monday's "blogcast", IF God has placed a desire in my heart about "church reformation", it is about being a leadership role in this reformation of process of forming and being the church. To hell with those stodgy institutions whose purpose seems more tied in perpetuating themselves and "a system" than following God.