Sowing seed and church emergence

Was Paul a church planter?

I don't think so.

Heresy? No. If we look at the pattern in scripture, Paul preached Christ. He went to a new city, and he and any partner taught and discussed Jesus. There is no scriptural proof to any claim that he started churches. He taught about Jesus, then left town after leaving that foundation. ONLY on return trips did he do anything with structure - and an open honest reading of the scripture would seem to say he recognized the structure that emerged, not set it up.

So he taught Jesus, left the disciples to their own, then returned to see how they were doing and recognize the structure that grow up.

And speaking of that ...

The Structure

What was the structure of the early church?

Does it matter?

If Jesus builds his church, is it our concern? If the early pattern was to simply be disciples in community, what emerges would be what He wants, wouldn't it?

This thought, and the growing ramifications of it, have been on my mind more and more. The conflict with it was all the thoughts of what we see in Paul's letters of structure, and a background in the descendants of the Restoration Movement (a frontier faith movement from the time when the frontier of the U.S. was Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, etc.)

But reading yet another church's website on trying to be "culturally relevant" made me pause: what if what Paul (and to some extent, Peter) was what would be expected of the church where and when they saw the seed of Jesus was planted. Some quick research and recollection of studies of the synagogues of Jesus time confirmed my suspicions.

The synagogues were overseen by councils of elders, much like the elders oversaw the communities Paul and Peter ministered to. Since the early churches emerged initially alongside Jewish synagogues, it would make sense that the church reflected (in a neutral way) the culture the seed of Jesus was planted in.

Where the church has in the past broken free from the restrictions of "doing it like them over there" or "them back then", we see similar patterns emerge. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, resembles the Roman Empire a lot, right or wrong (the way it sets up a hierarchy between Jesus and "the royal priesthood of believers" is an issue, for example). Instead of an emperor, one has a pope; instead of regional governors, cardinals; instead of local heads, bishops; etc. This pattern of reflecting predominant cultural elements continues to the modern day "non-denominational" churches reflecting modern business - the CEO is the senior pastor, any associate pastors are the vice presidents, there is a board of directors (sometimes called the board of elders for churches), etc.

So this concept is not new to even institutional churches, though I would argue (and have) that their implementation has strayed from some fundamental principles of following Christ with the dichotomy of "professional class" Christians and the laity.

So if we were to accept that what we see in the epistles is a reflection of what the church emerges as from the seed of Jesus in the first century, what does it look like today?

I think there are literally hundreds if not thousands of answers to that, one for each culture in the world. The key is freeing ourselves of being like what we've seen in the past in order to be free for what Jesus wants to build among our community.

I think it begins by not "rushing" to form "something" because we feel "disobedient" for not having "church". Church, in the truest sense, is community. It is community that encourages and equips one another. We all have contributions to that. It doesn't have to be formal gatherings, though it may include that. It doesn't need to rush to find leaders (as Jesus is the head anyway). Just as Paul didn't anoint leaders on his first trip anywhere he went. It doesn't require a formal staff, a building or the trappings that require balancing budgets or capital campaigns.

We've lost something in our rush to "plant" churches. We've discovered churchianity when we rush to form a church, rather than finding Jesus Christ.

Community

Think free of church as you've known it. What has your circle of friends, your communities, looked like? Maybe that's what the seed of Jesus planted in your arena looks like as church.

Mere Churchianity

What would it be like if Christianity were about Christ?

Nice question by the late Michael Spencer. http://multnomahemails.com/wbmlt/pdf/SneakPeek_Mere%20Churchianity.pdf

washing the inside of the cup

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

What was Jesus speaking of in terms of washing the inside and the outside of the cup? The Pharisees had put an emphasis on outside appearances, on moral behavior and looking right. They had rules and regulations on top of rules and regulations all in order to appear "godly".

It was all with a big emphasis to look moral and upright.

Sound familiar?

Dallas Willard refers to the modern day versions as a "gospel of sin management". It is all about controlling behavior through outside forces. Accountability, attendance, all the going through the motions of systems.

A few moments before the cup analogy, Jesus noted that everything the Pharisees did was "done for men to see". This gives us a great insight to what Jesus meant by washing the outside. Accountability relies on holding someone to a standard by observing what we can see in them. How does that not encourage doing for others to see?

It's amazing how so many have been duped by outside the cup washing. One young man in a facebook discussion told me how he needed "accountability" in order to keep to worshiping God. He needed the outside pressure to make sure he attended church. huh? In the same conversation, a pastor said he needed his congregation to keep him accountable. How, will someone explain to me, is this not washing the outside of the cup?

Jesus is recorded in Luke 4 as saying he came to give freedom, to free us from oppression. A system that enforces "morality" and "behavior" by a system is counter to what he was speaking of. Accountability and other systems are ultimately oppression, a removal of freedom. Transformation must come from the inside. From relationship with God. From walking with the most holy. From healing, not behavior modification and discipline programs.

Ready, Set, Go

(link) This entry at Free Believers Network awhile back got me thinking a bit about why I haven't blogged much lately. I think it is in part due to how in part I've moved on, but I also kind of focused this blog in another direction than I moved.

Like the author of that piece who got branded on relationships and wasn't allowed to speak elsewhere, I've let myself self-brand this blog in a direction, but my thoughts have been in another. Yet that's no reason to limit it. I let the idea of "restoring heart" be limited to trying to break the bonds that the institutionalism that crept into expression of church brought with it. That's limiting. It doesn't cast a view of alternatives, of hope, of what freedom means.

I also note that I slowed down in blogging drastically around the end of October. Interestingly, that coincides with a few events in November. One was returning to a Gary Barkalow event on finding one's calling. I did this as a refresher; I originally did one in December of 2006. Great freedom in these (for more on Gary's ministry, visit http://www.thenobleheart.com). At this event, I met some who've found freedom from the bonds so often imposed by institutional forms of church, some despite still being involved in institutional forms, as well as others who've walked away from it. There was one younger man who was a former associate pastor who had found his freedom from institutionalism. Others intrigued by the concept of freedom we experienced, but didn't quite get what the alternative looks like. They felt interested, but couldn't see what they were walking toward.

Then in early December, I had some couples over to my house. Couple of couples actually. One pair were intrigued by the concepts of freedom we discussed. Another was simply trapped. This other couple was actually accusative, claiming that without offering people a "church", one doesn't love people. They just couldn't see this is about offering God without the intermediary.

All this is to say, it set me to thinking about how do you get men and women to see church as something God builds, not something we "plant", not something we strategize about on God's behalf. I find it refreshing that the younger generation, and those who work closely with 20 somethings, see this so easily, but the older generations don't. The younger who remain faithful can take or leave the institutional trappings so easily. Yet there are fewer and fewer of that generation who remain faithful, or who ever become faithful, burned by institutionalistic trappings. How can we ever simply present Jesus, without imposing what church looks like?

It is interesting that really, if we look at the first century church in a more chronological fashion, they presented Jesus, crucified, buried and resurrected, first. They presented to non-religious folks a Jesus who accepted before he called for repentence. Jesus came first. We see the churches that arose, and speak of Paul and his like as church planters. But they were no such thing. They preached Jesus. They fostered community among those who accepted the offer and promises of Jesus. And Paul - on return trips - recognized what was already present. No appointment of "pastors" upfront. If one examines the "qualifications" of elders and deacons in context, Paul was speaking of recognizing the leaders and servants already there. They didn't step into the role; Paul recognized the role they were already performing. Community/church arose organically - the apostles merely identified and recognized what God had done.

This is the challenge we need. To step back, simply love and disciple, and let community arise. We need no grand plan. Jesus presented none. Peter, Paul, and the rest didn't either. They merely loved, accepted, and preached Jesus. They recognized and identified the work God did from there.

So, I think I want to speak more of a vision of God. An old one. The true one. Not a God that one gets to through a professional class, or through an institution, but rather a God one relates to directly, and a church that forms when walking in the footsteps of Jesus. That's not to say I won't ever speak against the trappings of institutionalism. Sometimes, some need to be riled up. As Michael Douglas recently said, a man needs to be able "to see the absurdity of [a] situation, which ultimately allows you to solve it" (Men's Journal, May 2010 issue). In order for me to fully comprehend it myself, I've given some thought of writing these words in a book form, to organize it. If I do this, much if not all will find its way into the pages of this blog.

This blog "reposts" to my facebook page. If you read this there, I invite you to come comment at the original posting at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/. Links, pictures, formatting etc often get lost when they get reposted on facebook.