The New Populism

Matt Bai notes (according to a Michael Medved opinion piece in USA Today on August 5th) that there is an underlying shift in American Populism. Traditionally, it's been about the struggling worker vs. his corporate master. But the threat today isn't the corporate master, but those creations used to "check" the corporate master. In the point of the piece, that was questioning government, as populism is shifting to "the individual vs the institution, not only in business but also government and large media and elite universities ...".

I think Bai missed one. The institutional forms of churches.

It is interesting to view what Barna has referred to as the "Revolution" in these terms. The new populism. I actually like that as a way of relating it to others. It is only when we think of it in that way will some get that in their efforts to "recreate" church to appeal, they're not getting to the roots of the issue. Some will not trust the church and its pastors/staff/leaders any more than they trust corporations, elite universities, or government leaders. Just as people in such new populism movements as the "Tea Party" don't trust the institutions to reform themselves, they won't trust the church.

There is only one these new populism disciples trust. Jesus.

It is time for the church as it is understood to get out of the way and let people connect to Christ. The failed human methodology of connecting people to a man made church as a means of connecting to God needs to go (you know it  -- invite people to church or church events and will take it from there mentality). It is time to get back to the biblical approach - connect people to Jesus Christ then let community form where Christ then goes. The church has never made disciples, only members. Disciples make disciples.

Viva the new populism.

Originally posted at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-populism.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a note - I've decided to create some posts that provide some more back drop on Part I of "out of the matrix" - at least two, and the part II promised. Call it Part Ia and Part Ib. Not sure what order they will come out - but the first one will be in the next couple of days).

Out of the Matrix, Part I

More than two years ago, I wrote this blog post called The Red Pill:

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth."

"what truth?"

"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind."
So states Morpheus in a famous scene from The Matrix. After opening a small silver box and pulling two pills from it, Morpheus continues.

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

and Neo takes the red pill.

But before the pills decision, Neo faced another choice. Kidnapped, Neo is offered the chance to leave, but Trinity asks him to trust. Neo asks why he should. Looking down a street being pounded by rain, Trinity says "Because you have been down there, Neo. You know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be".

slowly Neo gets back in the car.

Looking down the road of conventional church in America, you are looking down a soggy street. How compelling is it, really? More vision statements, shows called worship, building and capital fund raisers. Is this really what Jesus died for?

You read the New Testament, the account of Acts especially, and wonder why the conventional church pales so in comparison. You hear stories of the church in China, India, and underground in Muslim nations, and wonder at the power. Why not here, where you are?

to adapt what Morpheus says at one point in the movie "Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. There is something wrong with the church. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind"

Lately, I’ve thought on how I can relate to those who accuse me of being “wounded” when I discuss with them the many ideas I’ve expressed in this blog. They are quick to dismiss those who take these stances. I thought the way to do it is to tell my story, to tell how the splinter rose in my mind, while at the same time, refuting this “wounded” talk.

In the beginning

Ok, a bit pretentious, but to start …

My family was the “Sunday” only church types only. Typically went, but only for “service” on Sunday AM. My dad had been raised among the Southern Baptists, my mom with “church of Christ”. Around 1977, shortly after moving to a small town in Florida, that switched. We were befriended by a church of Christ minister, who doubled as a Red Cross water instructor, as well as volunteering as a Boy Scout Scoutmaster. In short order, we were the “every time the doors were open” types.

For those not familiar with coC, it is one of the most heavily “bible study” bible only types of churches you will find. I remember in college at Florida State going to a leadership luncheon for denominational college outreach ministries, and our table of coCers had all but one raise their hand when asked “who’s read the entire Bible?”. The only other hands up in the place belonged to the “professionals” and one other. And the bible may be a two edged sword, but in the hands of the coC, it can be a club as well. And I wielded that club myself at times.

The coC would pound you with biblical reasons for everything it does. But thanks to a coC preacher who was a bit more open minded taught me to challenge the “party line” to verify it. The more I read (I’ve read the bible cover to cover probably more than 25 times in a dozen translations, and the NT more than 40 times), the “splinters” arose. This is the roots of much of my challenging you’ve read in this blog. I am in part a creation of the form of corporate church referred to as the “church of Christ”. At first this lead to a more ecumenical approach to spiritual life. Other than some questions about the whole “Sunday service” thing, it was all challenging of the coC. But I did stay with the CoC, just less judgmental and with more grace.


“Model” citizen of the corporate church

In a lot of ways, I was the model corporate disciple. Once a settled married man with a permanent job, I threw myself in being a good “Christian”, in that corporate sense. Substitute Sunday school teach for adults (did it for high schoolers for the summer while in college), benevolence committee, small group leader, on my way to being a deacon. That church suffered one of those “grow our church” v. “grow the kingdom” “splits”, and we left to be a part of a church start. I was soon on the leadership board of that church (this time a non-affiliated church).

Northeast was a great church (may still be, but since I can't testify first hand of the current state …). The attitude was in growing disciples, including freeing them to serve as God made them. My role there was very much as a coach. I had oversight in benevolence, and if someone wanted to do something in those areas, I had the role of equipping and encouraging. We saw tremendous growth in disciples by freeing them to be who God called them to be, rather than being cogs in the machinery of another’s vision.

North Carolina

A job change led to a move, and in North Carolina, ended up with a non-denom church type of place, about a year and half old place meeting in a movie theatre. Attitude on serving was everyone was to serve in the way God gave them vision for first, but also in a way that helped corporately (no one is envisioned with the mission of “sweeping” – but it has got to be done). I was given the room to gather some men and cast a vision for men’s ministry. Great attitude by the pastors in the whole thing. It was really the first sort of large ministry not started by the pastors, so it was a learning curve for the church as we lived out the value of letting people serve as God led, not as pastors envision.

Maryland

Little did I know that this was a pair of rare experiences. Unemployment led to a move to where jobs were (Maryland). Tried a large non-denom with three services first. Seemed promising, but there were a lot of growing pains being experienced by that church, and other issues, so after six months we tried again elsewhere. Stayed at the second church for three years. It seemed open at first to those with their own visions, but that turned out to be in words. We saw that church grow more and more bureaucratic, more and more ministry controlled by the staff instead of freeing the people to live out how God plants vision in the lives of his people.

For reasons other than churches, we decided not to stay in MD long term. Just wasn’t “us” to be there. But while we left for Colorado, we would have left that church anyway. Partly I had bucked hard against the shackles for long enough, partly all our closest friends there were “deserting ship” as a new pastor came in and cast a new “vision” for the church. Kind of sad, as the church had an incredible mix of slightly conservative (politically and in “faith” values/beliefs) to quite liberal; this allowed for quite invigorating discussions in a “safe” manner. But in the “new vision” process, there was quite the shift toward liberal, and the openness kind of died. It became more of a toe the line sort of place. Despite the lack of freedom to serve, it was a time of growth.


The start in Colorado

So we ended up in Colorado. And we were checking out churches again. Must have visited a dozen or more. Talked to others about theirs. It seemed each one I visited the entire conversation with anyone was about a marketing survey. You know, ‘is this your first time?’ and then when you answered yes, it was ‘how did you hear about us?’ (that is, what of our advertising/marketing worked). That’s if anyone talked to you.

Then there was the church that had you doing the typical staring at the back of heads, with the irony of the sermon being on how we are a family. Understand, this was a church of about 25 people, in a room with folding chairs. We could have turned this into a circle easily, but got to have those rows of chairs. Finally gave up looking at corporate churches, aka institutional churches.

Part of the reason for giving up was a growing of one of those initial splinters of the mind. I alluded to before in mentioning the whole "Sunday service" thing. In "verifying" what the coC was trying to teach, I looked hard at what New Testament church worship services looked like. And couldn't validate it from scripture. You have to look Old Testament to find anything resembling it. The first century seemed to gather to "encourage and spur one another to love and good deeds". The gatherings, other than when a (visiting) apostle was in town, seemed more like a family gathering. Yet modern churches center around a scripted praise service. As Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost observed, it seems centered around making Jesus admirers, not Jesus followers. And another aspect is this feeding of a corporate (aka pastor) vision rather than the equipping of the saints for the work they find.

In part two (assuming only two parts), I’ll talk of the “detox” from the church culture, the false alternative of many “organic” churches (not all – there is much good there), discussions with those of like mind and experiences, detail some of the most disturbing "splinters", etc.

Originally posted at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/07/out-of-matrix-part-i.html

Embedding is blocked on this version (do watch it!) but here is one I can embed:



I think it has a lot of why I don't go to traditional church anymore embedded into this song. I think of singing it to the institutional church. .

What is the church to be?

For regular blog readers, I feel like I almost should be apologetic with the stuck themes here. It's just something that is stuck like a bad song in my mind.

It's hard to argue with what people say the church should be, but I do anyway. It is amazing how little is said in scripture about the purpose of the church, but so many do impose a belief on it. Some common ones:

A vehicle for spreading the gospel. Absolutely no scriptural basis for this. The early church commonly hid its gatherings, and carefully screened those who came before they came, due to the persecution common the first few centuries of the existence of the movement of Christ. The whole "seeker friendly" modern concepts would be foreign to the first century Christian. One did not bring them to church to convert them; one introduced the new disciple to the church.

When Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Antioch church - they weren't funded by them, the church in Antioch did not set up the tour, etc. They laid hands and sent them out. They had before hand perhaps did some training, then just sent them. No program, no infrastructure. They equipped them, encouraged them, and sent them on their way. Paul wrote of accepting no money - he was a tentmaker where he went.

The result of such thought makes Amway representatives. Not well rounded disciples. Such an approach results in a church which is considered a failure if it is not growing numerically, or seeing numeric growth in some way if the focus is in making "disciples" over there, where ever over there is.

The church is a place of healing - a hospital for sinners. Very common thought. Also no basis in scripture. It is another case of how examples or commands in scripture to disciples get cast off to the "church", which then makes a "program" to handle the issue/concern/command.

The result of such thought makes a place that doesn't expect or at least not welcome the "healthy". If healing happens, suddenly there is no point for a person to be there. It is as if we do not expect healing to occur if this is how we define church.

The church is a place of worship. Scripture never mentions that the church ever gathered for worship. I'm not counting those "headers" injected into most translations around I Corinthians 14. No, the church is said to have gathered for "encouraging and exhorting one another" or "to spur one another on to love and good deeds". Worship produces Jesus admirers, not Jesus disciples.

The church is a gathering for us to learn about God.
A variation on the church as an evangelical tool. Interesting history on this one - it is a perception of the church that emerged about the time the Bible became readily available for the masses due to the printing press. Knowledge replaced discipleship. Knowing replaced doing.


The church is a humanitarian organization. (or a place to impact the world, or that sort of thing). Closer I think, but still not too well grounded in scripture. The result is a place of goody-goody people at best. A reaction in the wrong direction from the knowledge emphasis crowd so dominate in Christian society.

What is it that the church should be, then? Scripturally, we see the church gathering as a community, not a sit down and shut up and follow the clergy. We see Paul instructing on the gatherings being centered on being a community and equipping one another. It's not about a vision for the church - the church had its vision and lost it. It's vision is to be a community of believers seeking to be Christs - the original meaning of "Christian" was "little Christ". Christ listened to the Father for his mission, not a pastor, not a church board. The early church, from what we could tell, commissioned the called to the work they were called to, not recruited its members to those programs the leaders were called to "lead". The leaders were servants, they were ones called to equip.

A church following its commission is one that equips its members for what they are called to. Not letting a clergy class define what the church is called to and recruiting to those programs.

Environments

Remember, churches produce church members.

Recently I was watching some Andy Stanley sermon video. Normally I don't do that sort of thing, but it came to my attention with its intriguing promo. Talk about bait and switch. Stanley was talking about why his church does the things it does, in the way it does. It was all about introducing "seekers" to Jesus Christ, by creating environments with the church for people to get involved with Christians or to "experience" faith first hand - try it on in other words.

This is a buy-in to the myth that the purpose of any church involves making disciples. But churches make church members, disciples make disciples. Biblically, a church is simply a community of disciples who encourage and equip one another. The disciples do the work, not serve as volunteers for church programs. The disciples are to answer the call of God, not the assignment to a church function. The environments that a church creates are ones to spur its members on to love and good deeds. The church of today has assumed the role of the disciples. The church is to be about equipping, not doing.

What we commonly see is churches whose leaders turn this on its ear, who talk like a business - we pool resources to maximize impact. They justify taking over the roles meant to be born by disciples for various 'efficiencies' reasons. Or in older line churches, it's about not trusting the laity, but bringing in the 'professionals'. But maximum impact is not made by programs, but by relationships. Relationships are not between a church and someone, but between two someones.

Church leaders who are interested in evangelism shouldn't come up with programs, but equip and encourage the disciples among their membership. They should get out of the way, at best facilitating ways for the disciples to interact meaningfully with their neighbors, which probably means just cutting back on the programs so disciples have time to be neighbors, co-workers, and/or friends.

The method is the message/Going to church to learn about God heresy

On Sunday we visited an institutional/traditional church for the first time in some time. I've been led by God to think in terms of making an impact, so trying a little "this Lord" asking in prayer and action, and seeing how God responds to see where.

My son decided to go off to Sunday School, bored with the main service (funny how it's called a "service" when no service happens). And he got even more bored.

I'm sure the teacher was well-intentioned, but she had the chairs lined up like a classroom, all facing forward to her. Since it was this church's first service in a new location, with them moving from two services to one in the larger facility, she introduced them all to each other and welcomed visitors (Sit down, shut up, I'll do the talking). And there was only 7 kids! Seven kids and the class is lined up in rows. She proceeded with a lesson, and my understanding is all the kids were obviously bored out of their gourds. The method was teaching these kids that church is a boring place of learning. My son said later that the whole experience was more boring than the most boring time he's had at school!

Somewhere along the line, this attitude that "church is where we go to learn about God" crept in. A totally unbiblical concept. For one, church is a community, not a location or event. We do not go to it, we are it. Second, church is not for learning about God -- the Great Commission was issued to disciples, and it is disciples who teach others. Church is for community, for encouraging one another to love and good deeds. Church is not a place to distribute knowledge. Early church history shows us that sermons weren't "popular" until the late 3rd century, and barely known beyond an out of town apostle visiting or a need to address a special issue until the late second century. For centuries, people were taught about God then joined into the community, not the other way around.

I'm convinced that the reason so many people are flooding out the back door of churches, that there is so much church hopping, that as Reggie McNeal says "[people] are not leaving the church because they have lost their faith. They are leaving to preserve their faith" is in fact this heresy that the church is a place you go to learn about God. The teaching always ends up at the same level at a given church - to the new believer, or an intermediate one. Once someone has heard what one church teaches or emphasizes, after some time you've got to move on to grow. Thus the church hopping. The believer who has been caught up in the knowledge myth then eventually finds no place to go, unless they rise to a place of power and finds a way to fire a preacher in order to hire a new one. It's been there, learned there, bought the T-shirt.

Rethinking church planting

The Great Commission commands us to teach the nations (disciple all nations). But what does scripture mean by "nation".

It's always good to question the meanings of words we find in scripture - they are translated from another language after all, and sometimes for the flow of a passage a word rather than a descriptive phrase is given as a translation, to keep the translation from sounding awkward. Sometimes another word is given just to prevent it from sounding "weird" - for instance, baptism is a transliteration rather than a translation, it actually means "burial" or dipping.

Others, like the word "nation", is generally first thought of in other meanings, and thus often a bad word for the translation, but remains due to tradition or other reasons. The Greek word translated "nation" most commonly from Matthew 28:19 is the same word that we get the word "ethnic" from. It is actually a word that can translated "people-group" or "culture" or "subculture". And perhaps the latter choice is more appropriate in today's world in order to convey the original meaning to modern readers.

Thinking in these lines, imagine what it means to modern missionology. Today's society with its lack of unifying elements has splintered to thousands of subcultures, all spurned on by hundreds of entertainment options many catering to smaller and smaller niches, with the internet spurring even smaller subcultures. According to the new book The Rabbit and the Elephant: Why Small Is the New Big for Today's Church by Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna, the University of Texas (Austin) consists of over 1000 subcultures - over a thousand little "nations", meaning each averages less than 50 members.

I see two ramifications of such a view of "nation" - first, mission work becomes as much a domestic issue as one for overseas. Taking the case of the University of Texas and extrapolating to the whole of the United States, that could mean between that the US is a "nation" of hundreds of thousands to millions of "nations". Reaching those little subcultures is a herculean task without God, and forces us to rethink missions.

Second of all, think of the size that means to the average "church". To reach each of those little nations at the University of Texas, for most you are talking at reaching populations less than 50 each, and its easy to see that many would be less than 20. To form churches within those "nations", most churches are going to have a max possible size of less than 50.

God's call is not to make a nations of disciples, but rather make disciples of nations. Yet most mission techniques and approaches we have inherited from previous generations are in effect requiring us to take on the near impossible task of making nations of disciples to reach every nation. These approaches that involve making churches that support vast infrastructures involving paid pastors, etc invariable require us to pull disciples out of nations to form a new nation, to change their culture.

Would it not be better to redeem these cultures, to form churches within them, training up these smaller churches to reach those cultures close to them and forming other small churches within those cultures? Would it not be better missionology to think small? To make disciples within new cultures, and leave them in those cultures to make other disciples?

I think it would. But I still wonder what it would look like in detail and what it means to me to think this way.

Someone explain to me this ...

I have a hard time understanding denominationalism as it is traditionally practiced.

Maybe it is because I grew up with and as an adult always attended independent churches - ones where the line of earth bound authority ended locally, within the congregation ... though I did attend a church plant once were there was a oversight board consisting of several about the country. But once a local board of elders was established, that oversight board was abolished.

If "our method is the message", then traditional denomination practice is sending a message contradictory to the Bible. Clearly, with the temple curtain torn with the cross, the barrier of a priesthood between God and the common man is gone. Hebrews explains as much. Peter expresses it as "the priesthood of all believers". We approach Jesus directly, and his Holy Spirit is our guide and counselor. The New Testament is clear - there is no mediator between God and the common man anymore other than Jesus. The priesthood as being separate from all believers is dead.

But the method of denominationalism seems to contradict. Decisions locally are limited, and direction is typically from another city, another state, or even another continent. There are layers of hierarchies and intermediates. The message is that the common man is not to be trusted to hear God - and for that matter, neither is the local pastor in "important matters".

The message of this method seems to so contradict the work of Christ. What am I missing in this equation?

How churches can facilitate growing disciples

In 2004 (according to Skye Jenathi in Divine Commodity - I thought it was more recent), the "flagship" of megachurches Willow Creek CC near Chicago got back the results of a study commissioned to look at the effectiveness of their ministry. Their philosophy had been to create a variety of programs and services for people to participate in, with the belief that frequent participation would produce disciples - as characterized by increasing love for God and other people.

In other words, do institutions produce disciples? Can programs ignite love? The study encompassed the 15000 member Willow Creek and 25 other churches that use similar strategies.

The answer was a resounding no.

What did they find that did work?

Personal Bible reading, prayer and meditation, meaningful relationship with a friend or mentor, and serving others.

Of that list, the first half of the list is best learned to be done in the context of a meaningful relationship with a mentor, not a program. The last one, probably can be done in a "program" but finding one's best spot to serve is from my experience best done with a mentor or friend to bounce things off with.

Why do so many hate going to church? It's just frustrating wanting to grow and with church programs and services all focused on the wrong things, it consumes time away from productive growth time.

Churches, IMO, would best serve and reach out through more "match-making" like activities, so men and women can find those meaningful relationships. Church's role should be to foster relationship. Willow Creek was not the first to discover that fostering knowledge or how-tos is not effective in producing disciples. We can hope they are the last.

Leadership

Alan Hirsch had some interesting thoughts this week in his blog (see here)

In the swirling world of living systems thinking there are comparison of two types of leadership: between what is called operational and adaptive leadership. Essentially, operational leadership is suited for organizations that are in relatively stable environments where maintenance and development of current programming is the core tasks of leadership. This form of leadership is built on the assumptions of social engineering and is thus built squarely on a more 'mechanistic' view of the world. And it does work, and is entirely appropriate for some organizations. Adaptive leadership on the other hand, is the type of leader who develops learning organizations and manages to help the organization transition into different forms or expression where agility, responsiveness, innovation and entrepreneurship are needed. Adaptive leaders are needed in times of significant threat or considerable new opportunity, or both. This has direct relevance to our situation at the dawn of the 21st century.

I'm going to disagree a bit on that last statement - I think the church should have always had adaptive leadership - but we settled for operational leadership. I will agree, however, that it is more crucial than ever to have bold new leadership that is adaptive. We need leadership that is equipping, the primary characteristic of adaptive leadership I believe, rather than commanding and authoritative. We need leadership that shows the way, rather than leadership that maintains and preserves.

Jesus said he who tries to save his life will lose it. I think that is true today of the church, that the church leaders who try to save the church as they know it will lose the church altogether ...

Freedom

This was a great thing I saw online:

.. the speaker mentions some things essential to any healthy relationship be it spouse, friend, church, etc. Three of those things are freedom to think, freedom to speak, and freedom to feel.

Does your church give you that freedom? And how is your relationship with your church?

Systems

There's a saying: "your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting".

I look at churches that struggle for volunteers, while all the creative and resourceful duties at church belong to the professionals. "Your system ..."

I see churches that overmanage, requiring spiritual gift assessments and meeting with potential volunteers to counsel them on involvement, then they wonder why so few members initiate action. "Your system ...."

I see the vast majority of churches having as their most resource intensive activity being Sunday "worship", where the majority of the crowd sits in the pews being entertained. Then you have those who wonder why so many of the church members don't evangelize their neighbors or serve in some capacity in the community, why they don't seem to be growing in Christ. Essentially why they aren't "active" members of the church. Well, you teach passivity on Sunday. Your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting.

Yesterday

Yesterday, I had coffee with another man.

"David" has an adult son and daughter. His son works for an internationally known ministry in North Carolina. Dave himself has worked for a number of Christian ministries over his career, mostly in community development and CD consulting, dealing with places in Africa and Asia mostly.

Dave, age 54, doesn't go to church anymore.

You see, Dave was active in church for years, but as he grew to know what God made in him, what made Dave unique in his father's eyes, he stepped toward that. But the churches he was a part of wanted to plug and play him in what they wanted to do. Dave has grown and matured and knows his part in the kingdom, but apparently that's a threat to local churches he just need someone to feel their predefined roles. Dave was even told "we know you don't like doing this, but you are good at it so it must be what you are to do here". It was killing his heart.

So he left.

Online, in ministry (I've volunteered with Ransomed Heart and The Noble Heart ministries) I've come across dozens of men like Dave. Men called by God in a direction that brings them in conflict with their churches. Some stay for their families' sake. Some stay as their ministry creates the church as a kind of mission field for them. Others leave.

The "church" was meant to equip. Somewhere along the way it placed itself in the place of God. If the church returns to equipping men, then the work done by the church will be the work the members are called to do. Not what some committee decides.

Growing churches

The Gospel is like a seed, and you have to sow it. When you sow the seed of the Gospel in Israel, a plant that can be called Jewish Christianity grows. When you sow it in Rome, a plant of Roman Christianity grows. You sow the Gospel in Great Britain and you get British Christianity. The seed of the Gospel is later brought to America, and a plant grows of American Christianity. Now, when missionaries come to our lands they brought not only the seed of the Gospel, but their own plant of Christianity, flower pot included! So, what we have to do is to break the flowerpot, take out the seed of the Gospel, sow it in our own cultural soil, and let our own version of Christianity grow.
–Dr. D.T. Niles of Sri Lanka

Imitation is the bane of modern Christianity.
- Reggie Britt

Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost make the point in The Shaping of Things to Come that in their native Australia, the form of Christianity that is prevalent relates to at most 35% of the population, and about 45% in the United States. And both numbers are shrinking. The typical method of church planting is too much like trying to plant cuttings from previous plants. A plant may take in that situation, or it may not. Studying church history, this method seems to have been pretty much used since the 4th century.

While Niles speaks in terms of national churches, his final comment on culture is right. And wrong in some ways too. Rather than culture, the individuals who join into a church need to shape that church. If the body consists of its parts as Paul writes, shouldn't the arrival or departure of an individual impact that church? Shouldn't the growth of an individual impact it? Too often, people come and go from a church and it just goes on as before -- short of the coming and going of the clergy class.

If the church is to be the body, the individual has to matter. Corporate and individual must intertwine tightly. If the church is to have impact in a culture, then the shape and form of church must grow from seed within that culture -- holding to truth -- but letting form and to an extent function be shaped by its environment.

Real Church

Well, life happens so so much for extra posts this week ...

Last Saturday was our first meeting of a new church, one trying to be "organic" as it is labeled. Being our first meeting, we shared a meal, talked about what brought us to Colorado, which one story had God so much in it it just prompted other stories of God acting. A couple of people had stories on how Satan tried to block their participation, either in the conference that we initially met at or that week's meeting.

I think to the passages that talk about the purpose of gathering -- to encourage one another, to edify one another. These stories and time with people ... this was great. Never went to a "service" like this. And for those who insist that meetings are for "worship" (find a scripture that says that that applies to the New Covenant): Real honest stories that I think glorified God more than a song, a prayer, three more songs,a sermon, another song, song, and closing prayer.

The weekend before I was at a Ransomed Heart Wild At Heart Boot Camp. I was on the work crew. We went out on Wednesday, and met as a group daily in our time there, twice on Saturday. Our Friday-Sunday morning meetings were practical matters, prayer, and talking about how we felt the Spirit moving, while Thursday's meeting did the same with some more stuff since we had more time. We had an extra meeting Saturday to talk about how we saw God move that weekend. Smaller groups met at other times spontaneously, and we had our work together too. Again, for a weekend we were a "church" that met daily. And again, I think was more glorified than a month of Sundays in a typical traditional church.

That's not to say a group gathered for traditional church couldn't experience the same -- there just has to be as much time if not more looking into the faces of your brothers and sisters than staring at the back of their heads while the professionals and semi-pros "perform", time spent talking about God and what he is doing in lives today and what he has done this year (not what he did in the first century and before), in a way that encourages and edifies.

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.

Jim and Casper Go To Church

Just wanted to recommend Jim and Casper Go To Church by Jim Henderson and Matt Casper to my readers. Jim is a Christian and Matt an atheist who visit a number of churches to get Matt's reaction to the presentation the church makes.

Churches invite people to visit their services to check them out, so what kind of message do churches make? Some common themes, some specific to types of churches emerge from the visits. What I find most interesting is Matt's observations that the format is the basically the same no matter what purpose comes through (except for the house church he attended) -- one of many observations that prompted Matt to ask "did Jesus really tell you to do it this way?". Another interesting one is the observation of the vagueness of it all -- sermons that left Matt asking "what's the call to action?".

I don't want to spoil anymore ... if anyone who has read it wants to discuss it, feel free to contact me ...