You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Organic Church' tag.
Presently, there is an incredible drive towards simplicity in the church. It is all about K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid). There are certain elements about this movement that I agree with. I definitely think our churches have made things more complicated and clunky than the have to be. However, there is a point when a quest for simplicity dives off the deep end into ecclesiological reductionism. A recent web-surfing session provided me with some more evidence of the truth of this assertion. I stumbled upon this website that exist as, “a new Social Networking site for those exploring simple expressions of church.” The discussion forum on the site contained a thread that I think is representative of this movement’s ultimate destination.
The thread begins with what I interpret as a man that is sincerely in search of a healthy gospel community (aka the local church). He desperately writes, “I’m dying here, well my family and I are dying here for lack of true spiritual connection.” The churches which he has been part of have heavily focused on their Sunday service as the primary community and discipleship event. He rhetorically ask, “How do you build relationships with others like Christ commands us to by sitting for ninety minutes singing a few songs and hearing a twenty minute sermon and that is it?” He yearns to experience Christian community. He wants to know and be known. It is in this vein he poses he main question, “Can anyone give me pointers on how to start a house church?”
I can identify with this man. His experience isn’t all that unique. Sadly, his do-it-yourself reaction isn’t that unique either. Nonetheless, my particular concern finds its source in the replies his posting received. For example, one woman said:
“We’re in much the same situation and have discovered that a family makes a fine church. When God is ready, He’ll add others to us, but in the mean time, we bear one another’s burdens within our small family. We’ve gotten much closer–I believe this is the best “church” I’ve ever attended.”
Family makes a fine church? Actually, no it doesn’t. A church isn’t merely Christians-in-relationships. That is a reduction of scripture’s teaching on the local church. For example, a local church is supposed to have a local leadership that is comprised of a plurality of elders. A single family by definition can’t possess a plurality of elders and, thereby, can’t be a church in a biblical sense.
Another person replies:
“You see, simple church happens all the time. Did you ever run into someone in Walmart and have them share a concern? Did you share a word of encouragement or even a quick prayer? That is simple church….Remember, though, where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is there.”
Again, this is a reduction of biblical ecclesiology. A chance meeting of Christians at a local retailer that results in spiritual activity isn’t a church. A local church is a family of people that have made a deep commitment to “one-another” each other. This example in no way stresses that need for the regular and intentional involvement that the biblical authors emphasize as part of the dynamic of the local church. Moreover, the use of Matthew 18:20 to define church as where two or three are gathered is incorrect. The truth is quite the opposite. Matthew 18:20 is set in a larger context of “church discipline” that emphasizes the church is more than just two or three (see vs. 17).
In conclusion, the sin of our age is reductionism. I’m all for minimalism and simplicity when it comes to the church but not when it is at the expense of biblical doctrine.
We live in an age of increasing ecclesiological befuddlement. There is a wide spread confusion over the Christian doctrine of the church that transcends both geographic regions and denominational lines. The market demonstrates this in that there have been scores of new books recently seeking to bring clarity to the matter. Vintage Church, Total Church, Organic Church, and Simple Church are a few of these books—all of which were just published in the last four years. I have also seen a quite a few sermon series of late that attempt to tackle the subject. Moreover, I personally find this question constantly coming up in random conversations I have with a huge range of people. One of the sayings that people frequently cite in these discourses is that Christians should not “go to church but be the church.” I use to be fond of this saying but it seems like it has quickly degenerated into nothing more than a platitude. I had promised that I would attempt to explain why I think this phrase does not help disoriented Christians set their compasses to North in the debate over the church.
First, let us consider what this phrase gets right. When it says do not “go” to church it is trying to slyly point out that church is a family and not a place. It is definitely right in confronting the doctrinal reduction that sees church as merely a program, building, event, or just some mixture of all three which a Christian goes to/attends. I cannot think of one fellowship that would openly define church this way. However, I think it is fair to say that many pastors and members would, by their practice, define church as attendance to large corporate worship gatherings. This understanding of church ignores the Bible’s emphasis of the “one-anothering” and intimate pastoral care that is suppose to be a daily practice in the local church. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to correct a view of church that neglects those precious gifts of grace.
Second, let us consider what this phrase gets wrong or does not do well. I find that most people who employ this saying often do very little in answering exactly what it means to be the church. I think it is easy for us to figure out what we are supposed to take away from “don’t go to church” as noted in the previous paragraph. However, what is meant by “be the church” remains incredibly foggy. The phrase gets its power not from what it builds up but from what it tears down. It seems to me the thrust of this phrase tends to be mostly deconstruction. Those who put it to use most spend the greater part of their energy attacking the legitimacy of Sunday services, worship bands/choirs, church buildings, pastoral salaries, and a host of other issues. They bring little clarity to the key issues of polity, church discipline, and the sacraments that lie at the heart of the confusion. Clearly, there is a need to tear down bad theology. The church has benefited greatly from the “tearing down” of faulty theology at the hands of men such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and J. Gresham Machen. However, these men did not just wield a jackhammer but also a trowel. The problem with this phrase is that it just digs a hole but lays no cement.
In summary, this little phrase rightly criticizes one faulty definition of the church but does nothing in providing a correct understanding of what it means to be the church. We need less of these trite cliché and more of disciplined conservation that is interesting in more than deconstruction. There is kingdom building to be done.
