Reimagining Church
I realize that many people have reviewed Frank Viola’s latest book, Reimagining Church. Unfortunately, because of school responsibilities, I had not been able to finish reading it until the Thanksgiving break. However, I have managed to stay away from other reviews. So, this post will be my own thoughts concerning this book.
(If you’re interested I wrote about one particular part of Reimagining Church in a post called “A Quote from Reimagining Church“. I also wrote about Viola’s previous book, Pagan Christianity, in two posts: “Living in the Necessary” and “Yet another review of Pagan Christianity“.)
Viola’s purpose in writing Reimagining Church was to legitimize from Scripture the beliefs and practices of simple, organic churches. In reality, he does not attempt to “reimagine” the church as much as he attempts to “rediscover” the church as found in the pages of the New Testament. In doing so, he also calls into questions many of the beliefs and practices of “institutional churches”.
The book is divided into two parts: “Community and Gathering” and “Leadership and Accountability”. Since my area of research is the gathering of the church, I was especially interested in the first part. However, as I’ve found in my own research and life, it is impossible to separate ideas about the gathering of the church from ideas about leadership.
In part one, “Community and Gathering”, Viola describes the organic nature of the church as found in Scripture. He sets the tone and direction on the first page of the section:
The New Testament uses many images to depict the church. Significantly, all of these images are living entities: a body, a bride, a family, one new man, a living temple made up of living stones, a vineyard, a field, an army, a city, etc. (32)
Given the organic nature of the church, Viola next suggests that this nature should carry over into the meeting of the church, which should also be organic in nature instead of being institutional in nature. He also says that while Scripture does not define the church but describes it in metaphors, the chief metaphor for the church in the New Testament is the family.
Perhaps the most important chapter in part one is chapter 7: “Church Practice and God’s Eternal Purpose”. He says, “The church, then, is not only called to proclaim the gospel, but to embody it by its communitarian life”. (147) Viola suggests that while the church today does many good things, it is missing its purpose and mission as the community of God.
In part two (the longer of the two sections), Viola discusses leadership, authority, and submission. He points out that Scripture describes leadership among the church as service, not decision-making. However, he also says that leaders are to provide oversight, which is “watching out for the spiritual well-being of the church”. But, when it comes to decision-making, decisions should be made by a consensus of the entire church, not by the leaders.
Viola uncovers the fact that the idea of “spiritual covering” is not found in Scripture, and he discusses at length the difference between official authorities (such as kings, magistrates, and judges) who have authority based on their position, and organic authority which is “communicated authority”, that is “when a person communicates God’s life through word or deed”. Organic authority is not based on position but on function and service.
Finally, Viola tackles the unscriptural disunity and division caused by denominationalism. He says that the church should return to the apostolic tradition:
The tradition of the apostles is not a codified set of prescribed rules that the apostles created… Technical correctness and outward conformity to a prescribed form of church order has never been God’s desire… What, then, is the apostolic tradition? First, it contains the stories and teachings of Jesus. These are contained in the Gospels. Second, it includes the commands and practices of the apostles that were passed on to all the churches. The apostolic tradition, therefore, represents the normative beliefs and practices of the church of Jesus Christ. Beliefs and practices that were prescribed for each and every church (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33-38). (italics in original) (243-245)
I think that most people who read this book will fall into one of two camps. The first camp includes that who are comfortable with the methods, practices, and beliefs of the institutional church. For people who fall into this camp, Viola will not persuade many. Why? Because they will chalk up Viola’s book to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Scriptures. There are entire hermeneutical traditions used to prop up the institutional church, and these props will not fall easily. However, some in this camp will thank Viola for pointing out that the institutional church needs to be tweaked. This was not Viola’s goal.
The second camp includes those who recognize that the institutional church and its methods, beliefs, and practices stand on shaky – or sandy – ground. For these people, Viola’s book will help them understand that the church is more than buildings, hierarchies, and programs. It will also help them to recognize the validity of their own associations with other believers outside of the institutional church.
And for me? Well, I find myself in the second camp. I agreed with almost everything that Viola said. For other parts of the book – those parts that I did not agree with right away – it was primarily because Viola presented something that I had not thought about.
Chapter 7, “Church Practice and God’s Eternal Purpose”, is one of those parts. The more I think about this chapter, the more I agree with Viola. I’ve talked with him about this some, and I’m excited that his next book will unwrap some of the concepts that he introduced in this book.
One point of disagreement that I had as I read the book concerns meeting location. Viola discusses the evidence from Scripture that the church primarily met in homes. I agree with this. However, Viola says that meetings in other locations (i.e. the temple in Acts 2:26, synagogues in various places in Acts, or in the School of Tyrannus in Acts 19:9-10), these meetings were not normal church meetings, but special evangelistic meetings or apostolic meetings. However, when we search Scripture, these meetings are not called “evangelistic meetings” or “apostolic meetings”. In fact, Scripture does not distinguish between any different types of meetings. The church should act the same wherever it meets and for whatever reason it meets.
After reading this chapter, I talked with Viola. He agreed that the meeting place is not as important as the life of the church. If the meeting place hinders life, then the church should meet in a different place. If the meeting place does not allow the church to meet in an organic fashion, then the church should meet elsewhere. I agree with this completely.
I hope many people continue to read Reimagining Church – I would recommend highly! While I do not think it will convince those who are content with the institutional church, I still think it would be valuable for them to read it.
If you have read this book, please let me know what you thought about it. If you plan to read it, let me know, and let me know why you plan to read it. If you do not plan to read Reimagining Church, please tell me why you’ve chosen not to read it also.
If the family were a church
One of the most common scriptural metaphors for the church is “family”. In fact, the “metaphor” is so prevalent that it probably isn’t a metaphor at all. In other words, we truly are brothers and sisters in Christ. However, the church rarely acts like a family.
But, what would happen if we turned the picture around? Instead of encouraging the church to act like a family, what would happen if the family acted like a church?
——————————————————-
Two young men walked in the den where grandma was watching her “stories”. They shuffled their feet, made small talk, but finally got down to business.
“Grandma, we’ve all talked about it, and we don’t think you’re doing your job the way you once did – the way we need you to,” the first man started.
“What do you mean, son?” the older lady asked, trying to see the TV around the two men.
“Well, you can’t cook or clean anymore. You don’t tell us stories of the old days. We haven’t heard any wisdom from you in a long time. You usually just watch television and sleep. We’re going to have to let you go,” the second man said.
Grandma hung her head. “I realize that I’m getting older and can’t carry out my duties that I once did. Will you at least give me a few weeks to find a new family?”
“We’ll give you two weeks and a good recommendation. I’m sure that God is calling you to a good older family out there somewhere,” her son said.
——————————————————-
“Hey, Sis!” the lady said as she walked through the open door.
“Hi, to what do I owe the pleasure of this visit?” her older sister asked as she closed the front door behind her.
The younger lady found a place on an overstuffed sofa and replied, “Well, we heard that you gave birth, and we wanted to see the new baby.”
As the older sister brought in coffee, she looked around the room. “I don’t think the baby is here.”
“What do you mean?” her sister asked as she sipped her coffee.
“Well, I’m not very good at raising kids. I just give birth to them and let someone else raise them. In fact, that baby is probably still at the hospital.”
——————————————————-
The parents brought dinner into the dining room for the family. The dining room was immaculate, with heavy drapes, carved furniture, silver place settings, and a crystal chandelier hanging over the middle of the table.
Father prayed an elaborate prayer and set the food down for each family member: a small piece of bread and a sip of juice.
——————————————————-
“This is very difficult for me to say,” Father began with tears filling his eyes. “Do you all remember the people that visited us a few weeks ago?”
The family members nodded as the looked around, trying to discern what Father’s important announcement might be about.
“Well, those visitors were actually a Father Search Committee from another family. They believe that God is calling me to be their Father. After much tearful prayer, I agree. So, in two weeks I’ll be leaving this family to become the Father of their family. Don’t worry. I know that this is all in God’s plan, and I’m certain that God will provide another Father for this family.”
——————————————————-
I suppose I could go on, but I think you get my point. If the church is really a family, then the church would not act like it does towards one another.
So, we should ask ourselves, “Are we not living according to our nature? Or, are we living according to our nature?”
A picture of the church
Dave Black recently posted this on his blog:
When we first moved from southern California to the tobacco fields of North Carolina 10 years ago I learned that the Special Olympics are held in Raleigh. I recall watching one of the races on TV — Down’s Syndrome children running around a track full out. As they neared the finish line all of a sudden one of them fell down. Know what happened next? All of the other children stopped and picked up the fallen runner so that they could finish the race together.
When I saw that I said, “That’s the church!”
I agree. That’s the church.
Tozer on Church and Organization
About two months ago, I quoted Tozer on the difference between church and organization in a post called “Tozer on Organization“. Here is his main point:
The point I am trying to make here is that while money has a proper place in the total life of the church militant, the tendency is to attach to it an importance that is far greater than is biblically sound or morally right. The average church has so established itself organizationally and financially that God is simply not necessary to it. So entrenched is its authority and so stable are the religious habits of its members that God could withdraw Himself completely from it and it could run on for years on its own momentum.
Now, Rick at “The Blind Beggar” has quoted Tozer again on the same subject in his post “A.W. Tozer Quote“:
One hundred religious persons knit into a unity by careful organization do no constitute a church any more than eleven dead men make a football team. The first requisite is life, always.
I think these Tozer quotes reinforce my previous post. The church is the people, not the organization or structure or even leadership.
I will build my charitable organization
Bill at “The Thin Edge” has written a very good post called “So Which 501(c)3 do you Attend?” The article is fairly short:
A sprawling campus is being developed on a hundred acres at the edge of a large suburban area, near the front entrance of a popular housing development with prices “starting in the low $300,000” bracket according to a sign erected by the property development company. Everyone’s wondering about this beautifully landscaped campus with its winding driveway, small lake, and ultra-modern structure of concrete and glass toward the rear of the property: is it a medical clinic? a health club? an exclusive restaurant? an advertising agency? an animal hospital? a bank? Whoever it was, they obviously had deep pockets and seemed to be sparing no expense to impress their upscale neighbors next door.
Finally, a sign appeared that read, “Coming Soon! Mountain View Church. Offering fresh perspectives on the timeless principles of Jesus Christ!” A church? They must have spent a small fortune on their logo-really cool-portraying mountains, a rushing mountain stream, and a cross. In small print at the bottom, it gave a little more information: “Mountain View Church, Inc. is a 501(c)3 corporation and a member of the Green Valley Baptist Association and the Southern Baptist Convention.” Looking up their founding documents online (through the state department’s searchable database), one will discover, sure enough, they are a bona fide company with officers, trustees, and articles of incorporation.
So is this really a “church” or just another corporation with a cool logo and trendy name? How are we supposed to know the difference? Are we trying to cross-pollinate a living organism with an organizational chart and marketing plan? Is that even desirable? When Jesus declared, “I will build My church,” is this what He had in mind? Or did we misinterpret the statement as “We will build His 501(c)3 ministry organization?”
Bill brings out some good points, but I’d like to use his post to ask a few other questions.
When we decided that we would have multiple elders (pastors) and that we would not choose one of those to be a “senior pastor” or “head elder”, several people asked, “So, who will I say is my pastor?”
When we decided to meet in a rented space on Sunday and in homes during the week, some people asked, “So, where will I say my church is?”
When we decided that we would not focus on programs but on relationships, some people asked, “But how will I serve or how will I be discipled?”
When we decided that individuals will be responsible for giving to those in need instead of giving to the church so that the church could do everything, some people asked, “So, will we still get a tax deduction?”
These are all very important questions, and I’m not trying to belittle anyone who has asked those questions. However, I would like to suggest that the questions indicate that we’re not thinking biblically about the church. Instead, we’re thinking organizationally and programmatically about the church.
Jesus is building his church – which is, his assembly of people – a group of people. When we begin to think of the church as more than or different than a group of Jesus followers, then we are thinking less and less about the church as described by Scripture.
It may be pragmatic and efficient and logical to have a human leader, and a set of programs, and a specific meeting place, and tax-deductible status. But, these things do not define the church. We could argue the benefits or the detriments of having these things, but they would be outside the scope of defining what (or WHO) the church is.
Jesus said that he wold build his church… not his charitable organization. We would do well to remember that Jesus cares about his church, not our organizations and programs.
The church with identity and purpose in Christ
Joel at “the double edged sword” asks, “The Church, Who is She?” He says that the church should find its identity and purpose in Christ. With this foundation, Joel makes several statements about how the church would look and act if Christ was her identity and purpose. Here are a few of my favorites:
She would not need t-shirts, bumper stickers and Christian propaganda to promote a message for Her or declare Her identity. She would be the message. She would be the sign pointing to Jesus.
She would love others more than Herself. She would share all that She has with others, with nothing expected in return. Her supply comes from Her LORD.
She wouldn’t care about how you look, who you are or what you can do for Her. All would have value because all are created in God’s image, and that is enough. She is accepting.
She would be unified under the authority of the LORD, with no interest or desire to hold any positions or titles that belong to Christ alone, for He alone is the Head of the Body.
Read the remainder of Joel’s post. It is a great call for the church to be the church of God.
City Church Again
A few months ago, I started a “chain blog” on the subject of “city church”. The first post in the chain was “City Church – A Chain Blog“.
Now, Len, at “NextReformation“, has written some of his thoughts in his post “city church“. Here are some of his thoughts (spoken from God’s perspective):
The apostolic network of the early church isn’t like the network you will see growing. This network will be less visible and stronger because it is woven into the fabric—these cords will strengthen everything around them. This network will be relational, and it will transcend the boundaries of old and new.
There will be key leaders, but my people are not “over,” they are “among.” What once existed as a mechanism will become a movement. Leaders will be connected relationally and not through office. Their authority will come from me, not from a denominational structure. And it will be transparent, even to the leaders themselves. Power comes through love and service. My people are be too busy washing feet to worry about status.
The enemy is not very creative—so he always mimics what I am doing. But it doesn’t work very well. When you see church leaders fighting about vision and control, you know that isn’t the work I am doing. The leaders I am raising up will be willing to be invisible. They will not be worried about who gets the credit. They want to give Me the glory. This requires a “new heart and a new spirit,†and I love it!
The more leaders decrease, the more I increase, and the more the whole body will grow and mature. Too many of my people have been living in Egypt under hard taskmasters. They will again learn to hear my voice.
I think Len has some good thoughts here. What do you think?
Is Our Understanding of "Church" Important?
For the next few days, my son and I will be hiking and camping part of the Appalachian trail in Pennsylvania. While I’m away, I’m going to re-publish some of my older posts – posts that many of you have not read. As you can tell, I wrote some of these during my earliest examinations of the church in Scripture. Feel free to comment or discuss the posts among yourselves. I’ll try to reply to your comments when I return.
——————————————————–
Is Our Understanding of “Church” Important?
Many times I’m asked why it is important what we think about the church, as long as we trust Jesus. Well, I think it is important for many reasons. Hopefully, this story will demonstrate one reason.
Yesterday, I needed a haircut. I have a fail-safe way of knowing when it is time to get a haircut: my wife tells me. If it were not for her, I would probably look like one of those strange evil scientists, or like I had had a bad experience with an electrical outlet. After work, I went to a local shop to get a haircut, and I took my son with me, because his haircut alarm had sounded as well. We went to one of those “masculine” places that look like a locker room and have televisions showing ESPN.
Jeremy went first, then it was my turn. Jodi seemed to be a nice, capable hair stylist. We made small talk about our families and her school and stuff like that. Mainly, I tried not to fall asleep while she cut my hair. I don’t know what it is about getting my haircut, but it always makes me sleepy. So, about half-way through I was staring at the T.V., trying to ignore a movie ad while keeping my eye-lids open. I was about as lucid as a college student in an 8:00 Greek class, when Jodi began talking about the movie ad that I was trying so hard to ignore.
She said, (and this is paraphrase because I didn’t have a voice recorder) “I’m not really a religious person, but I don’t think I could go see something like that. Its just not right at Christmas.”
By the time she finished her thought, and my thoughts had caught up with her words, I realized that the T.V. was showing an ad for the horror flick “Black Christmas.”
I mumbled something like, “I’m surprised at how many non-religious people care about Christmas.” I half expected this to be the end of the conversation. But it wasn’t…
Jodi said, “Oh, I’m religious, I guess. I mean, I believe in God. I just don’t believe in church.” Now, I was wide awake and paying attention. She continued, “I used to go to church, but it all seemed to be about dressing up to fool people about what you did the rest of the week so someone could tell me how to be religious, as if I couldn’t understand it myself. I read the Bible and I can understand it.” (She wasn’t angry, just speaking matter-of-factly.)
I thought for a moment, and said, “You may not believe this, but actually, I agree with you about much of that.”
She began talking about reading the Bible and calling her dad when she had a question, and the conversation turned away from church. But that brief conversation made me remember something: the way we understand “church” and the way that we portray “church” affects us and other people. I’m certain that none of the churches that Jodi had attended would agree, in theory, with what she learned about church. But, she learned it from them.
She did not learn that church is a community of believers who desire to encourage one another in their life. She did not learn that church is a Spirit-empowered and Spirit-led group of people. She did not learn that any believer is just as important as any other believer.
What did she learn? She learned that church is a place to go. She learned that what happened outside of the building was of negligible value to God. She learned that only professionals are capable of understanding and communicating the Bible.
What are you communicating about the church?
The Church in the Septuagint (LXX)
A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I was reading a book called A Vision for the Church edited by Markus Bockmeuhl and Michael B. Thompson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997) (see the post “Paul’s Vision for the Church“). The first chapter “Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church” by William Horbury. In his chapter, Horbury discusses the relationship between the Septuagint (LXX – the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures – the Old Testament) and the early church’s self identification. In other words, the early church understood who they were by reading their Old Testament.
For example, Horbury writes:
[W]hen the Scriptures were read at the time of Jesus and Paul, even non-visionary hearers shared conceptions of the congregation which arose from association and development of the manifold biblical descriptions and images. The Christians were keenly aware of their separate loyalty (1 Cor 16.22), but this was owed to the messiah of Israel; they spoke and thought of themselves as essential Israel, and applied to themselves most of the relevant biblical vocabulary. So in the biblical manner, without special introduction, Paul could speak of betrothing the Corinthian church as a pure virgin to Christ (2 Cor 11.2). To a great extent, therefore, NT conceptions of the Church were ready-made before the apostles preached; and this is true not only of the imagery most readily applicable to the pre-existent or ideal Church, but also of descriptions of the empirical assembly. (1)
From this introduction, Horbury examines two Songs and the Blessing of Moses (Exod 15 and Deut 32 and 33) and the Wisdom of Solomon. Concerning the longer Song of Moses (Exod 15), he concludes:
Thus far, then, the material studied from the LXX has disclosed five attributes of the congregation which are also prominent marks of the NT Church. Constitutionally and liturgically, it is a body in which men and women each take part, and it is governed by a divinely-appointed ruler. To turn to theological attributes, it can be described as a community of faith, the congregation of the redeemed who believe and confess. Correspondingly, in this corporate confession it is a community of the divinely inspired, and its confession is led by prophecy. As God’s own peculiar people and portion, it is watched by the angel-deities to whom the heathen nations are allotted. Its faith is faith not only in God, but also in the appointed ruler, and a great ruler to come will be the focus of its unity. The shape and ethos of the Pauline churches are anticipated here; and although the theological attributes are not made normative in these texts, the fact that they are exhibited by the congregation of the Exodus as described in the Pentateuch accords them authority and influence. (9)
Finally, after examining the various names given for the people of God in this OT passages, Horbury concludes his chapter with this:
It can be said, in conclusion, that the messianic element in Christian faith, and the concurrent Christian modification of the concept of the people of God, are foci of what can be called new in NT conceptions of the Church. Far more, however, is inherited from Judaism as represented the LXX translation, including what might be thought characteristically Christian associations of the Church with faith, confession, inspiration and the messiah. (15)
If I am understanding Horbury correctly, then he is saying that most of the elements of the church were identifiable from the LXX. From the Septuagint, people could learn that God was building a people of faith. It would be a confessing people that relied on inspiration. So what would be missing?
As Horbury said, the missing piece of the puzzle was Jesus Christ as Messiah. This is what’s “new” in the New Testament. The people of God in the Old Testament knew that there would be a messiah, but they didn’t know who, when, how, etc. In the New Testament, those questions were answered.
As the questions about the messiah were answered in the person of Jesus Christ, other information about the church was clarified. While Paul spends much of his writing space considering the implications of the gospel to the people of God, the book of Hebrews also tackles these questions. Importantly, the book of Hebrews shows the connection (both comparisons and contrasts) between the lives of God’s people in the OT and the lives of God’s people in the NT.
While the idea that the “shape and ethos of the Pauline churches are anticipated” in the Old Testament may be fairly new to me (and perhaps others), it was apparently obvious to Paul. Remember that he was probably thinking about the Old Testament when he wrote that all Scripture was inspired and useful (2 Timothy 3:16).
What do you think? Do we find indicators of the church in the Old Testament? Do you think that the primary difference is in the person of Jesus Christ and the gospel? Are there other differences between the people of God in the OT and the people of God in the NT?
Tozer on Organization
Continuing the theme of organization and institutionalization, I thought I would share this quote from A.W. Tozer from a compendium of quotes called Tozer on Christian Leadership:
We in the churches seem unable to rise above the fiscal philosophy which rules the business world; so we introduce into our church finances the psychology of the great secular institutions so familiar to us all and judge a church by its financial report much as we judge a bank or a department store.
A look into history will quickly convince any interested person that the true church has almost always suffered more from prosperity than from poverty. Her times of greatest spiritual power have usually coincided with her periods of indigence and rejection; with wealth came weakness and backsliding. If this cannot be explained, neither apparently can it be escaped.
The point I am trying to make here is that while money has a proper place in the total life of the church militant, the tendency is to attach to it an importance that is far greater than is biblically sound or morally right. The average church has so established itself organizationally and financially that God is simply not necessary to it. So entrenched is its authority and so stable are the religious habits of its members that God could withdraw Himself completely from it and it could run on for years on its own momentum.
What do you think? Is Tozer correct? Has the average modern “church” so established itself organizationally (institutionally) that God is no longer necessary? Or, is this simply a provocative, hyperbolic statement that can be ignored?