Is “church” missing something? Don’t change; just add something else.
Andy at “aBowden Blog” has written a very good post called “Small groups and Church.” It’s interesting that he published this yesterday, because I also re-scheduled a link to an old (similar) post that I wrote to go out on Facebook and Twitter recently. That post was called “What’s with this ‘small group’ stuff anyway?”
I think Andy did a much better job with his post.
So, what’s the problem with “small groups”? Well, nothing is inherently wrong with “small groups.” There is a problem, however, with differentiating between “small groups” and “church.”
Andy explains the “small group” phenomenon very well in his final paragraph:
I think, then, we can summarize the small group phenomenon in this way. Traditional churches are recognizing that the way church is done is lacking in some VERY important areas. The need for serious change is admitted. Small groups are the attempt to make up for these deficiencies without having to alter anything that happens on Sunday morning. In other words, offering small groups outside of church allows us to continue doing church like we’ve always done it, even though it is lacking in several important areas. We can continue doing things like always, and not have to bother with change. After all, who likes change? Change, much-needed change, can occur in a place we call a small group.
The main point is this: If something we call “church” does not look anything like what we find in Scripture, the answer is NOT to add something else to it. The answer is to change.
Replay: The propagation of the church
Four years ago, when this blog was just over a year old, I wrote a post called “The propagation of the church.” In the post, I’m interacting with a passage in a book about the New Testament. In the book, the authors point out how the church propagated (grew/spread) in the NT. Is the church today too organized and too safe for that kind of propagation?
———————————-
n their discussion of the book of Acts in An Introduction to the New Testament, Carson and Moo say:
In Acts, Luke conducts the reader on a whirlwind tour of three decades of church history. We visit Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Syria, Cyprus, many cities in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and, finally, Rome. We witness everything from preaching and miracles to jailbreaks and shipwrecks. And, while many individuals accompany us on our tour, two are rather constant companions: Peter, who is often with us in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria; and Paul, who is our almost constant companion from Syria to Rome. We can, in fact, divide our tour into two major parts based on the prominence of these two individuals: chapter 1-12 and chapters 13-28. Each of these major sections can be subdivided further into three parts, which are marked off by key summary statements. In these brief notes, Luke sums up a series of events by telling us that they have led to the growth of the Word of God or of the church (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20). Each section carries us to a new geographic and/or cultural stage in the itinerary of the gospel, as Luke portrays the fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles that they be his witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8).
Have you ever thought about how the church propagated in those early years? Over the past few days I’ve been reading the Book of Acts again. I’ve been specifically trying to pay attention to how the word of God… the church… the gospel… propagated from person to person, place to place, city to city, region to region.
So far, I have seen very little indication that structures or organizations played a part in the propagation of the church. In fact, at times, organizations and structures actually seemed to work against the propagation of the gospel and the church. It was when the organization gave in to the work of the Holy Spirit that the word of God progressed.
How did the church and gospel propagate? Simply through the direction of the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit led men and women – and as those men and women obeyed – the word of God spread and the church grew. At times, these men and women followed the Holy Spirit to increased influence in the community and the world. At times, these men and women followed the Holy Spirit to their death. At times, the believers seemed to be victorious as they followed the Spirit. At times, the believers seemed to be defeated as they followed the Spirit. But, in all cases, as men and women followed the divine direction of the Holy Spirit – regardless of what happened to the men and women themselves – the word of God spread and the church was edified.
I think we have become too safe… too planned… too predictable… too organized… in our understanding of the spread of the gospel and the church. I think we have spent too much time listening to strategists and planners and not enough time listening to the voice of the only One who can grow the church and transform people’s lives. I think we have expended too many resources trying to create a successful church instead of following the only One who can and does make us victorious.
Of course, listening to the Spirit is subjective… and we can’t guarantee that we will hear him or that we will follow when we do hear him. But, is any other answer really an answer at all? Is any path other than a step-by-step obedience to the voice of the Holy Spirit worth any expenditure of time or resources?
Perhaps it is time to stop trying to build a successful church, and start living as believers who attempt to walk each day, make each decision, and approach each person in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
Replay: Hypothetical Situation… what do you think?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Hypothetical Situation… what do you think?” I think this “hypothetical situation” reveals some major weaknesses in the way that many understand the church. And, by the way, you probably won’t have to read very long before you recognize that this isn’t actually a hypothetical situation. It is based on a real (and true) story.
————————-
Suppose that you and some friends were traveling through a foreign city. While you were there, you met a group a people who invited you to a religious ceremony. You go with them.
At this ceremony, you realize that these people believe in God, but they do not know about Jesus Christ. At the end of the ceremony, the leader gives anyone a chance to talk. You find the courage to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the people gathered.
Some of the people are very interested. As you leave the ceremony, they follow you and ask you more about Jesus. In fact, they encourage you to stay with them for the next several days and continuously ask you about Jesus, your beliefs, your lifestyle, etc. Many people confess their desire to follow Jesus.
The people are amazed at the way you interact with your friends, with them, and with the other people in the city. They ask you about your lifestyle, and you explain that the gospel not simply a message to be believed, but it is a life to be lived.
The religious leaders invite you back to their next ceremony. Once again you are given the opportunity to speak, but this time the leaders are ready with some questions and concerns. You explain as well as you can, and after the ceremony a few others ask if they can learn more as well. Again, many confess their desire to follow Jesus.
Others who are not religious begin to show interest, and some of them confess their desire to follow Jesus. It seems like everywhere you go in the city, people are talking about your group and about Jesus.
By the next week, when you have once again been invited to the religious ceremony, the atmosphere has changed. The religious leaders are angry and begin to threaten you and those who have began to follow Christ because of you. You are not given the chance to defend yourself or the others at this meeting, and the new believers become concerned.
That night, after the ceremony, the new believers convince you that it would be best for you and for them if you and your friends left that night. You agree, so you pack up your belongings and drive away.
As you are driving away, and as you think about what had happened over the last few weeks, you begin to think about that little band of disciples back in the city.
So… here are my questions for you, my readers: 1) What things do you think are most important that you would have taught them over the last few weeks? 2) What concerns would you have about this group of disciples? 3) Would you consider this group a church? Why or why not? 4) Do you think you left them with everything they need after only a few weeks? 5) If so, how could this be enough? 6) If not, what is missing?
(By the way, this “hypothetical situation” is based on a true story.)
Replay: What is a traditional church?
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “What is a ‘traditional church’?” The post was inspired by a couple of paragraphs in a book that I was reading. In the book, the author defines most of the terms that he used, included the term “traditional church.” Do you agree with this author’s definition? Should anything be added to his definition? Should anything be removed or changed?
—————————————
What is a ‘traditional church’?
I recently acquired a book by J.D. Payne called Missional House Churches: Reaching Our Communities with the Gospel (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007). The author surveyed 33 leaders concerning “missional house churches”, and this book is the result.
In the introduction, Payne spends much time on definitions. He explains what he means by all of his terms. As a comparison, Payne also defines what he means by “traditional” church. This is his definition:
In this study “traditional” describes the generally held understanding of the local church. Traditional churches usually have Sunday morning as their primary time to gather. The Sunday worship gathering generally requires much time and energy to prepare for a one- or two-hour weekly event. For many such churches, the majority of their income is devoted to minsters’ salaries and physical properties. These churches tend to be campus-based in their identities. It is at these locations that the majority of their ministry events occur.
Traditional churches tend to be program-oriented, event-oriented, or categorically purpose-oriented in their identities. Pastoral leadership tends to be more positional in orientation and less relational. Evangelism is, many times, one program among many programs of the church and/or is primarily accomplished through the members inviting unbelievers to a worship service where the gospel is shared. The number of members usually far exceeds the number of people who gather weekly for worship and actively use their gifts and talents to build up the church. Many traditional churches identify themselves primarily in terms of their services, events, structures, buildings, and organizations.
I appreciate the fact that the author attempts to define the “traditional” church in terms of trends and generalities. I also appreciate the fact that Payne attempts to write his definition without making value judgments. He does not say whether these are positive or negative characteristics; he merely states that these are the general characteristics of a “traditional” church.
What do you think about this definition? Does this definitional adequately describe what you would normally consider a “traditional” church? Is something missing?
Definition: Church (or Ekklesia)
Look in an English dictionary under the letter “C”, somewhere between “chocolate” and “cider”, and you’ll find the word “church.” “Church” is an English term that has many different definitions. In that dictionary, you will probably find five or six different definitions for “church.” Many of those words are related, which makes this process even harder.
What process is that? I’m talking about defining the word “church” as it’s used in the New Testament. In other words, I’m trying to answer this question: When we read the New Testament and come across the word “church,” what does this word mean?
Unfortunately, because of the many definitions of the modern term “church,” the meaning of the word when we read it in the New Testament is often muddled. Some of that ambiguity has arisen because the English term “church” did not originate from the Greek term ekklesia that it translates in the New Testament. (For more information, see my post “The ekklesia and the kuriakon.”)
The Greek term ekklesia did not and could not carry all of the definitions of the English term “church.” Instead, the term ekklesia always referred to an assembly of people. (For more information, see my posts “The ekklesia of Josephus” and “The ekklesia in context.”) In the instances that interest me, the term ekklesia refer to an assembly of God’s people.
In some cases, the term ekklesia refers to all of God’s people which he has “assembled” or “gathered” out of the world. In other cases – most cases – the term refers to actual gatherings of God’s people, often designated by geography or location. Interestingly, in this latter case, the term ekklesia does seem to refer to subset of a larger ekklesia (i.e. the “church” in someone’s house as a subset of the “church” in a city). However, these subsets are never set against one another; they remain part of the larger ekklesia.
Therefore, when we read the word “church” in the New Testament, we should always remember that the author is talking about a group of people. The New Testament writers are constantly talking about the “church” in relational terms. Primarily, I divide these relationships into three types (although they are interrelated): 1) the relationships between God and his people, 2) the relationships among God’s people, and 3) the relationships between God’s people and others (i.e., those who are not God’s people).
I think that if we understand “church” as a group of people, and we understand the importance of relationships to the church, then the way we live as the church and the way we study the church will be different (than it normally is today).
As with my definition of ecclesiology, this blog post is by necessity only an introduction. It is not complete or exhaustive. What would you add to my definition of church? What would you change? Why?
Definition: Ecclesiology
What does ecclesiology mean? What does it include and what does it not include? Why should I (or you) care?
In the simplest of terms, ecclesiology is the study of the church.
But, if you are like me, this definition is not satisfactory. First, what does “church” mean? And second, what exactly does it mean to “study” the church? The way a person answers these two questions will direct what the outcome of their ecclesiology will be.
For example, if you peruse any dictionary (or do an online search), you’ll find many different definitions of the word church. Some of the definitions will be related to one another, and some of the definitions will be drastically different. The definition and designation used for the word “church” will certainly affect the outcome of any ecclesiology.
(I plan to write another post defining “church” soon. Since it will be a blog post, the definition will not be complete, but it will help my readers understand the direction of my own ecclesiology.)
Similarly, there are many ways to “study” the church. All studies begin with a set of sources, and the limitations or boundaries set around those sources will also affect the outcome of any ecclesiology. An ecclesiology that is built on the 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament (Protestant canon) will look differently than one that is also formed from apochryphal or later Christian writings. Similarly, an ecclesiology that begins with the writings of the middle ages or the reformation will likewise be different than the others.
To add another “kink” in the ecclesiological plan, we should also recognize that even authors who use the same sources may end up with different ecclesiologies because of their interpretative presuppositions. (All of us bring presuppositions to any sources that we use in any study, including a study of the church.)
Finally, there is one other point that I need to make about ecclesiology. A person’s professed ecclesiology is often different from that person’s actual eccesiology. The best way to determine what someone actually believes about the church is to observe how they live as part of the church.
So, what about my own personal ecclesiology? Well, to begin, I believe that “church” (in Scripture) refers to a group of people (assembly, gathering). Specifically, the uses of “church” that I’m interested in refer to gatherings of God’s people (saints, believers, disciples, etc.).
Thus, my ecclesiology – a study of the church – would be a study of gatherings or groups of God’s people. Since I believe the church is people, then I also believe that a study of the church would be a study of the relationships between those people.
So, my ecclesiology would include a study of the relationships between God and his people, the relationships among God’s people, and the relationships between God’s people and those who are not God’s people.
Notice that this is delineation is different that what you would find in most ecclesiologies. Most jump right to functions, leadership, and activities. However, I believe that these can only be understood within the realm of relationships.
Also, the 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament (primarily the New Testament) – the Protestant canon – form the sources for my ecclesiology. Other writings can be helpful in understanding how others interpreted the Scriptures, but I do not think they should be used as the primary sources. (By the way, this would include writings of philosophy, sociology, culture, etc. These can be helpful, but should not be the primary sources.)
I’ll write more about this later, but I thought this would be a good introduction to what I mean when I use the term “ecclesiology.”
Examining the differences between simple church and institutional church
In this post, I’m going to examine some of the differences between modern, traditional, institutional churches and simple/organic churches. If you are looking for a rant against or a condemnation of institutional churches, then this is not it. Those who have read my blog for a while know that I prefer more simple, more organic church.
This post is primarily for those who are part of institutional churches. Many have been told of the dangers of simple or organic church, but no one has explained the main differences between simple church and institutional church.
To begin with, I need to describe what I mean by simple or organic church. A simple or organic church is a group of brothers and sisters in Christ who attempt to live together as family in the way that they understand the church is described and taught in the New Testament. [A house church, on the other hand, is a group of believers who meet in a home. A house church can be more simple/organic or it can be more traditional/institutional.]
Now, we must remember that no group of believers is purely simple/organic just as no group of believers is purely institutional. Instead, it is more like a gradient or spectrum, with some groups being more simple/organic while more groups are more institutional. So, my description will be generalizations by necessity.
Any group of believers (or any group of people, for that matter) will naturally contain a certain amount of organization. Even when two friends meet for a cup of coffee, organization is involved: where to meet, what time to meet, etc. But, on the spectrum, simple/organic churches will include much less organization than institutional churches. Plus, the organization of simple/organic churches will tend to be more fluid and flexible than the organization in institutional churches. Finally, any organization among simple/organic churches depends upon the people involved, while the organization among institutional churches is often implemented apart from the people involved.
Simple/organic churches tend to depend upon God using all believers, while institutional churches tend to rely more on God working through a special subset of the church (leaders, ministers, clergy, etc.). A lesser dependence on leadership have led some to state that simple/organic churches do not have leaders, but this is not the case. There will be leaders among any group of believers, whether those people are specifically singled out or given special titles or static or not. Similarly, it is also not true that institutional churches only depend on the work of leaders. However, simple churches tend to rely on the whole body more than institutional churches, while institutional churches tend to rely on the work of special leaders more than simple churches.
When it comes to serving, the more institutional the church, the more likely that service will be accomplished through certain static programs. More simple churches will be more likely to serve in more dynamic fashion as opportunities present themselves. This does not mean that simple churches do not work through programs, but instead it means that those programs typically only last as long as the service is needed. Similarly, this does not mean that institutional churches cannot meet new service opportunities. However, the new opportunities tend to be placed within existing program structures.
From these differences, it is easy to see that the framework (or support structure) for simple churches will be much different from institutional churches. Institutional churches require certain amount of money, staff, and other resources to support their organizations, leadership, and programs. Simple churches, on the other hand, will typically not need to set aside as much money, staff, and other resources for support. Simple churches will require a certain amount of support, but not as much as institutional churches.
As far as I can tell, these are the major differences between simple/organic churches and institutional churches. Obviously, these differences will present themselves in different ways. For example, when the church studies Scripture, that study will look different depending on whether the church is relying on leadership for that study or whether the church as a whole is taking part in the study. Again, all churches desire to care for those in need, but that care will look different in institutional churches working through programs than it looks in simple/organic churches which do not work through programs.
I would love to know what you think of my descriptions. Do you think they are fair or not? Why or why not?
A Completely Biblical Church. That’s what we all want, right? Right?
While looking back through some old posts, I found this one called “A Completely Biblical Church.” I originally published it 3 years ago on April 1, 2008. I’m not sure what happened, because I am not part of a church like this. It’s been 3 years, you’d think we’d look more like this post. Well, we’ll have to keep trying.
————————————-
I’ve decided to begin a new church which I’m calling a Completely Biblical Church – since it is originating completely from Scripture. Trust me… this is completely legitimate… not a joke at all… I wouldn’t lie to you… not today, or all days.
To determine the practices of this church, I’ve scoured Scripture and determined practices that most churches ignore, using the same hermeneutical principles used to determine church practices by other churches today. Here are a few of the new practices along with the texts which demonstrate that these are scriptural practices:
- No church meetings will be held in rooms that are at ground level or below. All meetings will be held above ground level.
He will show you a large upper room furnished and ready… (Mark 14:15)
And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying… (Acts 1:13)
There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. (Acts 20:8)
- Regardless of the start time, every preacher or teacher will continue speaking until midnight (or someone falls out of a window, whichever comes first).
[W]hen we were gathered together…, Paul talked with them…, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
- Songs will only be sung silently (in the heart). In public, songs will only be spoken out loud.
[S]peaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your heart… (Ephesians 5:19)
[S]inging psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God… (Colossians 3:16)
- The people of the church will eat together every day.
And day by day…, they were sharing their food with glad and generous hearts… (Acts 2:46)
- Only young people under 30 will allowed to be leaders.
Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. (1 Timothy 4:12)
- Only those with stomach ailments will be allowed to be leaders. Those with other types of ailments will be considered under special circumstances.
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1 Timothy 5:23)
- All women will give birth in pairs (or more), while a man from the church helps them.
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side… (Philippians 4:3)
- All prayers will be spoken while kneeling with the hands raised.
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father… (Ephesians 3:14)
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands… (1 Timothy 2:8)
- A “conversion” will only be considered valid if the “converted” actually falls down on his or her face. If the fall draws blood, the person’s conversion will be considered extraordinary and the person will immediately be entered into a leadership training program and put on a lecture circuit.
But if… an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God… (1 Corinthians 14:24-25)
- When meeting to pray, the prayer will not end until the meeting place begins to shake.
And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken… (Acts 4:31)
We will continue to study Scripture to determine what activities should be practiced by the members of this church and how those activities should be carried out. Why? Because, we want to make sure that everything we do is completely biblical using the common hermeneutic of today.
If you would like to be part of this church… there’s something wrong with you. Get help immediately.
What Scripture teaches about the church
Last week, I wrote a post called “Do you know what is written?” The purpose of that post was to encourage people to study Scripture concerning ecclesiology (or any other subject) before arguing for or against a particular position.
On Facebook, a friend of mine said that the post would have been better if I had included a list of Scripture passages that I could point people to. I agree. That would have made the post better.
Now, I don’t have to provide a list of passages, because Guy at “The M Blog” has done just that in his post “When do we start taking them to church?” In his post, Guy is dealing with this: “One of the most common questions asked is: at what point do we start taking the new believers to church?” However, in his response, he offers the following list of Scripture passages about the church:
The standard response we generally give is to try and briefly explain our understanding of what Scripture teaches about the church, the Bride of Christ.
1) Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 2 describe churches as meeting in homes. This was the standard. The norm. Small groups meeting in homes allows not only them, but us, to minister personally to one another. Special church buildings, programs, services, and crowds didn’t show up onthe scene until several hundred years later.
2) Ephesians 2:19 teaches we are “fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household…” We are truly family. Families take care of each other, watch out for each other, and some 50+ other “one anothers.”
3) Acts 2:42 teaches that continuosly the church engaged in at least four primary activities: 1) devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, 2) to fellowship, 3) to the breaking of bread, and 4) to prayer.
4) I Corinthians 14:26 describes what they were instructed to do when they gathered: “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” Everyone is encouraged to participate and bring something of edification to the gathering. Church is not a spectator sport where only a few perform and the rest are spectators.
5) Hebrews 10:24-25 teaches us the reason for gathering, ” and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” The main reasons we are admonished to gather is to, 1) stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 2) encourage one another. If our gatherings do not encourage and motivate us to truly love one another and perform good deeds, then something is out of line and needs to be corrected.
There are many other passages that relate to the who, what, when, where, and why of the church. A few that amplify and describe the above in greater detail are I Corinthians 11-12-13-14, I Peter 2, Acts 2:42-47, and I Timothy 3.
That is a great beginning! Obviously, that is not every important passage about the church, but it’s certainly a good place to start.
I would add passages like Matthew 16:15-21, Matthew 18:15-20, Colossians 1:18-23, Colossians 3:15-16, Ephesians 4:1-16, and Titus 2:1-15.
Are there any passages that you would add to Guy’s list?
Which one was church?
Last Friday evening, some friends invited us to their house. Another family joined our two families. We had dessert (cookies, brownies, cheesecake) and talked about our week and what had been going on in our lives.
Saturday evening, we invited some new friends and an old friend who was in town for the day to dinner. We went to one of our family’s favorite restaurants, which happens to be a Thai restaurant. Again, we talked about life in general. Since the new friends had recently moved into town, we talked with them alot about their move and getting adjusted to their new situation.
On Sunday morning, our family joined several other families in a place we rent specifically for meeting together. We sang some songs. We discussed Scripture. We prayed for one another. We ate lunch together. (Our family had meatball subs provided by another family.) We talked about life and the struggles that we’ve been going through.
Which of those meetings was church?
None of them. The church is not a meeting. But, in each case, believers were gathered together, so the church of Jesus Christ was present.
Did we act like the church should act in each case? That’s a different question. We were the church, and so we should seek to build each other up whenever we meet together. This is true for an impromptu gathering of friends in a house or restaurant (or park or beach or anywhere else). It is also true for a planned gathering.
In each case, we were able to get to know one another better and help one another with our walk with Christ.