As I shared on this blog a couple of months ago, we recently tried to start hosting a house church in our home. At the time, a previous house church that we were a part of was dissolving because the leader of it was moving away. Amy and I decided that we should try to start hosting one ourselves, and pull from the people who had been a part of that house church as well as try to get others involved who we thought might be interested.

Our previous "house church" was pretty much just that - a church that met in a house. It's not like there was a "sermon," but in reality it didn't move beyond the concept of clergy any more than a traditional church would. Most people called the leader the pastor (though I specifically did not refer to him as such), and looked to him as that kind of a role. He led it more like a bible study/discussion time, so it was in reality more open than a typical church would be. It was a good step for Amy and I when we joined that group, but I felt, over time, more and more God's leaning to do things differently.

Then the leader of that group moved away, and we were faced with whether or not to try hosting a house church ourselves. But without someone filling the pastor/clergy role, we did not really know if it would stick with a group that had been, for the most part, been passive in gatherings. But we felt called to give it a try. My brother, who leads a fully organic meeting at his house, agreed to help us get started.

In the end, it really came down to not having people who were really interested in doing something different. I'm not upset about it, as I didn't want to have any regrets about not trying it. We also learned a lot through the process, and will be better prepared next time God calls us to do this - and we are confident that there will be a next time. The main thing we've learned is that in order to try hosting an organic meeting, you need to do it with a least a couple of people who totally "get it" and are committed to church gatherings led by the Spirit alone. While my brother was helping us, he and his wife were still hosting their own meeting and I didn't feel right relying on them for that role indefinitely.

So Amy and I will be doing some exploring and asking God what He would really like for us to be doing right now. We have some schedule concerns with the other house church groups that we've been networking with - it's not easy to do late evenings with young kids, especially when they get up really early for school and get very cranky early in the evening. (That's one of the reasons we really liked Sunday afternoons.)

There's also a "traditional" church that I've been somewhat connected with over the last couple of years (I've led worship there a few times and played guitar/bass a few times also), that we're considering checking out some of their smaller groups and see how open they are and how their small groups currently function.

So pray for us in this regard. We might not get totally settled until March or so -- I'm having a major jaw surgery in January and it'll be a few weeks before I'm really up for much, anyway. (I'll post more about that later.) I may have a difficult time compromising my ecclesiology, but I'm willing to do that if God is calling us somewhere and wants to use my restlessness to stir things up there.

The interesting thing is, literally a day after we made this decision God placed something into our laps that our hearts have longed for, something actually a little more extreme than organic house church (in many people's opinions, anyway). That deserves its own post, so stay tuned.

Labels: church, house church, open formats

We had our first house church gathering here yesterday. We tried to do a couple of things a little differently, and overall it went well. My brother and his family are joining us for a while as we get started, which is great as he's had experience introducing open formats to different groups, which is something that will be new to just about everyone who will be a part of our group.

First of all, we shared a meal together, but rather than just dig in and eat, we tried to set up a new rule - nobody can serve themselves. If you need something, someone else has to get it for you. This didn't work out quite as smoothly as we had hoped, but in hindsight I think it went rather well for the first time. We didn't have too many people (8 adults, 11 children), but we're anticipating a few more next week so things might get hairier.

Overall, we're trying to think of ways to turn the meal into something more than just an opportunity to eat. Our idea was to figuratively add in a bit of the washing of feet into the mix. Everyone liked the idea of it, but we'll probably tweak the execution as we go along. Kids always make things like that interesting and more complicated.

After we ate and cleaned up a little, we moved into the den for worship. We spent 25 minutes or so with the kids, but it was a little disjointed. Britt brought some instruments for the kids to play, but it turned out the instruments were WAY too loud for kids to use. Give a kid a stick and a drum and all they want to do is bang it! So this week I'm on the hunt for some good kid-friendly percussion that isn't too loud.

We then sent the kids down to the basement. We have a great person to help with the kids down there - she's 13, lives in a nearby neighborhood, and is phenomenal with the little kids. Her dad works with youth camps and orphanages in Russia and Ukraine, and she's spent many summers working with youth camps in Russia. She's worked with kids for our larger house church gatherings that we've held here, and we're extremely blessed to have her helping us out.

While the kids were learning some Bible stories, playing games, and singing songs, we continued upstairs, thankful for the relative quiet. I informed everybody that there was no plan. I printed out a sheet with a list of songs on it, all of the songs I had ready to go in my worship lyric software (more on that in a future post), and let them know that if there was a song they wanted to sing, to say so. I led some songs, some folks read some scripture that was on their heart, and some others requested some songs. From what I remember, we sang "So Good to Me," "Today," "Your Love is Deep", and "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever" (kid songs), followed by "Praise the King," "Glorious One," "Restore to Me," "How Great is Our God," "We Fall Down," and "Come Fall on Us."

As we wrapped up that phase, Britt talked about commitment to the cause of Christ. He noted that Jesus wasn't terribly interested in the disciples knowing everything perfectly - but that it was their commitment to him that had to come first. Likewise, when the church first began in Acts 2, you didn't see much in the way of "right doctrine" before people began joining the church. It began with an acceptance of the gospel followed by commitment to the church, and discipleship naturally followed.

I had wanted to start in with a reading of 1st Corinthians 12, but felt that chapter 11 was a better start. We ended up talking a lot about communion as a meal, and that led to a good discussion of rituals. I'll blog about that later, because I have too many thoughts on that to summarize quickly. I decided to save chapter 12 for later.

After that, we talked some about logistics and how we might handle things from week to week. With the exception of Britt and his wife Becca, everyone we had yesterday was from our previous house church. While it would have been awesome to have more folks show up, I think it was actually perfect for us to do this and talk some things through, because it was different from how we've had house church together in the past. What we're doing now is more open, and the goal is for others to be contributing more directly. That will come with time, but I think we set a good starting point of not having things too structured.

We've had some more people tell us that they'll be coming next week, and we're looking forward to it. It was a good bit of work preparing to host it here, but I imagine that will get easier as we go.

Labels: house church

Amy and I are going to begin hosting a church in our home, and we would love for you to join us.

When we left our church home in 2006, where I was a worship leader, we felt God leading us to pursue a more authentic form of church. We did not know at the time what that would look like. We visited several churches, but when we visited a house church we were amazed at the difference. We began to feel a calling to eventually host a house church, when God opened up the opportunity for us to do so. Since that time we have been further challenged to rethink what it means to “be the church.” While we did not know exactly when God would set this task in front of us, it is unmistakable that the time for us to do this is right now.

You may have never been to a house church before, and possibly you’ve never heard of one, either. So a brief description may be helpful. We are seeking to build a community:

• That seeks, first and foremost, to see Christ revealed through His body of believers (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-27);
• That thirsts for a church family based on the love of Christ;
• Where communion is a full meal, shared regularly;
• Where gatherings are controlled by Christ through the Spirit, and where each person can contribute;
• Where leadership is built from within, based on maturity and gifting;
• Whose resources are used to help those in need – in the church, the local community, and throughout the world;
• Where membership is defined only by belonging to Christ.

We are not seeking to build a community based on how other churches do things wrong. We are seeking to build a community based on the principles and commandments given to us by Christ and His apostles. We want to build a church family that is focused on Christ, without the overhead of buildings, budgets, or unnecessary traditions.

Gatherings of the church will not be based on coming to listen to someone else speak. Gatherings of the church will be based on coming to hear Christ speak through each of us. (See 1 Corinthians 14:20-31.) Gatherings of the church will be designed to have time to be together, to love each other, to help each other, and to grow together. Exactly how that will work will vary from week to week, depending on who joins us, and depending on how the Spirit leads.

Over the past year, we have also been a part of a network of house churches. This larger group currently gathers once a month, on Saturday evenings. Sometimes these larger gatherings are focused on worship, sometimes on discussion, sometimes on fellowship. We are blessed have the support, guidance, and participation of others who have been down this path.

One of the main questions people ask is: what is your plan for kids? Different house churches handle kids differently. Our current plan is to keep children in with the initial part of the gathering, and to practice engaging with our children through song, Bible readings, discussion, and prayer. After a while, we’ll have someone take the children downstairs for more activities and playtime while the adults continue meeting. We are looking for people for this role - if you know someone you would recommend, please contact us!

Based on our experience, we feel that this is a good balance between learning our spiritual responsibilities as parents, and having time without kids to really focus on what God has to say through each of us.

We will have our first gathering on Sunday, September 28th. We will join together for a full meal, as communion, around 1pm, followed by a time of worship, discussion, and prayer. There will not be an official start time or end time, so feel free to come when you can get here and leave when you need to.

If you are planning on sharing a meal with us, or will be bringing children with you, please contact us to let us know you will be coming so we can make sure we have enough food and enough supervision set up for the kids.

If you live in or near the East Lawrenceville, Grayson, Loganville, or Dacula areas, and any of this resonates with you at all, even if you are just curious, we invite you to come and join us. If you know anyone who would be interested who lives near us, please pass this along to them as well. To all of you, we ask specifically for your prayer and support as we enter this new phase of our lives and ministry.

If you are interested or have any questions at all, please contact us! We’d be more than happy to tell you more about all of this. We hope to see you here on September 28th!

Labels: church, house church, life, open formats

Take care! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired, because then you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give a gift to someone in need, don't shout about it as the hypocrites do – blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I assure you, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone, don't tell your left hand what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in secret, and your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.

And now about prayer. When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly. Then your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you. When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don't be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him! (Matthew 6:1-8, NLT)

Kind of puts Matthew 25 into a different perspective, doesn't it? I ask you - how does campaigning for public charity fit with the private, secret approach to charity commanded us in Matthew 6?

Labels: church, house church, politics

If you've been following my blog for any time at all, you already know that I've become a fan of Frank Viola's books. Not that I've read that many of them, actually - the first one I read was Rethinking the Wineskin, a book that really shakes you down to your foundation in terms of the way you approach the New Testament. Earlier this year, Viola released Pagan Christianity with George Barna, his first in a series of re-releasing some of his older books, updated a little bit and with more serious publisher backing. Before Pagan, Frank Viola's books were a little more obscure.

Pagan Christianity garnered a lot of attention, partially because it came on the heels of Barna's Revolution. But the response was more intense, because it revealed the aspects of the modern institutional church that have no Biblical basis, and went further to discuss how they undermine Biblical principles. You can't publicly criticize nearly all aspects of the modern institutional church - church buildings, order of worship, sermons, the clergy system, dressing up for church, music ministers, tithing and salaries, modern baptism and communion practices, and modern Christian education - without getting a lot of backlash. I participated in many a blog discussion about that book, responding to a lot of criticisms from people who had actually never read the book.

In any case, the Christian community's reaction to Pagan (as well as to Revolution) all kind of missed the point. I think it's important to scrutinize all of the things we find in the institutional church, and to step outside of it - but if it just stops there, you're left with nothing. Or in some cases, just a smaller copy of the institutional church that happens to meet in a house. The question really is, if we shake off all of the institutional baggage, what do we do instead? The answer to that, thankfully, is found in the New Testament. And dealing with that is what Reimagining Church is all about. It's not about creating some new church, really - it's about reimagining in light of a true apostolic tradition - the apostolic tradition that has been passed down to us as scripture.

If Pagan shed light on all of the aspects of the modern institutional church that are not Biblical, Reimagining is about shedding light on Biblical practices that the modern institutional church chooses to ignore.

While Pagan Christianity was an update of a previous Viola book with the same title, Reimagining Church is actually an update of Rethinking the Wineskin. So I don't really have to go into too much detail about it - if you really want to know more about Reimagining, read my comments about Wineskin, which were very detailed and broken down essentially by chapter. (My comments on that one were possibly too detailed - I always fear that authors will get offended if I quote and summarize so much!)

I covered the following areas of the original book:

• Gatherings
  
• Common Meal
  
• The House
  
• Family/Community
  
• Leadership - Oversight
  
• Leadership - Visionary
  
• Purpose
  
• Membership
  
• Boundary
  
• Tradition

All of these elements are in the updated book, though organized a little differently, and expanded in some cases. So I'll just give you my impression of the difference.

Overall, I'd say that this book is quite a bit better. While every bit as challenging and disturbing (in the appropriate sense), I think some of the reorganization helped the book to come across a little more clearly. Early on in the book, Viola included some specific testimonies of people who have been exposed to organic church - this was a great idea, and helped to bring the book down to a relational level early on.

One of the aspects that people struggle with the most when discussing issues of organic Christianity is the lack of official leadership. Viola includes an entirely new chapter to address specific questions people have, based on specific scriptures, as well as dealing in a general sense with the word choices used in the original Greek compared to how we translate and use those words today to justify hierarchical, authoritative church structures (any church with a "pastor"). This chapter alone is worth the new version of the book, and I'd encourage someone (perhaps even Viola) to go further and deal with this type of topic in a book all its own.

I did find it interesting that the metaphor of the "wineskin" was almost totally absent from this book. It is described once or twice, and alluded to a couple of times, but this is far different from how prominently the metaphor was featured in the original. What was really good, though, and totally new to this book, was the emphasis of the trinity as the organizing metaphor. Specifically, that the church is really supposed to reflect the image of the trinity - no hierarchical structure, mutual submission, unity, etc. This was a fundamental shift that I think had a great impact on the book. The metaphor of the trinity better reflects the nature of the church, and is a better returning point than the wineskin was.

There is one quote I wanted to share from this book. I shared a similar quote from the original, but it is important enough that it bears repeating.

Seeking to repair a house that has cracks in its foundation will never prove productive. I believe it's time that we honestly examined the structural integrity of the modern church system. I strongly believe that the clergy system, which includes the modern pastoral office, is what needs to be abandoned. It's the system that's one of the main culprits, not the people, the motives, or the intentions. Experience has taught me that an institutional church will never fully embody the dream of God until it recognizes that the framework within which it operates is inadequate and self-defeating. Despite the good intentions of the persons who populate it, the interior design of the organized church sets us up for defeat.

True renewal, therefore, must be radical. That means it must go to the root.

The concept of clergy, and more important, the idea of a "pastor," is central to the experience of Christians who have been raised up in a modern institutional church. And to those of us who have had this experience, it is the idea of stripping this away the "pastor" that is the most disturbing aspect. The pastor represents some sense of safety, in that even if I don't know what to believe or what to do, at least the "pastor," who is "ordained," and is professionally committed to the church, will provide me with good leadership. Yet an honest examination of the New Testament reveals that there is nothing there that justifies the modern concept of "pastor." And it is this single concept that most plagues the church and keeps her members silent and passive in the Christian life. The pastor stands, almost literally, between us and Christ - as long as we look to that official leadership we will never fully understand the functional headship of Christ and the mutual edification between members of Christ's body.

In some ways, I think that Revolution, Pagan Christianity, and Reimagining Church are like a trilogy. Like any great trilogy, the first part, Revolution, introduces the players, the problems, and the concepts. While it can stand alone, it alone it does not tell the whole story. Pagan Christianity plays the role of the middle part of a trilogy - things turn dark, problems continue to rise, until you're not sure how things can possibly get better. Then finally, like in the last part of the great trilogies, Reimagining Church reveals the way out, the way back to how things were better back back in the beginning, and redefines the way you see the entire story.

It takes radical thought to challenge the existing institutional church tradition. But it is exactly this tradition that must be scrutinized. If you've ever asked the question why - as in why in the world do churches do things the way they do - you owe it to yourself to read this great trilogy - but if you only read one of them, read Reimagining Church. But be warned: it just might make you question everything about the modern institutional church.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

More vain quoting of myself. First, of course, from Josh Brown's blog, where there's been some complaints about the shallowness and general lack of artistic value in modern worship.

In an institutional church, the music liturgy is controlled by clergy. It has to reach a broad audience, and in today’s church environment in specializes to appeal to certain types of preferences (much like preaching style did just 20 years ago).

But in an organic worship setting, all individuals are free to contribute, and there is no controlled liturgy (music or otherwise). So people can learn, on a personal level, how people connect with the songs that they have been drawn to (or written!). They can learn the stories behind these things, on a deep and personal level.

To put it another way, the structure is far, far more important than the style or quality of the worship music on an artistic level. You could say the same thing about preaching...

I don’t know that comparisons to OT temple worship are entirely appropriate, because the idea of worship being a highly refined art isn’t really supported by NT methodology. If our gatherings are supposed to be “every-member functioning,” as Viola would say, then the idea that church worship should necessarily reflect the best of available art doesn’t match up.

Singing is not worship, but it can be a part of worship, and it can help lead people deeper into worship. It definitely should not be as professionalized as it is now. But if we are to take the route that worship should reflect “good art” and refined tastes, it can only lead to further professionalization. And a heck of a lot of disagreement about what is good and what isn’t.

At the heart of the issue is understanding that there are many different kinds of tastes, and a taste that might be sweet to one person might be bitter to another.

Setting worship music to popular styles has always been an issue. Derided by those in the church who were quite elitist and detested the idea that worship lyrics could be sung in a common, “vulgar” style. Much like how the church detested the idea of translations into common tongues for hundreds of years. (Even if the “vulgate” was the common tongue when it was produced, and the Greek was the common tongue when it was written.)

The point isn’t to make people happy with worship music. It’s to help them connect with God in an intimate way. And you can use worship music to expand people’s tastes and lead them into deeper worship, using music they would have never normally enjoyed. (I’ve done it.) But it can’t be done in a divisive way. If I just outright discount someone’s musical tastes as awful (even if they are), I’ll have little chance of helping them to explore the beauty of my musical tastes. Our relationships in the church, regarding music, should not be approached with such an attitude. And if we truly understand that what is “good” or “bad” about art is entirely subjective, then we can approach each other with love and grace and share with each other what we love about the styles that we connect so deeply with. (from Oh Happy Day at iamjoshbrown.com)

And Dan Kimball is reviewing Pagan Christianity and interviewing Frank Viola about organic church. Good stuff, actually, but of course I had to comment. First is a quote from Dan Kimball's review (really the only negative part of it), where he shares what he sees as an issue with Frank's approach:

What I disagree with is that if we follow this, then we should be all reading Scripture only from scrolls, as the "pagan" printing press was not around at that time and the "pagan" way we bind the Bible today and put them into pages was all developed hundreds of years later. Or that we have "pagan" forms of communicating and use laptops, blogs and the internet (I am using hyperbole to make a point, but it is this type of reaction which I feel the book consists of in how it stresses many of it's practical conclusions).

And my response:

That completely and totally misses the point. And Viola specifically addresses this in the book. He only looks at pagan elements, that have been added to the church, that have diminished the functional headship of Christ in the church. That reduce the organic nature of the church. Using Powerpoint to display lyrics or scripture for a sermon isn't the issue, but having a professional worship leader and preacher define the liturgy for the entire assembly is. It is not that we can't utilize modern technologies in the church, it is that we shouldn't allow pagan/modern practices to redefine the church. (from Pagan Christianity and Frank Viola - Part 2 at dankimball.com)

Labels: church, house church, music

Now that I'm done doing a thorough review of one of Viola's books, it's time to do a more concise review of his latest book: Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices.

This is actually a revision of Pagan Christianity, which was first released by Viola several years ago, and has apparently been out of print. With this revision, he's partnered with George Barna. I've not read the original version of Pagan Christianity, but I've heard that this revision is much better on several levels.

While Rethinking the Wineskin actually focuses on church practices and principles described in the New Testament, Pagan Christianity focuses much more on the church practices (and their underlying principles) that have been added to the church since the New Testament era. It is really an impressive history book, detailing how certain practices were first introduced in the church. But it is also a criticism, for the practices Viola mentions have had detrimental effects on the functioning of the church:

• Church buildings: this idea is simply not found in Scripture, and Viola explains how the church building as a sacred space was connected to the use of relics (usually bones of dead saints) to create sacred, holy spaces as the only "appropriate" place to worship. Early Christianity intentionally stayed away from the "holy space" concept prevalent in every other religion. The financial overhead of a building is only one of the problems it creates. (As opposed the house.)


• Order of worship: the order of worship has remained essentially unchanged for hundreds of years. The problem with a set, unalterable liturgy (whether spoken or set to song) is that it prevents the practical functioning of the body of Christ within church gatherings. Not only is it not found in scripture, it is directly at odds with descriptions found in scripture of early church gatherings as well as inconsistent with the theology of the body of Christ.


• Sermon: like the order of worship, the sermon takes control away from the body and places it in the hands of the individual. But sermons also were borrowed directly from pagan philosophy styles of the Greek sophists (the inventors of rhetoric) who were more interested in oratorical skill than in any kind of accuracy. The idea of a "trained speaker," turned into "religious specialist" was taken from this tradition. This does not call teaching or preaching into question, but it certainly calls into question the regularly styled oratory and professional approach to preaching. Preaching as found in the New Testament was sporadic, spontaneous, dealt with an immediate situation, and lacked rhetorical structure. It also usually took on some form of dialogue rather than simply being an oratory.


• Pastor: The pastor is at the heart of preventing the body of Christ from functioning in the way demanded by New Testament theology. Pastoring is a spiritual gift, but the idea of the modern "pastor" is completely unbiblical. Its introduction to the church first began with Ignatius, who believed that "a bishop stood in the place of God while the presbyters, or elders, stood in the place of the twelve apostles." Eventually these ideas morphed into the priest system. But it was always about separating God from man, establishing man-made structures and hierarchies to take the place of the organic leadership that Christ worked through in the early church.


• Sunday morning dress: "Dressing up for church" is a more recent issue, brought on about 150 years ago with the introduction of a middle class who could afford some nice clothes, and wanted to identify themselves with their more wealthy neighbors. But the idea of special clergy robes was integrated from the Roman court systems, and over time became yet another symbol of the separation of the clergy from the laity.


• Music ministers: the choir was borrowed from Roman imperial procedures for processional music, eventually leading to a specialization of singing by the choir alone. Similar to how preaching was viewed as requiring training in the methods and practices of oratory and was reserved for only professionals, the singing was reserved for the trained, professional members of the choir, creating a spirit of spectatorship that survives to this day.


• Tithing and salaries: the modern idea of a tithe has no basis in the New Testament, which calls believers to give according to their ability, and to give as they feel led to give, out of joy. The modern idea of the tithe exists as a result of the combination of the church with secular authority, which used the "tithe" as a way to forcibly fund church operations. Viola explains how tithing in the Old Testament was designed to help the poor, but in the modern understanding of a tithe, the church expects even the poor to give 10%, and makes them feel guilty if they are unable to do so. The tithe becomes a cop-out for those with a lot of money (because they can easily give the "required" 10% and ease their conscience), while becoming a burden of guilt on the poor. All to fund further religious specialization of the clergy, separating these same poor people from God and preventing the full functioning o the body of Christ.


• Baptism and communion: Baptism became a part of a larger religious ritual rather than the simple practical expression of faith as described in the New Testament. Many began to view the act of baptism as providing the forgiveness of sins - Constantine himself waited until his deathbed to be baptized for this reason. Communion in the New Testament was a full meal, with remembrance, celebration, and discipleship, as a center of the gathering community. It later became infused with ritualistic undertones, taking on elements of pagan mysticism to eventually become the Eucharist in the Catholic mass. The reformation changed the theology behind communion but it did little to change the practice itself, which still commonly has heavy ritualistic undertones.


• Christian education: After the institutionalization of Christianity, Christian education always followed the prevailing education methods of the day. With a focus on knowledge, Christian education has little in common with the methods Christ employed in discipleship. Christian education is at the heart of the "specialization" of Christian ministry to the select few, being a basis upon which a person is "called" to professional ministry. This concept has nothing in common with New Testament Christianity and is based completely in secular systems of training and credentials.

The reality is that all of these elements were absent from the early church. All of them were borrowed and adopted from pagan and religious systems. Few people will disagree with that. What people will disagree with is whether or not they hinder the proper functioning of the body of Christ.

Wineskin talked a lot about these issues as well, but didn't go into nearly the same level of detail about them. Likewise, Pagan Christianity deals somewhat with the New Testament church practices and principles, but doesn't go into nearly the same detail as Wineskin. But I think to truly understand how these issues hinder the proper functioning of the body of Christ, you have to look very closely at how God instructs the Church to be. And since today's institutional church doesn't take scripture very seriously in this regard, of course they will disagree with Viola's style, tone, and conclusions.

Even still, those who agree with Viola are sometimes at a loss to put it all together. Viola also puts a lot of plugs in for a book coming out this summer, called Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity (to be released in August 2008). I'm pretty sure that this book will actually be a combination of a couple of Viola's previous books, including Wineskin. I know that a lot of people had wished that Pagan Chrstianity had contained more practical descriptions of how to implement organic church principles - Viola has been pushing this upcoming book as the "response" to Pagan Christianity.

But I'm not sure that we should get too caught up looking for "practical" tips to implementing an organic church. Part of the point in things being organic is that they don't look exactly the same everywhere. But every practical thing we try to do should be examined against the principles of the church, as described in the New Testament, and those following the path of organic church welcome others who can help guide them along the way.

I also don't think it's wrong to adopt styles and practices from surrounding culture, as long as they don't redefine what it means to be the church, and as long as we don't form some kind of new tradition around them. For instance, I don't think there's anything wrong with hosting a concert-style worship event or a seminar-style teaching series, but I don't think that these should become the defining characteristics of our church gatherings -- which are more appropriately modeled after the relational form of discipleship that Christ employed. Keeping things organic helps to ensure that my "great idea" doesn't obstruct how the church is supposed to function, and also helps to ensure that my idea doesn't outlive its usefulness.

I think that the story of the church over the past 1700 years, most of all, has been one of religious leaders redefining church to be less and less organic and more and more institutional. We are beginning to see a paradigm shift back to an organic view of church. It started decades ago and is still growing. It might not really explode for decades more, but those of us whom God has called out of the institutional church to follow His call to a return to organic communities are glad to see authors like Viola and Barna put a voice to what God has been laying on our hearts. Some in the institutional church will respond as God puts in on their hearts as well, and others will lash out because it is too much of a challenge to their institutional worldview. If they had the power to silence it, many of them would try. This has always been the case when God speaks through His prophets, and we should expect no different today.

If you've not read this book, and issues of this nature are at all an interest to you, I highly recommend reading it. It will give you a very different perspective on the Sunday morning experience, and at a minimum, will help you to understand the perspective of your "organic church" contemporaries.

Labels: books, church, house church, open formats, reviews

This is the conclusion to the series reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

By the way: I know that Amazon lists a really high price for this book. It's actually kind of hard to get, but ChristianBook.Com (where I bought it from) still lists Rethinking the Wineskin for only $11.99. It currently shows it shipping in a couple of weeks.

It's taken me some time to wrap this series up. I don't usually go into as much detail with a "review." But this book has really pushed me, as well as really voicing a lot of the things God has been pushing me (as well as my siblings) towards. This kind of detailed review is as much for me as it is for anyone who reads my blog. When something this important comes along, it helps me a lot to be able to capture a lot of quotes and my thoughts about them.

But I hope this has been challenging for you as well. And if you're intrigued by my summaries, I highly recommend trying to pick up a copy. Viola is actually in the process of repackaging several of his books, and I suspect that this one will end up being repackaged as well. Hopefully even better.

There are so many things that we've touched on while examining what the "new wineskin" really is:

• Gatherings
  
• Common Meal
  
• The House
  
• Family/Community
  
• Leadership - Oversight
  
• Leadership - Visionary
  
• Purpose
  
• Membership
  
• Boundary
  
• Tradition

Viola finishes up the book dealing with a couple of topics, including looking at what other reform movements have done in the past couple of decades. Viola spends some time in the final chapter analyzing the shortcomings of several modern church movements, including the megachurch, the third wave and restoration movements, and cell churches, and has some things to say about how they really haven't reformed very much. Viola is also highly critical of "house churches" that haven't really adopted organic principles and practices.

That's not to say that Viola feels that institutional churches can't be used by God.

It is a fact that God has used and is using the institutional church. Because of His mercy, the Lord will work through any structure as long as He can find hearts that are truly open to Him.

But Viola is clear that the institutions themselves are more of a hindrance than people realize.

He spends most of his last chapter on what to do next. His assumption is that many people who read this book, currently in the institutional church, will wonder where to go from here and how to implement the principles he's laid out in their current church.

Some have championed the idea of renewing the institutional church from the inside out. But those who have sought to revamp the established church have met serious resistance and frustration.

I've read similar quotes from other authors. I would say that most people who have gone down this path have entertained similar ideas, and I've personally put a lot of thought into what an existing institutional church could do to move toward the original wineskin described in the New Testament. As I've told some friends of mine who are pastors, I've love to see someone really try it. But I've become more and more skeptical about the possibilities. The most likely thing that would happen to an existing church, given that kind of pressure, is that it would be torn apart. You'll never get dozens, hundreds, and especially thousands of people to have that kind of paradigm shift together. The early Christians did not "reform" Judaism by improving the institutional system, but instead created a completely new, organic church that defied all logic of worldly leadership and religion. We are faced with a similar task today in trying to rediscover the new wineskin.

It is the clergy/sectarian system that inhibits the rediscovery of face-to-face community, supplants the functional Headship of Christ, and stifles the full ministry of every believer. Consequently, all attempts at renewal will be short-sighted until the clergy structure and denominational system are dismantled in a local fellowship...

In sum, the modern church will never be renewed until it recognizes that the framework with which it operates is inadequate and self-defeating. Despite the good intentions of the persons that populate it, the interior design of the institutional church sets us up for defeat.

True renewal, therefore, must be radical. That means it must go to the root! Recovering the Lord's testimony necessitates that we forsake our ecclesiastical patches and band-aids!

Again, this comes down to a paradigm shift. Those can happen radically within a generation, but it is usually a new generation that embraces such a shift. I believe this is one of the reasons why the average age of clergy is climbing rapidly. As described in Barna's Revolution, this paradigm shift is beginning.

But people who have not made this shift cannot understand why those of us who have are so restless.

Those who have not had a paradigm shift regarding the church will either ignore or oppose those churches that have.

In the eyes of those who see the world through institutional glasses, unless a church meets in the "right" place (a building), has the "proper" leadership (an ordained pastor or priest), and bears the "correct" name (one that indicates a "covering"), it is not an authentic church! Instead, it is dubbed with innovative terms like "para-church."

For those who have not yet grown weary of running on the program-driven treadmill of institutional "churchianity," that which is abnormal is considered normal. And that which is normal is regarded as abnormal. This is the unhappy result of not basing our faith and practice upon Scripture.

Viola quotes Jon Zens to further emphasize how we have twisted scripture to support the existing institutional system:

It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man's ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another).

On a final note, look again at Christ's parable of the wineskins:

No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth over a hole in an old coat. Otherwise, the patch will shrink and pull away -- the new patch will pull away from the old coat. Then the hole will be worse. Also, no one ever pours new wine into old leather bags. Otherwise, the new wine will break the bags, and the wine will be ruined along with the bags. But new wine should be put into new leather bags.(Mark 2:21-22, NCV)

The context of this statement is clearly comparing Christ's ministry with the traditional Jewish system. He's saying something very clear here - don't mix what I'm doing with something that is not compatible! He's still telling us that today. Christ modeled for His followers, on a daily basis, what it meant to follow Him, and what it meant to be the church. What it looked like to be the new wineskin. But we keep trying to put the new wine (Christ) into an old wineskin (religious institutions). God is challenging us to rediscover the wineskin Christ began, with the joy, peace, and fullness that comes along with it. May we be faithful to the task he left us:

Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: "God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I'll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20, The Message)

May we be always reminded what the context of Christ's command really is. They didn't view this command as some kind of directive to do something completely different from the kind of leadership Christ modeled for them. They viewed this as a command to continue on in the practices and principles that Christ trained them in.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

In Christianity, we have nearly 2,000 years of tradition behind us. How much of this helps us? How much of this hinders us?

I'm actually not going to focus much, right now, on the traditions of the last 1,900 years. Primarily because that's a different book (one that I'll do a short review of soon), but also because over the past couple of years I've made it my goal to tease out the tradition of men from my thinking. It's an ongoing struggle, and will likely always be a struggle.

But the NT does talk about tradition - specifically, about apostolic tradition. The apostolic tradition is not a set liturgy or detailed description of worship gatherings. It is not a detailed description of how to organize churches geographically. It is not about obedience to some kind of new law of church practice. If it was, we would not need the guidance of the Spirit in our churches.

The apostolic tradition is all about the principles of following Christ in an organic way.

The apostolic tradition is the embodiment of those spiritual principles and organic practices that the apostles modeled in every church during the first century. It is the principles, methods, and lines of working that constitute the wineskin that God has formed to preserve His new wine.

In other words, Christ brought the new wine of the new covenant, and the apostles created the new wineskin of the church to contain the new covenant. Christ specifically said that the new wine could not be contained in the old wineskin. Therefore the apostolic tradition is essential if we with to truly reflect Christ in the church.

The NT presents the church in its purest form. It shows us what the church was like before it was tainted by the defiling hand of man... if we ignore Scripture on these points, we will make the perilous mistake of creating a church after our image.

I've been saying for awhile that I'm starting to take the NT more seriously. It is exactly because of this that the apostolic tradition becomes more important. For as much as the NT has to say about individual salvation and personal holiness, it has more to say about corporate holiness, our responsibilities to each other, and how we corporately interact with God. Viola quotes Stephen Kaung:

People believe that the Word of God shows them how to live individually before God, but they think that insofar as their corporate life is concerned, God says, 'It's up to you; do whatever you like.' And that's what we find today in Christianity; there is no guiding principle as to our corporate life - everyone does what is right in his own eyes. But dear brothers and sisters, we are saved individually, but we are called corporately... there is as much teaching and example in the Word of God that governs our corporate life as there is our personal life.

The apostolic tradition is the new wineskin. But we have held on to so much more that is either glaringly absent from the apostolic tradition, or even specifically forbidden. Professional clergy are never mentioned in the tradition. (Helping traveling ministers is mentioned, but Paul dislikes taking payment for ministry!) Single-leader and presentational systems are not mentioned, instead each member ministers to the entire body. In a time when religion was always combined with a "holy space," Christians specifically refrained from building temples are basilicas for worship, instead intentionally choosing the simple relational format of the home. Denominations and church splits are specifically warned against. Unity was of the utmost importance.

Observing apostolic traditions means following what was theologically and spiritually significant in the experience of the early church. The apostolic tradition represents the balance between reenacting the specific actions of the first-century church and ignoring them... Multitudes of church leaders today have opted to regard their own ideas of "doing church" as wiser, more expedient, and more successful than what is found in the NT. The tragedy of this mistaken conclusion is manifold. When Divine tendencies are replaced with man-officiated programs and schemes, God's ordained purpose for the ekklesia is crippled at best. It is crushed at worst.

I believe that the heart of the modern church's problem in this area is pragmatism. The idea is that we are after tangible results. God will not be pleased unless we reach as many people as we can. A church building is necessary to reach the unsaved in suburban cultures. That paid pastoral staff serve a need in the church community. Et cetera.

But I believe that the Bible shows, time and time again, that it is not results from pragmatic approaches that God desires from us. God's desire of us is simply to be obedient.

The tragic story of King David's presumptuous act of placing the ark of the Lord upon a wooden cart is the summary witness that God's work must be done His way (2 Sam. 6:1-7). The humanly-devised scheme of placing the holy ark upon a cart appeals to modern pragmatic ears. Yet the idea was borrowed from the heathen Philistines. And it violated the plain instruction of Jehovah.

There is simply nothing we can add to church practice that can be of any lasting value if we are not first and foremost obedient to the direct and obvious descriptions of church life, principle, and practice as described in the NT. This is the apostolic tradition. We would be very wise to compare our modern churches to it, and make any and all adjustments that we need to make in order to follow what has been handed down to us. Not what has been handed down to us through 1,900 years of human improvements. But what has been handed down to us directly from the apostles themselves, in the form of NT scripture. It is this, and only this measurement, with the guidance of the Spirit, that we have been given to adhere to. Pragmatism should be viewed as our enemy if it distracts us from obedience.

I'll finish with a quote from A. W. Tozer about pragmatism:

What shall we do to break its power over us? The answer is simple. Acknowledge the right of Jesus Christ to control the activities of His church. The NT contains full instructions, not only about what we are to believe but what we are to do and how we are to go about doing it. Any deviation from those instructions is a denial of the Lordship of Christ. I say the answer is simple, but it is not easy for it requires that we obey God rather than man, and that brings down the wrath of the religious majority. It is not a question of knowing what to do; we can easily learn that from the Scriptures. It is a question of whether or not we have the courage to do it.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

Who is in your church?

Last time, we talked about Membership, and how it is clearly not acceptable to separate ourselves out due to any kind of division. We are all a part of Christ, and all members of His body.

But what about the local church? What does the New Testament have to say about the nature of local fellowships?

The New Testament clearly defines local churches in terms of geography. Distance is the only thing that separated one church from another.

Strikingly, everywhere the word "church" is used throughout the NT (excepting the passages which refer to the universal, heavenly church or a church in someone's house) it is identified by the city. By contrast, everywhere the word "churches" is used in the NT, it refers to the various churches that exist in a given province or region... according to the Bible, the boundary of the church is the city.

But this is not how it is today. You can drive down any local highway and easily pass by five churches within a mile of each other, that have no connections between them. Christ is not unified.

Given the size of our cities today, though, the "city" might not be the best analogy to use today. We could more appropriately talk about communities. In metropolitan areas, though, there is little differentiation between communities other than arbitrary political boundaries. Nevertheless, it is the spirit behind this issue that is important. Even if my house church meets just a few miles from my brother's house church, I don't think the issue with geography is that we have to combine our fellowships. But I do think that it is crucial that we view ourselves as part of Christ's church, and more importantly, that we intentionally meet together to express that in a practical way. I have recently realized what a gift this is from God, and how easy it is for us to personally model this, because we have three different house churches in the area, all connected through sibling relationships. I think this is truly opening my eyes, anyway, to how connected our churches should be in Christ.

With the five churches within a mile of each other on a local highway, though, how much inter-relation do these churches have? In nearly all cases, very, very little. A friend of mine who is a pastor in just that situation has lamented to me about how difficult it is to create any kind of fellowship among the pastors. If you ask me, we are divided because of the clergy class, because of the preferential treatment they receive from their followers.

The notable feature of these sects is that the people within the gather around their favorite leader (or doctrine) instead of around Christ.

You could just as easily add stylistic issues to that today. But it began with clergy.

One of the pitfalls of house churches is that we can consider ourselves too much as a single unit. We need connections with others, in other house churches and even, hopefully, those still in a modern church, so that we understand that our group is not singularly the body of Christ.

While the house is the Scriptural setting for the church meeting, the boundary of the church is never the house. It is always the locale. An ongoing challenge for modern house churches is the danger or raising up several independent and separate house churches in the same community.

How does this position house churches relative to the modern church? The problem is that the modern church is heavily based on its division.

What is the remedy for the endless divisions in the Body? It is certainly not found in the formation of an association of sects or ministers who hold hands over the fence... the Lord's reaction to the present disorder is to raise up a representative company of believers who will respond to the Spirit's cry for genuine unity. His is a charge to leave the manmade sects and to meet freshly upon the first-century basis of the church... They receive all whom God has received, whether they meet in sects or not. They include all believers living in their locales. They welcome unreserved fellowship with any and all who wish to gather with them. At the same time, they cannot endorse a system that smacks square in the face of NT revelation... they cannot support the denominational system. Nor can they join the sects.

This sums up so well what I have been feeling. Denominations are simply not approved by God. That is not to say that the people involved aren't of Christ, but their organization is a hindrance to fully knowing and belonging to Christ. But we do not seek to simply start a new sect. We seek to express fully the unity of Christ, apart of sectarianism, and the only way to do that in a lasting way is to avoid manmade structure and organization and remain a truly organic church. I came out of a denomination that originally started with such an ideal - yet within decades the structure and organization had turned the Church of God (Anderson, IN) into just another denomination.

Divisions of the church in any locale is due to sectarianism. We must reverse this trend. Viola quotes Stephen Kaung:

We come out of divisions to return to unity. That's what we are doing. Therefore, on the one hand, we hold fast the Head; on the other hand, we open our heart and arms to all our brothers and sisters all over the world... You may reject us, but we cannot reject you because we believe in the oneness of the Body of Christ... We come out of sects not to be sectarian, but to be delivered from the spirit of sectarianism.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

I fully believe that God hates denominations. They represent the fallacy of man's desire to be right, to be heard, and to be prominent. Much more so than even the local church pastor who commands the pulpit for a half-hour every week. As soon as we move beyond the basic theology of Christ's salvation and forgiveness of sins, and separate ourselves from each other based on these kinds of disagreements, we are no longer a church. We're an arbitrary man-made division of Christ's body.

If a person belongs to the Lord, then he is part of the church. And we must receive him into fellowship. If we demand anything beyond his acceptance of Christ before admitting him into fellowship, we are not a church. We are a sect.

Paul is very clear about this being a major problem. If we become so convinced that we're right that we're willing to end our fellowship with another person that God has received, we're rejecting Christ.

There is an equally dangerous problem of expanding the Biblical view of the body of Christ, and accepting those who do not claim Christ as part of the church. We are not to be all-inclusive.

To receive unbelievers as family members is to turn the church into something earthly and to corrupt the true people of God. This of course does not mean that we should forbid unbelievers from attending the gatherings of the church. But it does mean that we are not to receive them as our brethren.

The New Testament places a huge emphasis on unity within the body of Christ. But it is simply not enough to claim unity when we are horribly divided by organization, doctrine, or practice. Unity within division is simply not unity. It is a lie of the enemy to believe otherwise.

Fellowships that either undercut or exceed the scope of the Body are not Biblical churches. In God's thought, the church is one unified Body of His Son with local expressions throughout the world. Let us, therefore, cease from using the word "church" in a tribal sense where we equate it with Christian denominations, hierarchical structures of descending authority, program-driven institutions, and clergy-led enterprises.

The more our churches act and assemble organically, the closer we will be to how God views the church. And the closer we'll be to fulfilling what God calls the church to be. Manmade divisions of the body, through membership in earthly institutions, only act as an obstacle.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

One of the biggest struggles I've had in the past couple of years is this - what is the purpose of the church? Trying to answer this question while ignoring the effects of your background is nearly impossible. Having grown up in a traditional church, with an emphasis on both evangelism and holiness, it's hard to think of anything other than "reaching the lost."

Properly conceived, the church exists to make the fullness of Christ known on the earth. It stands here to register Christ's final victory over Satan in every place (Eph. 3:9-10). As His Body, the church is here to express Jesus in all of His glory.

Notice that there's nothing in there about saving individual people. We are called to "build the church," but the pressing question is simply what is the purpose of what is being built?

Our American/evangelical variant of Christianity has turned this around. We are taught that the purpose of the church is to add people to the church. That doesn't really make any sense - by having kids, I create a family. But what is the purpose of my family? Is the purpose of my family to have kids? The logic becomes circular, and can easily become a justification for having lots of kids without being at all concerned with who those kids grow up to be. This is what has happened to the church - we've become so focused on adding people to the church that we lose sight of what the church is supposed to become and what it is supposed to represent.

So to make this perfectly clear, adding people to the church is not the purpose of the church.

I'm also not really going to address the "change the world" ideal that many view as the purpose of the church, because in reality you just can't find that in the Bible.

There are three primary metaphors for understanding the purpose of the church, and centered on the idea of a singular, connected, unified church body:

The Temple
Under the old covenant, the temple was the physical place where God would dwell on earth. It contained His presence, and as such, strict instructions were given as to how it would be created, assembled, and maintained. Each aspect of temple life was governed by law.

Under the new covenant, God dwells within His people, the church. We contain God's presence. And we have rather specific instructions as to how we are created (through salvation), how we are assembled (through love and mutual edification), and how we are to be maintained (through holiness).

One brick never made a temple yet, nor has a heap of bricks piled on top of the other. The church is a people built together into one new man. And it exists to be the corporate expression of Christ.

The Bride
Paul describes as a mystery newly revealed that God has been preparing a bride for Christ. Revelation gives a glorious picture of the beauty of Christ's bride (described as a shining city). As is the purpose of any bride, the purpose of the church is to prepare ourselves for Christ.

The two central themes of the church as the bride are purity and love. These are not individualistic, though, they are collective - it is not or individual purity that really matters in this regard, it is our collective purity as a church. Purity in holiness and obedience. But our purity must be motivated out of our love for Christ.

The Lampstand
In an often overlooked part of Revelation, the church is described as a lampstand of pure gold. (Revelation 1:20) The purpose of this lampstand is to shine out Christ, to "bear the testimony of Jesus." The only way this can be done is for the lampstand to be made into the image of Christ through discipleship.

There is also much to be said of the church as the kingdom of God - in essence, the church is the visible agent of the kingdom on earth, similar to the metaphor of the lampstand. But as the kingdom of God, we are also called to be the hands of Christ in the world - preaching the good news, bringing healing, deliverance, and freedom.

When we talk about the purpose of the church being to bring salvation to the lost, or to be an agent of change in the world, though, we are missing the critical, higher purpose. When the church is properly being the church, it will bring salvation to the lost, it will call out evil in the world and serve as a counter-example of love and purity. But these are not the church's purpose.

The church is the very fiancé of Jesus Christ. It is the new humanity. It is the lifestyle of the coming kingdom. It is the Christian's natural habitat. It is the spiritual environment where face-to-face encounters between the Bridegroom and His Bride take place. It is the living witness to the fullness of God's Son.

In short, whenever the church gathers together, its guiding and functioning principle is simply - to be Christ (1 Cor. 12:12).

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

In my last post, I discussed elders. Specifically, that in the New Testament elders are referred to as having a position of oversight over the church.

But what about visionary leadership? What about the direction of the church?

To truly understand the function of elders, we have to discuss a little bit what they are not. They are not the visionary leaders of the church. They are not really even the "leaders" of the church.

The Bible puts great stress on the fact that leadership in the kingdom of God is drastically different from leadership in both the Gentile and Jewish worlds. Unlike the Gentile notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with rank-and-file power and hierarchical structures... Unlike the Jewish notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with outward ordination, office, position, title, or protocol... The Christian orientation links spiritual authority with spiritual function and maturity. It is based on the servant-leadership model that was a common them in our Savior's teaching... In this context, the Christian model of leadership served as a safeguard to the real and living Headship of Christ. It was also a check against authoritarianism, formalism, and clericalism.

Today's dominant church leadership design looks more like a combination of the Jewish and Gentile systems than the Christian system described in the New Testament that is supposed to reflect the Kingdom of God. Today's model is that of a modern corporation with a CEO. Managers handle resources. We have growth strategies, statistics, and charts. We count the number of cars in the parking lot. We consider church organization as appropriate, yet the New Testament relies on the principle of a church organism.

Our primary relationship to each other is that of brothers and sisters. The modern corporation model ruins that.

Plainly stated, leadership in the early church was non-hierarchical, non-aristocratic, non-authoritarian, non-institutional, and non-clerical. More importantly, God's idea of leadership is functional, relational, and collective.

To have the leadership of the church function according to the same principles as that of a corporate executive in a business or an aristocrat in an imperial caste-system was never our Lord's thought. It is for this reason that the NT authors never chose to use hierarchical and imperial metaphors to describe church leadership.

Images of slaves and children depict leadership rather than lords and masters (Luke 22:25-26).

So the elders did not lead the church like a CEO. Who, then, led the church? Who provided visionary direction?

The answer is more simple than you might think. It was Christ who led the church, through the Holy Spirit.

Consider what Christ said to Peter:

On this rock I will build my church, and the power of death will not be able to defeat it. (Matthew 16:18 NCV)

He did not say that "on this rock you will build my church." Christ said that on this rock Christ would build His church.

Paul frequently refers to the church as the body of Christ, with Him as the head. This is why it is so important to follow the New Testament model of leadership - if we put ourselves in too prominent a place of leadership, we stand in the way of Christ's leadership as the head.

But what about practical implementation? How do we see the mind of Christ and the direction of Christ in the life of the church? It is easy enough for a leader to get up in front of the church and say that He feels Christ wants the church to do x, y, and z. But how is the church to know if this is truly the will of Christ?

The New Testament has only one answer - consensus.

The apostles, the elders, and the whole church decided to send some of their men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. They chose Judas Barsabbas and Silas, who were respected by the believers. (Acts 15:22 NCV)

The apostles didn't just choose who to send. They didn't pray with the elders and then decide who they felt "led" to send. They decided along with "the whole church."

Numerous times in his letters, Paul begs the believers to have one mind:

I beg you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree with each other and not be split into groups. I beg that you be completely joined together by having the same kind of thinking and the same purpose. (1 Corinthians 1:10 NCV)

Why is this important? If consensus is desired, the decision making process has to model the same process discussed about gatherings - that of the Spirit being in control, moving through each believer, where each believer has the opportunity to share what God has laid on their heart.

In another example of a bad translation, someone would probably point to Hebrews 13:17 and say that leadership in the church is more authoritative:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 NIV)

Viola describes what the word used for obey means:

The Greek word for obey in this passage is no hupakuo, the garden-variety word for obedience used elsewhere. It is peitho [middle-passive form] which means to yield to persuasion. The author of Hebrews is simply saying "allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who are more mature in Christ than you are."

A better translation for Hebrews 13:17 actually supports the practice of consensus, not undermine it.

Consensus is not easy. Most of the time it will be a struggle, but it is exactly this kind of struggle that builds community. A charismatic leader pushing forward his own agenda requires others to submit to his will. A body of believers working towards consensus requires all to submit to each other. It requires love and respect for each other. Viola quotes Christian Smith:

Consensus is not strong on efficiency, if by that we mean ease and speed. It can take a long time to work through issues, which can become quite frustrating... consensus is strong on unity, communication, openness to the Spirit's leading, and responsible participation in the Body. In achieving those values, consensus is efficient. Deciding by consensus, then, simply requires belief that unity, love, communication, and participation are more important in the Christian scheme than quick, easy decisions. It requires the understanding that, ultimately, the process is as important as the outcome.

We are not supposed to be simply pragmatic. We are supposed to be obedient. The New Testament places a great deal of emphasis on unity, and the church being of one body, under the leadership of head, which is Christ.

In summary:

The NT knows nothing of an authoritative mode of leadership. Nor does it know a "leaderless" egalitarianism. It rejects both hierarchical structures as well as rugged individualism. Instead, the NT envisions leadership as coming from the entire church! Direction and decision-making are supplied by the brothers and sisters by consensus. Oversight is supplied by the seasoned brothers.

It should be obvious why modern church leaders stand so strongly against authors like Viola and others who are calling the church back to New Testament methods and practices. They have the most to lose. Their entire career is based on a leadership model not found in scripture. If the church were to truly move back towards New Testament methods and practices, which requires a return to the New Testament model of leadership, not only would these leaders lose their position, office, and authority, they would lose their career. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because it is difficult for them to objectively evaluate these issues.

But these very leaders' talents and gifting are actually better suited to New Testament methods and practices. Because in a more intimate, open, participatory format, leaders not only teach but they train. They not only impart their wisdom through teaching, but have a closer relationship with younger Christians through oversight.

But let's not take the task of building and providing direction for the church away from Christ. Those who seek to further utilize the organizational structure of the modern church miss out on one of the things that made the early church so unique at that time of history - that this was the time when God finally ruled His people directly, as He had always wished to do with Israel before they sought out a king. We should seek to restore that distinctive character of the early church.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

Even more than the location of the church, the leadership of the church is the biggest and most important aspect of the early church that looks completely different today. And it is this topic, more than any other, that causes modern Christians to shun the house church movement. And I also believe that this is one of the reasons that house churches continue to struggle - we have to re-learn leadership in light of Scripture.

It all comes down to clergy.

Because the NT knows nothing of "clergy," the fact that a separate caste of the "ordained" permeates our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the NT very seriously. (Jon Zens)

And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns. As a fellow elder, this is my appeal to you: Care for the flock of God entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly – not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don't lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your good example. And when the head Shepherd comes, your reward will be a never-ending share in his glory and honor. (1 Peter 5:1-4, NLT)

The New Testament refers to a type of person in the early church, referred to by several words, including "elder" (which means "mature man"), "overseer" (bishop), and "shepherd" (pastor).

In today's church culture, we have a difficult time seeing these words as simple descriptions. We give these words weight based on recent church tradition more than based on the descriptions of these titles in scripture. But I'm convinced that the words themselves are more descriptive than we give them credit for.

The term "elder" refers to their character. The term "overseer" refers to their function. And the term "shepherd" refers to their gifting. Their chief responsibility was to supervise the believing community in times of crisis.

In terms of character - "elders" are simply mature men of God. Those who have been through good and hard times in the faith. Those who can help younger, more immature Christians to persevere during times of trouble.

In terms of function - the role is not that of visionary leadership. Every description of leadership of elders in the New Testament is that of oversight ("watch over").

In terms of gifting - there is no doubt that elders had the gifting of care, love, and selflessness. Their calling was one of service to the church.

Elders were not church planters. Note how Paul and Barnabas only appointed elders in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch when they returned to those churches (Acts 14). There are other examples where elders are only mentioned years after a church had been planted. A new church will not grow elders for years, because it is a recognition of maturity. Before elders were recognized, the oversight of a church was handled by the apostle(s) who planted it - who would return from time to time.

The Greek words translated "ordain" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 simply mean to "acknowledge" someone that others have already endorsed. This means that the church trusted the elders.

Unfortunately, the American penchant for "offices" and "positions" has caused many believers to bring these ideas to the Biblical text and view the elders as official. Such thinking confuses the oversight of the early church with modern social conventions. It also strips the leadership terminology found in Scripture of its native meaning.

Another principle about this oversight leadership that is missing in today's church is that of plural oversight. Just about everywhere you see the term "elder" in the New Testament, it is in the plural, even among a particular church. You will not find the concept of "lead elder" like you have in today's "head pastor."

Plural oversight in the church protected the sole Headship of Christ. It also served as a check against despotism and corruption among the overseers.

Should these elders be paid? Many people point to 1 Timothy 5:17 to say that they should be paid a salary:

Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NLT)

This is one of the greatest examples of a translation using a modern interpretation of a function and simply rendering it incorrectly. Look at the footnote for the New Living Translation for this verse, attached to "paid well:"

Greek - should be worthy of double honor.

The New Century Version is much clearer:

The elders who lead the church well should receive double honor, especially those who work hard by speaking and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NCV)

Viola explains this very well:

Some have tried to argue for a professional clergy from this one isolated text. But the context of the passage reveals otherwise. First, the specific Greek words that the NT uses for "pay" or "wages" (misthos and opsonion) are not used here. The Greek word for "honor" in this passage is time, and it means to "respect" or "value" someone or something.

The same word is used four times in 1 Timothy. In every case, it means respect. God is to receive honor from man (1:17; 6:16), elders are to receive honor from the church (5:17), and masters are to receive honor from slaves (6:1). Another form of the word is used when Paul says that widows are to be honored by the church (1 Tim. 5:3). (Incidentally, time is never used in first-century literature to refer to "honorarium.")

Second, all believers are called to honor (time) one another (Rom. 12:10). It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from each other. Those elders who serve well are to receive more honor - or greater respect.

Third, the fact that respect is what Paul had in mind is born out by verse 19. Paul goes on to say that the elders are not to be accused (dishonored) unless there are two or three witnesses to confirm the accusation.

Finally, elders were leaders in the church, but they did not lead the gatherings. They did not take a visionary role or make executive decisions. They were not clerics or priests. Their ministry did not interfere with the ministry of others in the church. You will not find a justification for these roles of an "elder" in the New Testament. They simply aren't there.

The clergy profession is a mammoth institution that is far removed from the NT concept of leadership. And its mere presence hinders the cultivation of mature, relational, functioning churches that deeply express the Headship of Jesus Christ...

The modern day pastor system of Protestantism is a religious artifact that has allowed the Body of Christ to lapse into an audience due to its heavy reliance on a single leader. This unscriptural, clergy-dominated structure has done untold damage to God's people. It has turned church into the place where Christians watch professionals perform. It has transformed the holy assembly into a center for professional pulpiteerism supported by "lay-spectators."

The pastoral system has turned ministry into an elitist right. It has stolen your right to function as a member of the ekklesia! And it has lamed the believing priesthood! In short, the clergy concept of church leadership invariably crushes Body life.

All of this begs the question: what about visionary leadership? Next, we'll look at how the New Testament describes that. But if we intend to take the New Testament seriously, our thoughts about local church leadership must shift radically.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

One of the primary characterizations of Christ's ministry was that of relationship. So much so, that He singled out twelve of his followers and treated them like brothers. Friends. Family.

We don't usually equate this topic with the Great Commission, but look at what Jesus said:

Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: "God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I'll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20, The Message)

What I love about this paraphrase in The Message is that it makes something exceedingly clear - Jesus was commanding them to continue what He had been doing with them, and to take it out into the world. And a key, central aspect to that was with the way He created a family atmosphere among them.

Families typically eat together. They greet one another with affection. They squabble. They reconcile. They protect one another. And they help each other in a pinch. The early church embodied all of these family norms.

We are supposed to resemble a family, not a corporation. We are supposed to be sharing "Christ-like care and compassion," not approving budgets, hiring CEO's, and watching growth projections. Some churches even count cars in the parking lot to measure their success. There is little resemblance of this kind of thing to the church that is described in the NT.

Significantly, the NT writers never use the imagery of a business corporation to depict the church. Unlike the institutional church, the early Christians knew nothing of spending colossal figures on building programs and projects at the expense of bearing the burdens of their fellow brethren.

Many contemporary churches have essentially become nothing more than high-powered enterprises that bear more resemblance to General Motors than to the apostolic community!

Viola eloquently points out that part of this problem is that it takes away from the simple, honest implementation of following Christ and replaces it with something much more complex. Viola quotes A.W. Tozer on this point:

Churches run toward complexity as ducks take to water. What is back of this? First, I think it arises from a natural but carnal desire on the part of a gifted minority to bring the less gifted majority to heel and get them where they will not stand in the way of their soaring ambitions... the itch to have the preeminence is one disease for which no natural cure has ever been found...

In all our fallen life there is a strong gravitational pull toward the complexity and away from things simple and real. There seems to be a kind of sad inevitability back of our morbid urge toward spiritual suicide. Only by prophetic insight, watchful prayer and hard work can we reverse the trend and recover the departed glory.

While the "one another" commands are best suited for use in a house setting, they actually require a family atmosphere in order to work at all. If our churches do not truly resemble a family, then they do not resemble the body of Christ.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

So it's December. And yes, I know I've been silent lately. I do plan on finishing my thorough review of Viola's book. But this post is not about explaining why I haven't been writing much lately.

Josh Brown asked me to write a guest post on his blog, titled The Consumptive Church: The Model Speaks Volumes. If you follow Josh's blog at all, you probably know that I comment on his blog frequently. Usually trying to push the conversation here or there. Josh and I are quite opposite politically, but it's fun and helpful to see where we intersect spiritually. In any case, he did a great job describing our blogging relationship in the introduction.

I won't repost my whole article here, but here's an obligitory quote:

Jesus’ approach to ministry, and the realization of the early church, went directly against the norms of the Jewish religion (as well as the similar Roman/Greek pagan religions that were abundant outside of Israel). The church continued to be a counter-cultural movement until Christianity found favor with the Roman government and was subsequently polluted and corrupted by becoming the “official” religion of the state.

But the New Testament is clear. We are called to live simply. This is not so that we can give all of our money to the church so that the church can be extravagant. That basilica/cathedral style of religion is simply the Jewish and pagan systems repackaged with a new name.

Head on over to read the full post. Thanks to Josh for giving me a guest spot. And I'll be back here with more stuff soon.

Labels: church, house church

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

A good friend (who builds churches for a living) asked me recently what I would do if someone gave me a church building. I told him I'd sell it, or give it to a group to start a school. Even though he knows me pretty well, he was surprised by my response.

Most people who have grown up in traditional churches treat the idea of having a church without a building like it's unfathomable. How will people find your church? How will you hold big events to attract people?

Yet the New Testament church didn't have a building. They had their homes. When they met in larger groups, they used common, public, open spaces. If anything, a building would have limited the growth of the church described in Acts.

I've written plenty about house church, though, and I'll continue to do so. So for the rest of this post, I'll concentrate on sharing the five central points that Viola made about having church gatherings in a home:

By meeting in a home, we testify that "the people comprise God's house."

Both Judaism and paganism teach that there must be a sanctified place for Divine worship. Consequently, the Jews erected special buildings for their corporate worship (synagogues). So did the pagans (shrines). No so with Christianity...

The early church was the only religious group in the first century that met exclusively in homes. It would have been quite natural for them to pursue their Jewish heritage and erect buildings to suit their needs. But they intentionally kept from doing so.

Perhaps the early believers knew the confusion that sanctified buildings would produce. Hence, they kept from erecting them to preserve the testimony that the people comprised the living stones of God's habitation.

The home is where the purposes and functions of the church can best be carried out.

The apostolic instructions concerning the church meeting are best suited for a small group setting like the home. Christian principles like mutual participation; the exercise of spiritual gifts; the building together of the brethren into an intentional, face-to-face community; the communal meal; the open transparency and mutual submission of members one toward another; the freedom for interactive dialogue; and the liberty-oriented koinonia (shared life) of the Holy Spirit all operate best in a small group setting like the home.

The home reflects the simple nature of Christ's ministry.

The house is a far more humble place than the stately religious edifices of our day with their lofty steeples and elegant decor. In this way, most modern "church" buildings reflect the boastings of this world rather than the meek and lowly Savior whose name we bear.

It also better reflects Christ's heart to use our resources to help those in need rather than bearing the heavy burden of building construction and maintenance.

The home reveals the church as a family.

The formal manner in which things are done in the basilica church tends to discourage the mutual intercourse and spontaneity that characterized the early Christian gatherings. Exegete the architecture of a typical church building and you will discover that it effectively teaches the church to be passive.

The church building is constructed like a lecture hall or cinema. It is arranged so that those in attendance focus on a particular point - the leader. This style of building "promotes a clergy centrality" and "feeds the spectator-mentality that afflicts most of the Body of Christ today."

The home represents spiritual authenticity.

We live in a day where many, especially youth, are searching for spiritual authenticity. To these seekers, churches that meet in amphitheaters, crystal cathedrals, and ivory-towered domes appear superficial and shallow... the house church is a refreshing witness against those religious institutions that equate glamorous buildings and multimillion dollar budgets with success.

The final point Viola makes is that while the NT does describe some large-style meetings, these were evangelistic in nature and not a normal part of the church gathering. There is a function for large (and small) evangelistic events and efforts. But the purpose of the church gathering is not evangelism, it is mutual edification, and the location of the gathering can either aid or hinder the fulfillment of that purpose.

Labels: books, church, house church, open formats, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

I clearly remember my early experiences with communion as a child. One of my very first times taking communion, I somehow managed to spill the grape juice all over my light yellow pants. My mother was not pleased!

Modern communion is a formal event. Whether Catholic or Protestant, there really isn't much difference. It is a quiet, somber occasion. We pick up (or are given) a piece of a cracker or bread. We follow that with a small amount of juice, or even possibly actual wine.

Yet the Lord's Supper was a meal. They were celebrating the passover feast. It was in this context that Christ first shared with them the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine as an occasion to remember him.

Somehow, modern church has reduced communion from a meal to a simple religious ritual. In the early church, communion was clearly a full meal. Viola says it this way:

The whole of 1 Corinthians 11 makes clear that the believers gathered to eat the Supper as a meal. One would find himself hard-pressed to get drunk on a thimble of grape juice or satisfy his hunger with a bite-sized cracker!

Of course, the history behind this is rooted in the Catholic church. But as I'm learning more and more, Protestantism was primarily concerned about reforming the theology of the church, and largely left the structure and the practices of the church untouched.

The Lord's Supper also witnesses to the three chief virtues: faith, hope, and love. Through the Supper, we re-ground ourselves in that glorious salvation that is our by faith. We re-express our love for the brethren as we reflect on the one Body. And we rejoice in the hope of our Lord's soon return. By observing the Supper correctly, we "proclaim (present) the Lord's death (past) till He comes (future)."

Catholics have made the Lord's Supper literal and sacrificial. Every time they take the Eucharist, they believe that Christ is being re-sacrificed for our sins. Protestants have made the Supper merely symbolic and commemorative. They believe it is merely a reminder of the cross.

But the Lord's Supper is neither a perpetual sacrifice (the Catholic view) nor an empty ritual (the Protestant practice). It carries no sacramental overtones. Nor can it be properly conceived as simply a memorial.

The Lord's Supper is a spiritual reality. The Holy Spirit is present in it. Through the Supper, the Spirit reveals the living Christ to the hearts of His beloved saints. In the Supper, we sup with Him through the one loaf and the one cup.

The NT clearly reveals communion as a meal shared in the context of the church gathering together.

When Christ introduced communion, they were eating bread and wine. This was something they did regularly, including after Christ rose from the grave. He was turning a regular, daily, mundane task - eating food - into an occasion of remembrance, reflection, and celebration. Which do you think held more power in the apostles mind - when they broke bread with Christ before He died on the cross, or when they broke bread with Christ after He rose from the grave?

By introducing communion in the context of a meal, was Christ creating a new ritual, or injecting new meaning into a daily task? I believe it was more of the latter than the former.

We have lost much of what the original church believed and practiced in the communal meal. We have turned church gatherings into a presentation around a pulpit, whereas in scripture they look more like relationships around a table with food. If we were to regain the concept of church around a table instead of church around a pulpit, we'd be on the right track towards making our church gatherings relational and renewing the church back to God's original design.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven't already, for the background discussion about the book.

The very first thing Viola tackles is the church gathering. This is appropriate, since this is the very first thing most people think of when talking about church practice (though arguably it is not the most important thing). This is one of the longest chapters in the book. The only topic Viola spends more time discussing is leadership, which is actually covered over two chapters. (We'll get there later.)

Modern church basically has four reasons for church gatherings. Corporate worship, evangelism, sermons, and fellowship.

Viola points out that none of these reasons are described in the NT as a purpose of gathering together. There is only one purpose described in the NT - mutual edification (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:24-25).

As Paul pulls back the curtain of the first-century gathering in 1 Corinthians 11-14, we see a meeting where every member is actively involved. Freshness, openness, and spontaneity are the chief marks of this meeting. Mutual edification is its primary goal...

The Lord Jesus was free to speak through whomever He chose. And in whatever capacity He saw fit. Consequently, the common practice of a few professional ministers assuming all the important activities of the church, while the rest of the saints remain passive, was utterly foreign to the early church.

For some reason, we think that tradition has more to say on this topic than scripture. We act as though the hundreds of years of presentationally styled meetings carries more weight than what the apostles started. These are the guys that Christ chose to build His church. I think we should pay attention to what they said and did!

The end result of this mistake is what we see today - churches full of Christians who look very similar to the rest of the world.

The institutional church is essentially a nursery for overgrown spiritual babes. It habituates God's people into being passive receivers. It stunts their spiritual development and keeps them in spiritual infancy...

The Reformation recovered the truth of the priesthood of all believers. But it failed to restore the necessary practices that embody this teaching.

The early Christians knew nothing of liturgy. They knew nothing of programs (or bulletins). They knew nothing of rituals. They knew nothing equivalent to the modern-day "pastor." They knew that their purpose of gathering together was simply mutual edification. They each came to the gathering knowing that the Spirit may very well move them to edify the body.

The format of our gatherings either supports or erodes the principle of the priesthood of all believers. While modern church might claim to support this idea, in practice, we elevate the position of the clergy to that of priest, and suppress contributions from those who are under them.

The open format gathering is the heart of the practical expression of the priesthood of all believers. It cuts through the system of a clergy/laity division. It cuts through denominationalism. It cuts through human control and gives control of the gathering to the Holy Spirit. It is essential to the renewal of the church to more closely resemble the descriptions contained in the NT. As big and as important as this is, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that this alone is enough. There is much, much more to be addressed.

Labels: books, church, house church, open formats, reviews

I picked up a phenomenal book a couple of weeks ago, and it is taking a while for me to digest and work through. It's called Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola, and it is doing an incredible job bringing together a lot of what I've been working through over the last couple of years.

I'll start this series out with a quote from the book. It's a long one from the introduction, but it is a good summary of what the book is about.

Church history is rife with examples demonstrating that every past renewal has repackaged the new wine into old wineskins. By the old wineskin, I mean those traditional structures that are patterned after the old Judaic religious system. A system that separated God's people into two separate classes; required the presence of human mediators; erected sacred buildings; and laid stress on outward forms.

The facets of the old wineskin are many. The clergy/laity distinction. The spectator-performer styled church meeting. The single pastor system. The program-driven worship service. The passive priesthood. The edifice complex. All of these features represent Old Covenant forms in NT garb!

Accordingly, the present cry of the Spirit for genuine renewal will never become a reality for those who ignore His concurrent voice regarding the new wineskin. God himself fashioned this fresh wineskin. He made it to perfectly hold the wine of His life. In this way, the wine always precedes the wineskin.

Sadly, not a few have presumed that God has left the wineskin of church practice to the pragmatic whims of well-intentioned men. But the Lord has not left us to ourselves regarding the practice of His church.

We so often forget that the church belongs to Christ and not to us! As in the Old Testament type, no peg of the tabernacle was left to the imagination of man. Rather, the house was to be built "according to the pattern" given from above.

This does not mean that the NT supplies us with an ironclad, meticulous blueprint for church practice. It does not. Therefore, it is a gross mistake to tease out of the apostolic letters an inflexible code of church order that is as unalterable as the law of the Medes and Persians! Such a written code belongs to the other side of the cross.

On the other hand, the NT introduces us to a number of clearly defined practices that characterize God's spiritual house. And it is these practices that make up the "Divine pattern" for the ekklesia (church).

Going through the description of the church in the NT is what the book continues to do. It talks about the following aspects:

• Gatherings
  
• Common Meal
  
• The House
  
• Family/Community
  
• Leadership - Oversight
  
• Leadership - Visionary
  
• Purpose
  
• Membership
  
• Boundary
  
• Tradition
  
• Conclusion

I plan on sharing in more detail about each of these. More of my study has been focused on the description of the church in the NT, apart from the trappings of the modern church. I've been reading bits and pieces here and there, but it's awesome to see how so many people have been struggling with this, for so many years. Viola doesn't pretend to be alone in this - his book is full of quotes from other authors. But Viola's style and approach are needed today. He's clear, conversational, and confrontational. Had I read this book four years ago I would have been deeply disturbed by it. Which would have been a good thing!

I can see why Barna is partnering with Viola for his next book - Revolution was simply an introduction to renewing the church. It's not just about the house. Or open meetings. Though those are certainly good places to start. The NT is full of descriptions of the church that we should be paying attention to. Rethinking The Wineskin does a very good job of sifting through, organizing, and presenting these descriptions.

Final note, and this is important. I fully realize that the things I regularly talk about may seem impractical. Too far removed from where church currently is. And too far removed from what many people will realistically understand, because their view of church is rooted primarily in tradition - the way they grew up understanding church. There is a benefit to continuing to have churches that do things the "modern" way.

Yet it is also critical for us to evaluate what the "modern" way is in light of scripture. And it is critical for us to seek out what God desires for the church. Any criticism you might see in what I've written is as much a criticism of myself as it might be of anyone else. The only possible difference is that I'm determined to push forward in church renewal - not renewal to more modern music styles, more relevant evangelism methods, or more appropriate post-modern theology. But renewal back towards what is described in scripture.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

In House Church, Pt. 8, I shared about a popular blogging pastor who made some comments to me about house church. I withheld his name at that time, and didn't link to the conversation. But now I feel that the example is important enough to share.

Back in December, Tony Morgan posted in response to some stuff George Barna had said. He asked this question in Does More Church Activity Equal Life Transformation?:

In our desire to help people become fully-devoted followers of Christ, we tend to think we need to encourage people to experience a ministry program, retreat or class at the church, and yet research is showing those activities don't lead to transformation. Barna is focusing his attention more on home church/group experiences. Again, in my mind, this suggests that relational connection must be the key ingredient. The problem, of course, is that encouraging people to step into those types of relationships is much harder than just inviting people to show up for an event at the church.

Is anyone else frustrated by realities like this?

And here was my initial reply:

ME:
It's not a challenge when your church *is* a "home church/group experience". I've grown more in the last six months having participated exclusively in a house church, than I have in the last six years leading worship at a conventional church.

Perry Noble, the pastor of NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC, then entered the conversation.

PERRY NOBLE:
The house church model has ONE problem--they neglect the great commission. If Jesus would have wanted us to sit around and suck thumbs...He would have commanded it.

BUT...what was HIS first calling on the disciples? Follow me and we will do deep Bible study? Nope! Follow me and we will figure out predestination? Nope! Follow me and I will make you fishers of me...in other words--we will reach people!!!

I am not saying the house church is totally evil--there has to be an element of community in the church for it to be truly successful...but without an event to stir the heart (remember the Day of Pentecost) then I think many will be missed.

ME:
Wow. If that's your mental model of a house church, then you need to meet some people who attend one.

Granted, some house churches are formed out of pure bitterness and isolation, and house churches are just as prone to sitting on their thumbs as any conventional church is.

But the reality is this - if Jesus had intended for us to launch groups of thousands, with a single "pastor" at the top - he would have started the first one himself.

Yes, he preached to thousands, on occasion, at least. Yet the gospels speak of how he would do his best to escape those crowds. How he chose twelve specific people to pour his heart into them, and then told them (via the great commission) to do the same.

If the very Son of God chose "quality" over "quantity," who am I to second guess him?

If Jesus had millions of dollars, he wouldn't be building church buildings (large or small). If Jesus had thousands of followers, he'd be picking twelve of them and concentrating on those. If Jesus had to choose how to spend his time, he'd be spending it with people instead of preparing all week long for a large weekly event. At least, that's what I'm finding in the Bible I've been reading.

PERRY NOBLE:
Glad we are on the same team...and we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Let's keep loving God and loving others with everything we've got...and following His ways the best we know how...and if one of us OR both of us are wrong...then I believe He will weigh the motives of our heart and understand that we were really trying our best to follow Him the best way we knew how.

I appreciate that Perry showed a little bit of humility at the end... but in reality, after all of the Biblical examples I gave of Jesus choosing small, open, and relational instead of large, closed, and presentational, Perry disagreed with me without any explanation. Yes, we are trying to follow "His ways the best we know how." But that is not an excuse for any of us to be ignorant of the examples of church gatherings found in the Bible. The modern church places far more emphasis on following a traditional model of church than it does on the original examples described in the New Testament.

Perry made two specific points that are important to address.

One, that house churches neglect the great commission. This is amazing for him to say, because house churches were the method of fulfillment of the great commission for the early church. Acts describes some explosive growth for the early church, yet you never see the mention of utilizing a regular event, building a building, or relying on a charismatic pastor to build the church. They met in houses, daily. For large gatherings, they met publicly in public places. It was organic, unrestrained growth, not organizational.

The second point Perry makes is that the "event" is required to reach the most people. Even if this is true, this is still no justification for a church to pour HUGE resources into a grand, weekly production. Church members get so burned out on putting together a grand production that they don't have time for any of the "one another" commandments. The "event" can be much less regular, giving time and room for the church to be relational rather than focusing continually on being presentational.

I believe that Jesus' sole attractional philosophy for His church was for "love one another" to be what attracted people to the church. Not events with a high production value.

The other point to take away is this - I always see more negative response from those within traditional churches towards those in house churches than the other way around. Barna talked about this in Revolution. I've heard how other megachurch pastors now dismiss Barna outright. I've known several others involved in house church who have shared the same experience. (As far as Barna's standing with the modern church, wait until Barna's next book comes out, Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Co-written with Frank Viola.)

I've been in traditional church. I understand the lure of the presentational format, and the desire as a presenter to see the value in it. While I've never been a pastor of a church the size of NewSpring (or a pastor at all, for that matter), it's accurate to say that I know much better where Perry's coming from than he knows where I'm coming from. That's why those in house churches will discuss the failings of the modern church, but the goal there is to help others see what they themselves have already discovered. But those entrenched in the modern church are simply defending the only thing they've ever known, and typically do that by making mischaracterizations of house churches, and ignoring countless scriptures that clearly describe the reliance of the early church on them.

The final thing I'd like to say is this: I believe that many of the megachurch pastors have missed their calling. I believe that they have truly apostolic gifts. That is why they focus on numbers and size. They focus on church planing. This is an important role in the body of Christ, but it is a role that is absent in the modern church. Therefore, people such as Perry Noble feel a call to ministry, and the modern notion of "pastor" is really the only thing available to them. If the body of Christ functioned as described in the New Testament, people with apostolic gifts would be unhindered by the administration of the local church corporation. They would be able to follow the Spirit's leading in planting hundreds of churches rather than just one. They would be mentoring many more apostles. And their impact would be far bigger than their buildings can now allow.

But at the moment, it is primarily the prophets who are trying to call the modern church out of its religious trappings and free it to be the body of Christ as described in scripture. But prophets are rarely appreciated. One day, I pray that God will open all of our eyes to His truth as revealed in scripture.

Labels: church, house church, open formats

On the Consuming Worship blog, worship leader Jeff Miller asked for people's thoughts about 1 Corinthians 14:20-25. Well, I've talked about that one before, not just once but actually twice. My thoughts on that have progressed a good bit since then. So I'll quote a little more of it here, share some of my comments to the other blog, and discuss it a bit more.

Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults.

In the law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever's heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, "God is really among you."

What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:20-31, NRSV)

As I discussed in Weekly Worship Pt. 2, I still think the key point of this passage is about being mindful of unbelievers in the context of our gatherings. They should be orderly, not chaotic. That's why there's a difference between one person speaking in tongues (with interpretation/translation if necessary) being a sign for unbelievers (vs 22) and everyone speaking in tongues making an unbeliever think that you're crazy (vs 23-24).

But even though that is the main point, there's something very important for the modern church to see in this passage. In House Church, Pt. 6 I said the following about vs 24-25:

Paul specifically states that unbelievers would be amazed at how God works through all the believers, and would become believers as a result. The only way Paul's scenario can play out in today's world is if unbelievers see God working through more than just the pastor and/or worship leader, and for people to learn how to follow God's leading and speak the things that God has laid on their heart. Open formats are about whether or not we're going to have one or two people control the flow of worship, or allow God to control the flow, through the Spirit, via whoever He wants to use. I choose the latter.

There's another way to say this - that the closed model of worship/sermon presentation is unbiblical.

I made that statement on Consuming Worship, and was asked for a clarification of open vs. closed. Here is what I said:

My definition of a “closed” format is that there are a limited number of people controlling the flow and format of a presentation. In any typical church, the entire gathering is controlled by the worship leader and the pastor. The worship leader sings songs and the pastor preaches. Those in attendance only “participate” by following what others are doing.

My definition of an “open” format is that the Spirit is in control. There is little to no agenda. The bulk of the gathering is open discussion, letting the God work through all of the people to take the meeting where He wants it to go. But in a nutshell, an “open” format is the way Paul describes it. Spontaneous, yet orderly.

In a closed format, we are teaching people to be passive spectators in their walk of following Christ. It breeds spiritual immaturity. In an open format, we are teaching people to be active participants in what God is doing, allowing them to speak and contribute as the Spirit leads them. It opens up room for spiritual maturity. It breaks down the walls between clergy and laity (something Christ said he *hates*). It trains them to follow the Spirit’s leading while out in the world.

Some people think I'm talking about small versus large gatherings here. While that is a worthy discussion, and open formats are far easier in small gatherings, I have read about large-sized open format gatherings. I think they're quite feasible, though culturally I think we're a long way from seeing that kind of thing happen in America.

The issue isn't size. The issue is who is in control. Is Christ a practical head of the church, leading individuals to speak or contribute through the Spirit? Or are men in charge of the church, setting an agenda, approving what is to be said, and limiting contributions to two or three people?

One commenter said this to me:

You have a valuable ministry that you are a part of, but please don’t allow it to become a belief that it is the “right” way or a way to prove that someone else’s way of doing something is wrong. I am not accusing you of this, I am asking you to not go there.

I totally appreciate the Spirit in which this is said. The reality is, though, that I'm simply looking at scripture and describing what I see there. You can't find what happens in modern churches today described in scripture. It doesn't exist. So it's not about right vs. wrong, it's about biblical vs. unbiblical. I can give example after example from the New Testament supporting open formats. Nowhere will you see an example from the New Testament supporting a closed format.

In House Church, Pt. 8, I shared about a popular blogging pastor who made some comments to me about house church. I withheld his name at that time, and didn't link to the conversation. But in the next post, I will discuss what happened and my reflections on it since.

Labels: church, house church, open formats

Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul?

For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News - and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power. (1 Corinthians 1:12-13, 17)

Even in the early church, people started picking one "leader" over another. Some were trying to align themselves with Paul, Apollos, or Peter. Basically, these were different guys, they had different approaches to ministry, and some people thought one guy had it "right" moreso than the other. Early on, the church was in danger of being divided. So this is Paul's attempt to prevent what would eventually become our present-day denominations.

Paul goes on:

As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas." So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe.

Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God. (1 Corinthians 1:19-21, 26-29)

The main point in this passage is that Christ "is the one who made us acceptible to God" (v30). But there is another implication here.

Where did the divisions start? The division started because Paul, Apollos, and Peter each had a unique approach to ministry. And though they each pointed people to Christ, they were influential to the point where people were following them instead of Christ.

Paul is indicating here that the wisdom of man is useless to God - meaning that God will use the foolish and the weak to spread His gospel. Yet our modern-day pastors ensure that their leadership skills are top-notch. They utilize the best statistical methods to make sure their worship services are having an "impact" by tracking attendance, monetary giving, or even the number of cars in the parking lot. They employ the best consultants to help them tweak their message and presentation to be friendly to their target demographic. This kind of approach is the exact same thing any modern-day CEO would do. This is the best of human wisdom. If it can grow a profitable company, of course it can grow a church.

But the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Or in the fruit, as Christ said. In his research, George Barna paints a bleak picture that the "churched" population is still lost. This is the result of human wisdom - building large buildings, filling them with a lot of people, but the end result being that you can't tell them apart from the rest of the world. And on top of that, division between believers is stronger than it ever has been.

Paul seems to paint a different picture. But in order to get there, we have to learn to not rely on human wisdom. Which means a lot less of acting like a CEO would, and a lot more acting as Jesus did when He chose the twelve and told them to train others in a similar fashion.

"Clever speeches and high-sounding ideas." Doesn't that sound exactly like what a typical approach to church is today?

Labels: church, house church

Something struck me last week, and it's become a focal point of my thoughts about being a follower of Christ and joining in fellowship with other followers.

The Old Testament was a complete system. In order words, it contained a covenant between God and man, and all of the directions you needed to follow in order to fulfill your obligation within that covenant. The law was complete - nothing needed to be added to it (though the Jews continued to add to it anyway through their legalism). And nothing was to be taken away from it.

It has been apparent to me for years that the New Testament represented a new covenant. The veil was torn in two - we no longer require a priest, performing sacrifices, the Jewish celebration days... all of those specific instructions no longer apply.

But the modern church we grew up with looked nothing like the church described in Acts, and in the letters of the New Testament. Certainly nothing like what Christ Himself did while He was here. So the thought was that while this is a new covenant, the New Testament was not a complete description of it. It did not explain everything. The role of an apostle, so vivid in the New Testament, was explained away as only necessary during the founding of the church. Likewise with prophecy, miraculous healing, and speaking in tongues (the latter only if you're not Pentecostal, but I have my own opinions about how they're not using the gift as described in the New Testament).

I believe that the changes I have gone through in the last couple of years has led me to this point: that the New Testament is as complete a description of the new covenant as the Old Testament is a complete description of the old covenant.

In the Old Testament, God told them exactly how to build the temple. What types of materials to use. In what way to perform the sacrifices, and exactly who was qualified to do it. Everything was given to them, down to the letter, in terms of how they were to relate to each other and to God.

I now believe that the same is true of the New Testament. We are not told how to build our temple because we are not supposed to have one. Christ told the woman at the well that the structure can no longer be the focal point of worship - yet our churches still sing about how holy the sanctuary is.

Christ told us exactly how to relate to God - to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. And how to relate to each other - to love our neighbors as ourselves. And the new commandment was that by loving each other, people will know that we are His followers.

Then Acts and the letters in the New Testament proceed to give us a full description of what that should look like. Meeting in each other's homes. Reaching out to people where they are. Doing miraculous works. Sharing the gospel with others. Helping out each other in every need.

Finally, I understand that we don't have to be creative, visionary, or strategic. I simply have to be obedient to the principles and directions laid out in the New Testament.

Britt had a series awhile back called Things I Can't Find in the Bible. It's a list of twenty things that are incredibly common in modern church that are simply not described in the New Testament:

Friendship Evangelism
Asking Jesus into Your Heart
Christian Entertainment (and the PS)
Seminary Education
Denominations
Dressing Up For Church
Priest Class Under the New Covenant
Ordination of Man
Political Action
Having a Building
Registered Membership
Christians as Sinners
Day of the Week
Specific Ministry Positions
Preparing for Sermons (and the intermission)
Order of Worship
Christian Tithing (and the addendum)
Material Wealth as a Sign of Faith
End of the Gifts of the Spirit
Changing the World

In his conclusion, Britt said:

Looking back, it seems like I have systematically questioned what many consider foundational Christianity. Maybe I have. But ultimately I only want to experience the complete freedom in Christ that results in great joy, power, authority and peace. I find that greatly lacking in most of the Christians I meet from day to day.

We've shrugged off much of the apostasy that the Catholic church introduced into Christianity. But there are still so many things that we cling to that are simply not described in the New Testament. As Wolfgang Simson said:

If it was possible for the very essence of the gospel - salvation by faith, justification by grace - to be buried under the sand of history, what about the rest? If we can gravely err in the very key and core issues, could we also have erred in other, lesser issues? The fact that the Bible was again given into the hands of common people started what I call the history of rediscovery: it was the turning point where the church started to climb again out of darkness, escape its own structural prison and rediscover, step by step, long-forgotten truth and long-forgotten practices, including the house church as an organic form of church.

I think the end result of adding things onto the New Testament has lessened the degree to which Christians experience joy, power, authority, and peace. I no longer think of these things as simply extra-biblical - I now think of them as a hindrance. Naturally, it takes time to shrug off traditions of the past, but I believe that this is where God is leading His church - to a point where where are reliant only upon Him, and not tradition. And the first step is to see what God intended for us, as described in a complete covenant, as distinct from where we find ourselves today.

Labels: church, house church

I was looking back at my archives the other day and realized that it was over three months between writing Part 5 and Part 6. I guess that's what moving and getting ready for Thanksgiving and Christmas will do to your blogging. In any case, Part 8 was the last part I had planned to write, so I wanted to recap the series. It starts with us leaving our church, sharing my experience and thoughts about my time there, and our experience searching for a new church, discovering house church, and my thoughts about it since.

Deconstruction
Why I Left My Church
Approaching Ministry
Worship Wars Part 1 - My Background
Worship Wars Part 2 - Compromise and the Excitement Factor
Worship Wars Part 3 - Why It Shouldn't Be a War, Anyway

Reconstruction
Why We Have Chosen House Church
Part 1 - Some Definitions
Part 2 - vs. Small Groups
Part 3 - vs. Cell Churches
Part 4 - Intermission and Coexistence
Part 5 - Some History
Part 6 - Men and Open Formats
Part 7 - What Would Jesus Do With Ten Million Dollars?
Part 8 - Unbelievers "Get It"

Looking back over these past six months, I'm amazed at how much has changed. We left our church, considered a move to New York, found a house church, and moved into a new house. I'm particularly amazed at how many of my thoughts were leading us directly into house church, before we had ever made a decision to go that route, much less visited one. Below is an example from Approaching Ministry:

Most churches understand the family aspect as social gatherings. We know each other, we enjoy hanging out together, and we do favors for each other. That's a great start. But we're really called to live life together. Jesus didn't just see the twelve a couple of times a week. They lived together. They slept together, ate together, traveled together, worshipped together, and ministered together. Real family cannot be experienced in a group of a thousand, five hundred, or even fifty. We have to get smaller, but we have to seek something more than just "small groups." We need to take a more basic view of church family, and seek our primary connection with the church through a family-sized unit instead of a congregational one.

Lord, thank You for leading us to a place that fulfills, even if only dimly, the vision You have given us. Our house church isn't perfect, as none are. But the reality is, it is in this environment where we can practice Your example of living life together, of sharing our burdens with each other as a part of our regular worship, and seeking Your will for our gatherings.

Labels: church, house church

It's official - as if blogging about house church for the past five months doesn't prove that I've been drinking the house church Kool-Aid, I've had to defend my comments against the pastor of a megachurch from a neighboring state.

Being a worship leader at a somewhat small conventional church (100-150), over the past two years I've been asking a lot of questions about how conventional churches approach things. I had been struggling with implementing things that I knew would help the church grow, but the culture of the church wouldn't accept certain changes easily. Further, even at our size, I saw that we had many of the same problems that plague churches that are much larger. So while I've never been on staff at a church, I have some insight into some of the same problems that people are struggling with at larger conventional churches.

I still read many of the blogs that I have been reading over the past couple of years, where they ask a lot of the same questions I had been asking as I was struggling with what God wanted me to do. On these blogs, I now tend to comment about what I have found is the answer - greatly simplifying the church and stripping it down to relationships and discipleship - two things that worship services at conventional churches are, quite frankly, pathetic at achieving.

I've noticed that people on staff at megachurches, and to some degree, those that attend megachurches, are the ones who have the hardest time "getting" the idea of a house church. To them, a church simply isn't successful unless it's reaching thousands every week. In many ways, that is their experience and that is their standard. So when you try to communicate the benefits of house church, they can't comprehend it.

In this particular case, this pastor said that "the house church model has ONE problem - they neglect the great commission. If Jesus would have wanted us to sit around and suck thumbs... He would have commanded it." He later tried to smooth things over, but the fact is that he just couldn't accept the house church as legitimate.

In contrast, I get a completely different reaction when I talk with people who are not really connected with a church. This includes people who have never gone to a church, people who used to go to a church but walked completely away (for various reasons), and even people who attend church irregularly. They appreciate the idea that we can put a huge amount of our time and money, into helping other people. They understand the concept of focusing on spiritual development outside of a presentational atmosphere, and why this is preferable to what conventional churches focus on. They can view the gospel without all of the extra stuff - they can see that we're not selling a church brand, a product that comes with a lot of earthly fringe benefits. They can appreciate that we're not trying to entice them to the gospel with beautiful buildings, angelic choirs, huge pipe organs, rock bands whose members sport spiked hair, and huge video screens so that we can see the famous pastor preaching the message in another building miles and miles away.

People who are not Christians that I have talked to about house church tend to say things like, "that makes a lot of sense." People who are Christians that I have talked to about house church, if they attend a conventional church, tend to tilt their head to the side and say things like, "huh." People who are on staff of large conventional churches tend to tell me I'm wrong.

It's strange, but it seems like the religious establishment disagrees with what Barna calls a "Revolution." Are there any other religious figures you can think of who did things that rubbed the religious establishment the wrong way? It's good to be in the company of God's prophets.

Whether or not unbelievers get it doesn't really affect my decision to follow Christ in the context of a house church, but it is a great testimony to the simplicity and accessibility of the format. Churches are struggling, trying to figure out how to reach the post-modern generation that is rising. Many conventional churches even struggle to figure out what "post-modern" is. The very group of people the church has the least capability of connecting with, those with a post-modern worldview that for the most part has no background in Christianity, are much more receptive to the idea of a house church than they are to a conventional church.

Remember, in 380 AD, bishops Theodosius and Gratian, operating with the full authority of the Roman government, required all Roman citizens to be members of the single, state-recognized, orthodox church, and banned all other churches, including those meeting in homes. Less than 350 years after Christ's death, the exact form that Christ himself used to disciple the twelve was banned from the church.

I pray that our brothers and sisters in conventional churches will pray for our success, and not be threatened by it. I pray that they will not choose to follow the path of the Jewish council, Roman government, and even Martin Luther, who all chose to persecute those who believed that following God did not include following professional clergy, but included simply meeting together, studying scripture, confessing their sins, and praying for one another.

The reality, though, is that if persecution is to come, it will come with the blessing of the established religious system. It always has.

Labels: church, house church

If you're a pastor, and you're getting ready to start a church, one of your primary roles is that of a fund-raiser. The simple fact is, to have a church you have to have money. (Well, for a conventional church, that is.)

I'm throwing ten million out there just for kicks, but it is a justifiable number. Of course, you'll get started in a home, a school theater (or lunchroom, gym, etc.), or other cheap-rent options, but from day one you're looking to secure the land to build on one day. And that land is not cheap. In Gwinnett County, where I live, they have minimum acreage requirements for churches. And land is expensive here, as it is in most metro areas. Even if the land is donated, you're still committing a lot of resources to holding a piece of real estate until you can build on it.

Then, of course, you have construction costs. Even for a small church of a couple of hundred (you do have a vision to grow, right?), the costs will grow into the millions, even if you do things on the cheap and skimp here and there (for which you'll eventually regret it). If you do it "the right way," you're talking about a multi-million dollar facility for a couple of hundred people.

All told, ten million isn't that far-fetched for start-up and construction costs for a new church. If you're talking major expansions of large churches, ten million is nothing.

So let's think for a moment, based on our knowledge of Scripture, what would Jesus have done with those ten million dollars?

Give it to the poor?

Is there anything else you can think of?

I can't imagine, in any way, that Jesus would have commissioned a new building to house His ministry. That He would have encouraged His disciples to design an eye-catching sign with a nifty slogan. That He would have invested in a top-rate band in order to create a buzz about the quality of the music. That he would have made sure the pews were padded so that people would be comfortable while they listened to Him preach.

That doesn't make those things evil, or necessarily wrong, but it raises questions about how appropriate they are.

Jesus' style of sending His disciples out was pretty simple: "take nothing for the journey - no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town." (Luke 9: 3-4, NIV) To anyone who had money, Jesus didn't solicit funds for Himself or His own ministry.

Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21, NIV) We like to dismiss this directive by claiming that this guy was rich, so Jesus was giving that guy a message specific to him. In order to take that approach, we have to ignore what Jesus said directly to his disciples:

But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Luke 12:31-34, NIV)

The fact is, Jesus was pretty clear about where His financial priorities were.

Would Jesus have taken ten million and build a beautiful building to house His ministries? Absolutely not.

One of the reasons I love house church is that no money is needed to care for a building, janitors, secretaries, etc. Some house churches do pay their pastors, but usually they do not, and if they do it would not be a full-time salary. Most leaders of house churches choose to set the example of earning their own living, as Paul clearly recommended. You can't really support a pastor full-time with a dozen or so members, anyway.

So where does the money go?

It goes to whatever causes God leads us to support, whether individually or collectively. The resources of a house church go to help the poor, support widows, orphans, halfway houses, and other types of ministries that, I believe, Jesus would give His money to.

Many churches give money out of their budget to help the poor. But if you're in a church where that figure exceeds 10% of the church's budget, consider yourself in a select group. Even still, the other 90% goes directly into the building that you worship in, or the staff that are there primarily to serve you. In most cases, that building does NOT help the poor, it is helping you.

I believe it is much better for us to give our money completely away, to those who are poor and who are in desparate need, rather than to donate so that I can attend church in a better, bigger building with more comfortable seats and a modern media presentation system. I think we miss the opportunity to be truly selfless when we give our tithe to our local church, because the majority of that money is used on things that keep us attracted, and serve us, rather than aiding those who truly need it.

Labels: church, house church

I thought it might be helpful to quote, in full, a section from a book I recently read that led directly to the thoughts I shared in my previous post about men and open formats. The book was Megashift by David Rutz. Awesome book, I highly recommend it. Take a moment to read my brother's review of the book and see if it interests you. I picked it up based on his recommendation, and I didn't regret it.

In chapter 4 of Megashift, "The New Church," Rutz shares "thirty hallmarks of emerging, scripture-based fellowships." This includes house churches, but Rutz is more focused on open fellowships than he is on size or structure. Anyway, enjoy.

In open fellowships, men are a slight majority.

Men go to open meetings:

to get their marching orders from the Commander of the Hosts of Heaven.

to model true discipleship by telling how the Lord strengthened them that week.

to stand up and proclaim the awesome wisdom and love of the Creator who has spoken to them in Scripture.

to take their rightful place as men learning to be leaders in the household of God.

In open churches around the world, men have a role to play, a man's role.

Men feed on challenges. Can't live without them. We grew up and thrived in a boy culture where I double-dare ya'! was only slighly less impelling than cries of Chicken!

Someone recently wrote an update on Karl Barth's aphorism that "The Word became flesh - and then, through theologians, became words again." The new, improved version reads: "Jesus Christ turns wimps into men. And then the church turns them back into wimps again."

You don't grow strong men by making them sit in rows. You grow strong men by whacking them on the shoulder and saying, "On your feet, Pete! What has God been showing you this week?"

Strong males who are forced to be pew warmers are like the bench warmers in football: They're aching to grab the coach by the lapels, get in his face and yell, "Jus put me in the game! Just gimme the ball!"

In team Christianity, as in war, everybody is in the game, and everybody gets his hands on the ball. Typically, men will do roughly 60% of the talking and women 40%. That's not something we aim for, it's just what happens - and everyone seems to like it that way.

SIDE NOTE ON BOYS: Step one in God's plan for re-establishing fathers and fatherhood is to have a boy sitting in church next to his parents when his dad stands up, and every eye in the place is on Dad as he opens his Bible and says, "The Lord showed me something in Galatians yesterday, and I think we need to hear it..."

As I said before, lions don't grow in small cages. And after a lifetime in a cage, it does no good to set them free, either. Zoo-born animals fed by keepers never learn to survive in the wild.

Rousseau observed that men are born free, yet are everywhere in chains. I would add that men are born wild at heart, yet our churches are filled with captured lions, tamed pew-sitters who no longer know - if they ever knew - how to feed themselves spiritually, how to defend their families from evil, and how to attack their true prey, the devil.

Labels: books, church, house church, open formats

One thing I've been talking about with people lately is the topic of why men don't go to church. Go into any conventional church on a Sunday morning, and you'll notice that the women outnumber the men. Sometimes by as much as 2 to 1. And almost certainly, some of those men are there primarily because their wives want them to go.

It's always interesting to see the reasonings people give for this, and the solutions that are offered. Some pastors try to make the sermons more "guy-friendly" by using sports themes in their sermons, using sports-related jokes, or by just talking about sports or cars as the sermon is getting started. Some churches try to tackle this by changing aesthetics, such as doing music that guys might appreciate more, more of a guy-friendly room decor, etc.

In reality, though, in my experience it goes a lot deeper than the decor, the music, or how much sports lingo that the pastor incorporates.

It's not that men are incompatible with church. Look at the leadership, both paid and volunteer, at most churches - and you'll find that most of the leadership positions are held by men. I think there's an important spiritual principle at play here.

Men are born to be leaders. Men are called to lead their families. There's a natural tendency of men to want to lead. But other than the pastor and a handful of other leadership positions, most churches simply don't give men the opportunity to lead.

Oh, sure, we talk about leadership a lot. But whenever a conventional church gathers, who actually has the opportunity to lead? Primarily the pastor, and you might throw a worship leader into that mix. But all of those men sitting in the sanctuary? They're listening and watching someone else lead. And they're watching their wives follow someone else, and they're powerless to intervene if something is done or said that they feel needs clarification or that they disagree with. The system is closed - meaning that if someone wants to add something to the discussion, they simply can't. The best they can do is complain about it later - but that doesn't put men in a position of leadership, either in the church or in their families.

In churches that practice an open approach, everyone can contribute to the discussion. People are free to speak whatever it is that God is leading them to share. Men aren't simply spectators watching someone else teach their families. They are participants, interjecting when they feel that a point needs to be clarified or corrected. Sharing something specific that God is leading them to say. Women are welcome to do this as well, but the tendency is that men, as leaders, tend to participate more in the discussion than women.

And in churches that practice an open approach - the women do not tend to outnumber the men as much as they do in conventional churches.

The way most conventional churches approach their weekly gatherings, there is no opportunity for a man to practice leadership. When God lays something on someone's heart, they do not have the opportunity to practice expressing that. In the conventional church, we tell men to sit down and listen so they can learn. How does that train them how to lead their families? How does that train someone to go out into the world to share their faith?

The idea of an open format isn't for everyone to give their opinions - it's for people to share what God is putting on their heart to say. Paul clearly outlines this approach to meetings. If we don't teach people to respond to what God is putting on their hearts, and how to communicate that, then we're not equipping them to be God's agents in the world.

Paul specifically states that unbelievers would be amazed at how God works through all the believers, and would become believers as a result.

But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever's heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, "God is really among you." (1 Corinthians 14:24-25, NRSV)

The only way Paul's scenario can play out in today's world is if unbelievers see God working through more than just the pastor and/or worship leader, and for people to learn how to follow God's leading and speak the things that God has laid on their heart. Open formats are about whether or not we're going to have one or two people control the flow of worship, or allow God to control the flow, through the Spirit, via whoever He wants to use. I choose the latter.

Labels: church, house church, open formats

As a part of my interest in house church, a book was recommended to me: Houses That Change the World, written by Wolfgang Simson. There was a lot of stuff in this book that really resonated with me. It's not really a "how-to" book, though. It doesn't seem to flow very well from chapter to chapter. But it definitely lays out the values and principles of house church, and how it has the capacity to reach entire nations, whereas a traditional church structure does not.

One of the greatest chapters in the book deals with history of house church since New Testament times.

The New Testament makes it clear that in the early church, churches primarily met in people's homes. Nothing is said about owning or building anything. Nothing is said about evangelism, missions, worship "services," or trying to influence mainstream culture.

Much is said, however, about the the ministries of the apostles - a ministry which, along with prophets, is completely dismissed by traditional churches - and the way in which the apostles led the churches through planting churches and discipling believers. As Simson says, "the New Testament church has mostly been an organic, relational, spiritual family, multiplying itself."

Over time, there were serious confrontations to the truth of the gospel and the function of the church. One of the first was mentioned by Christ in Revelation 2:6 - "But there is something you do that is right: You hate what the Nicolaitans do, as much as I." This is referring to the group that "emphasized the difference between the 'listening lay people and the ministering brothers.'" The term Nicolaitan literally means "to conquer the common people." It was the first attempt to create clergy at the top, with lay people underneath.

It wasn't long, however, until the concept of clergy won out.

Simson says that:

Early on, the church started to give in to the pressure for security. Around AD 150, for example, 'scholastic theology' was introduced as a system to interpret Scripture and defend it against heresies such as Gnosticism... in order to defend the truth and the church against this, the church strongly focused on dogma and creed, and tightly observed who was able and allowed to do ministry, and who not... control is the natural development of a lack of trust; it comes from fear, the opposite of faith, and leads people to build a system in order to make sure that nothing can go wrong... as a result, the church focuses more on 'safe' rituals, 'right' formulae and 'approved' liturgies, and tries to become watertight as well as foolproof.

As a byproduct of this, the church quickly fell into the hands of enthusiastic theological watchdogs, policemen of the faith and a new version of 'bishops', king-like figures who were no longer the most humble servants and plain down-to-earth elders... again, a human Saul replaced God as the real king of the people of God.

Ironically, it was this development that led the church further into apostasy.

Emperor Constantine became a Christian in 312 AD, and made Christianity the state religion.

In the years after 312 the church became heavily professionalized... the church needed to be 'fit for the king' and his company, and that meant cathedrals, not shabby houses. Thus, the great divide between clergy and laity not only emerged, but was sanctioned, institutionalized, sealed and protected by the state... the church lost its identity as a prophetic counter-culture, supernaturally different from the patterns of this world, and became a celebrated insider.

Then the bomb dropped. In 380 AD, bishops Theodosius and Gratian, operating with the full authority of the Roman government, required all Roman citizens to be members of the single, state-recognized, orthodox church, and banned all other churches, including those meeting in homes. Less than 350 years after Christ's death, the exact form that Christ himself used to disciple the twelve was banned from the church.

Things just got worse from there.

416 - Infant baptism was first introduced in 220 AD, but became mandatory in 416.

431 - The Council of Ephesus proclaimed the worship of Mary.

440 - Leo the Great pronounced himself Bishop of Rome.

445 - Cesar Valentian declared himself the spiritual leader of the Western Empire.

607 - Boniface III adopted the title "Pope," which comes from the title pontifex maximus, meaning "big bridgebuilder," a term used by Roman emperors to declare themselves high priests and gods.

709 - Kissing the Pope's foot introduced.

786 - Worship of images and relics developed.

850 - First use of holy water.

995 - Canonizations of dead saints.

1079 - Celibacy of the priesthood instituted.

1090 - Prayer beads adopted from several pagan religious systems.

1184 - The Inquisition begins, and made official by Pope Innocent IV (the irony) in 1252. Millions are killed.

1190 - The sale of indulgences - relief from punishment of sins in exchange for the payment of money - instituted.

1215 - Transubstantiation of the water and wine declared: these elements supernaturally change into the body and blood of Jesus at the incantation of the priest.

1229 - Bible declared to be too holy for ordinary people to read, and was forbidden to laymen.

1414 - Communion cup was forbidden to lay people.

1439 - Doctrine of Purgatory decreed.

1439 - Dogma of the sacraments affirmed.

1545 - The traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church granted equal authority with the Bible at the Council of Trent.

And so things turned full circle. What began with the separation of clergy and laity, partly to protect Christianity from heresy, ended up with a heretical church declaring that its unbiblical teachings were of equal authority with the Bible.

Two things were required for this to happen - first, the church had to wield immense political power. Second, the state-sponsored church had to use that power to shut down groups of Christians meeting in their own homes for discipleship.

Luther started to reverse the trend when he discovered the "heartbeat of the gospel, salvation by faith and grace, and the centrality of Scripture." Luther, and others like him, "reformed the content but not the form of Christianity." Since Luther, more reforms have brought us closer to what Christ himself taught. Yet the predominant structure of church has remained largely unchanged since house churches were banned by the Roman government.

If it was possible for the very essence of the gospel - salvation by faith, justification by grace - to be buried under the sand of history, what about the rest? If we can gravely err in the very key and core issues, could we also have erred in other, lesser issues? The fact that the Bible was again given into the hands of common people started what I call the history of rediscovery: it was the turning point where the church started to climb again out of darkness, escape its own structural prison and rediscover, step by step, long-forgotten truth and long-forgotten practices, including the house church as an organic form of church.

Labels: books, church, house church

I want to step back for a moment and talk about coexistence. First, let me quote myself:

It is not my goal to trash traditional churches - God has used and continues to use them for His purposes. But it is difficult to discuss the benefits of a house church without comparing them to, and viewing the deficiencies of, a traditional church.

I meant what I said there. I don't think that house churches have everything right, and that traditional churches have everything wrong. I certainly don't think that anyone attending a traditional church is wrong, or that God isn't interested and involved in what traditional churches are doing.

My brother has been involved in house churches for years. My sister and her husband started one about a year ago. I'm just now jumping in and discovering for myself what this is all about.

While I will certainly be drawn to something through my own experience with it, I also tend to analyze things before I really commit. What I'm really trying to do with this series is share both of those processes with you - both from my personal experience, and also from the ways in which house church just makes sense to me.

I've also discovered, and many of you have known for some time, that I'm just an extreme kind of guy. I think extreme measures are often the best way to address problems:

On taxes, let's scrap the IRS and replace it with the FairTax, a consumption tax.

To fix politics, I think we need to repeal the 17th amendment - which calls for popular elections for Senators - before that, Senators were elected by state legislatures, and therefore represented the states, not the people. (I got this idea from reading Zell Miller's book, but the idea has been around for longer than that.)

On education, we need to have vouchers to allow parents to choose what schools their children go to, and where the funding goes, so that competition motivates innovation.

I'm into big fixes, scrapping one system in favor of another, especially when the new system is not only better, but simpler.

To me, house church is another big fix. It's a major shift from what I've been involved with in the past. And I want to share why we're doing this, how it's different, and not just that I think it's better, but why I think it's better. Of course, our experience with it is limited, and just like anything we'll learn more as we go along. That's part of any major shift.

The thing about this "big fix," unlike the other ones I tend to gravitate towards, is that it doesn't require everyone to jump on board before anyone can experience it.

So what about coexistence? It's just going to be a part of this. Despite the fact that there is a significant trend towards house churches, I don't think traditional churches will ever go completely away - they will always represent some portion of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I think both can lean on and learn from each other - but this will not be easy.

The relationship between house churches and traditional churches has been rocky. As I mentioned in a previous post, many house churches have been born out of bitterness, from bad experiences inside traditional churches. Many traditional churches view house churches as a threat, look upon them with disdain, and do not consider a house church to be a "real" church. These relationships will have to be healed, and it will likely begin with younger pastors, on both sides, who are much more open to the possibility of the coexistence of different structures.

But even if you are committed to a traditional church, and don't think this house church stuff is for you at this point, you should be watching it - the movement is growing, and people like myself - who were once fully committed to traditional church, large weekly worship services, nice buildings, etc. - are being attracted to something that is much more simple and organic. Whatever you do, don't dismiss it, and don't ignore it.

Labels: church, house church

-- posted by Derek at 8/28/2006 09:40:00 AM

0 comments

I've talked about house churches, and so far I've compared them to traditional churches with small groups. But there's a structural model, growing in popularity, that's in between house churches and small groups, commonly called cell churches.

A cell church is somewhat like a traditional church with small groups, and also somewhat like a tight network of house churches. A cell church is characterized by an equal emphasis on the cell gathering and the celebration, both meeting weekly. The largest churches in the world are organized as cell churches. While churches with small groups have an upper limit in the thousands, cell churches can grow into the hundreds of thousands.

In some ways, cell churches are similar to house churches. But using the same comparisons I used in my last post, cell churches really sound more similar to small groups:

First,, the cells are not autonomous - they have many of the same characteristics as small groups in that regard. Leaders are expected to be trained, and the discussion points are often provided by the parent church. While leaders of house churches often host discussions more than teach, leaders of cell churches, like small groups, are expected to "facilitate." The "real" leaders are on staff.

Second, unlike small groups, the cells are outward-focused. A high emphasis is placed on evangelism in the cell context. Cells are designed to split: cell leaders are usually required to be training another leader. Cell churches view the cell gathering and the celebration as entry points to the church. Those who begin in one location are strongly encouraged to participate in the other.

Third, they are identical to a traditional churches in terms of resource handling. The celebration is more or less the same as a traditional church worship service, with a premium placed on quality, and the celebrations require a lot of resources to do that weekly.

Fourth, the styles of cell gatherings vary greatly, but with such a high importance placed on the weekly celebration, they often do not incorporate worship in the cell gatherings.

Fifth, like in a traditional church, the senior pastor is in charge. Cell churches tend to take on a pyramid structure in terms of authority, with authority being delegated from the senior pastor on down.

I believe that the major reason why cell churches can grow so much larger than traditional churches with small groups is primarily the outward focus - with a strong emphasis being placed on cells splitting, and reaching non-believers in order to do so, cells have the potential for explosive growth. But in many other areas, cell churches are identical to traditional churches, from the emphasis on the worship service, to centralized control, and resource needs.

The other reason that cell churches grow faster, and larger, is because they are far simpler - they tend to have very few programs besides the cell meetings and the celebrations.

While I think that a cell church approach is probably good for an existing church to take, I do not think cell churches naturally have all of the advantages of a network of house churches.

Labels: church, house church

A common question we've heard already when talking about house churches is, "how is that different from a small group?"

Many churches today are implementing small groups as a core part of their growth strategy. The thinking is pretty straightforward - as the church grows beyond several dozen, members simply can't really build relationships in a normal church gathering where there may be hundreds or thousands of people. So they are encouraged to meet in small groups, usually no more than a dozen, for relationship building and Bible study.

Small group programs can vary, but they are always very different from a house church.

First, since they are not autonomous, and fall under the umbrella of the traditional church, small groups always play a "secondary" role to the more prominent worship service. This can manifest itself in different ways, but often it includes the choices of leadership, agenda, and meeting times. Typically, group leaders have to undergo some sort of official "training" or approval process. Some churches distribute the discussion items to the group leaders, often making the discussion an exploration of the sermon from the previous Sunday.

House churches, by comparison, are autonomous. The agenda is set by the members of the house church or the leader. The house church is not seen as a secondary meeting, it is the primary gathering time for members of the church.

Second, small groups are not outward-focused, they are inward focused. Even if the goal is to split the group, the goal is to split the group and add more members of the church to the small groups. While churches might not discourage non-members from participating in a small group, it is certainly not viewed as an entry point to the church. Because of this inward focus, small groups are usually more about caring for believers than they are about seeking out non-believers and introducing them to Christ.

Third, small groups defer to the parent church on matters of money and resources. The members of a small group are expected to be active church members, and tithing to the larger church. The church has to pay for the building, the staff, the equipment, and other various programs of the church. The church views the small groups as another "program," and provides some resources to the small groups, such as study books, videos, etc. Some small group programs provide for child care during meetings. But the bulk of the money going to the church is used for the Sunday worship service.

House churches, on the other hand, do not have to pay for buildings or fancy Sunday morning worship services. Most house churches do not pay for any staff at all. This allows money to be available to serve others and meeting needs - whether it is the needs of members, those in the community, or around the world.

Fourth, in small groups, worship is what you do on Sunday mornings, so the small group gathering takes on more of a Bible study feel. House churches usually incorporate worship into their agenda. Even if a house church participates in a celebration-style gathering with other house churches, they usually keep worship in the house church setting, because worship in the celebration setting is quite different from worship in a cell-sized gathering.

Fifth, most of these differences come from the fact that a small group is part of a larger traditional church, whereas house churches are usually separate, at most having a loose network with other house churches. This begs the question: who is in charge?

In a traditional church, and in small groups, the answer is always obvious - the senior pastor and/or the board is in charge. They determine the how the small groups are structured, how they function, and tweak the process along the way.

In a house church, the simple answer is that the leader, if there is a clearly defined one, is in charge. But since a traditional church is really hundreds or thousands of people, looking at a single house church is not a valid comparison. You need to compare a traditional church with a collection of house churches, dozens or perhaps even hundreds of them. When looking at a group like that, there is only one answer to the question of who is in charge: the Spirit of God is in charge, leading His servants in the faith, guiding them through the apostles and the prophets, and building His kingdom, house church by house church.

Small groups are usually added to a traditional church in order to improve it. But small groups are really only a patch. Churches should be focused on gatherings that meet the vision that Christ cast for His church - discipleship. Rather than "tack on" discipleship, as an optional program, to the main worship service, shouldn't we be focusing on a primary gathering time that has discipleship at its core?

Labels: church, house church

Now that I've thrown something out there, it's time for me to take a minute and define it.

There are three major categories of church gatherings, in terms of size:

Cell - a cell is a small gathering of people, from a handful up to about 20.

Congregation - a congregation is a medium-sized gathering, from about 20 up to a couple of hundred.

Celebration - a celebration is a large-sized gathering, from several hundred to many thousands of people, covering a geographical area.

Megachurches are notable in terms of their size, and we tend to focus on them. But the fact is that the vast majority of churches are in the size range of a congregation. The average church size, worldwide, is about 100. A small percentage of churches grow beyond 200. For the most part, traditional churches fall into the size range of a congregation. But even churches that grow beyond that are primarily large congregations, not celebrations.

Church history, including examples in the New Testament, indicate that the typical meetings in the early church consisted of cell-sized gatherings (in people's homes) and celebration-sized gatherings (usually in public places, such as the outer court of the temple in Jerusalem).

Many house churches today do not participate in a celebration-sized gathering. Some house churches are born out of bitterness, and simply remain in isolation. Some churches remain in houses simply because their theology or culture makes it impossible for them to grow.

But there is a growing number of house churches, those birthed out of mission, that seek to fulfill the great commission - to "train everyone you meet in this way of life." We are called to share life with others, train them how to follow Christ, and help them to train others how to follow Christ. It is not about being inward-focused, it's about simplifying what we do so we can allow God to do marvelous things.

Many of the people I know who are involved in house churches are also eager to birth celebrations - gatherings of house churches across a wide area, for worship and encouragement. I do not know yet when that will happen or exactly what it will look like, but I can see God working through multiple people, and it will happen.

Still, the celebration is not the focus. It's not the main thing, and it's not even on the same level as the cell-sized gathering. The church is not people coming together in large crowds to worship God. The church is people gathering together, sharing life, and discipling others. The church is best realized in cell-sized gatherings.

What happens in a house church? What does it look like?

In reality, every house church is different because every house church is composed of different mixes of people. Kind of like a family - it all depends on who is thrown into the mix. But house churches generally involve:

Eating - something special happens when you eat together. Many house churches regularly include meals, and most others include some level of refreshments on a weekly basis. Give people the chance to interact informally. The simple fact is that the "Lord's Supper" was a meal, and was, in the early church, regularly celebrated as one.

Training - unlike how traditional churches teach in a presentational or educational style, house churches generally concentrate on training, in a relational approach. That is, I can't train you unless I get to know you. Jesus said to "teach them to obey everything I have commanded to you." (Matthew 28:20) But true teaching is less a presentation, and more a demonstration.

Sharing - the early church shared both material and spiritual blessings. "No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." (Acts 4:32) "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation." (1 Corinthians 14:26) At a traditional church, it is simply not possible for either of these to occur. Yes, we can give our offerings to the church, but such offerings are typically used to maintain the church building and pay the church staff, not to be distributed among those who have needs. And churches can ask people to be involved in the worship team, read a scripture, etc., but Paul specifically states "everyone."

Prayer - believers should be regularly gathering together, praying for each other and their community. Having a five minute prayer in context of an hour-long worship service is hardly what this is about. Traditional churches often have special "prayer meetings," which have rather poor attendance. Prayer should be at the center of our gatherings, not a separate program.

Finally, the goals are different between a traditional church and a house church. In a traditional church, the goal is to "add." Add more members to the group. This will allow for more programs, more outreach, bigger buildings, and more impressive presentations. In a healthy house church, the goal is to "multiply." As our group grows, God will raise up a new leader and the group will split into two.

Traditional churches often strive to have multiple services, multiple locations (satellite venues are growing in popularity today), and even talk about "church plants." But a "split" is hardly ever the specific goal.

It is not my goal to trash traditional churches - God has used and continues to use them for His purposes. But it is difficult to discuss the benefits of a house church without comparing them to, and viewing the deficiencies of, a traditional church. The goal is not necessarily to find a better way, but to get out of the way. To get out of God's way, by removing our man-made structures and programs and let His spirit lead the way. We must remain focused on the call of Christ, not on the traditions that have been passed down to us.

In a sense, this is what we have chosen. But the truth is, this is what God has placed on our hearts. This is what He has called us to do.

Labels: church, house church

It's been a few weeks since I've posted about our transition, and I feel like it's time for me to open up about what's happened in the past two months.

The first Sunday after we had left Faith Community, we were ready to start visiting around. I had been wanting, for a couple of years, to take a few weeks off so I could just see what some other churches were doing. Being a worship leader doesn't really give you a lot of time to do that. But after we lost a couple of folks from our worship team a couple of years ago, it got harder to take some significant time off. (Quick note to other worship leaders reading this: take some time off! Go see what others are doing! If you put it off, it'll never happen!)

Then, my first Sunday of not having any commitments, one of our kids got sick. So we all stayed home. Bummer!

The next couple of Sundays were interesting. We visited a church in Loganville that I had heard good things about. Pretty solid doctrine, good musical style, and the church has been growing pretty steadily. The sermon was good. The main problem I had with it though, was that it was quite a "one-man show." Meaning, the pastor was also the worship leader. There was another guy who was playing guitar, and led singing on a couple of the songs, but the pastor led most of the singing and had a firm grip on the wheel. The pastor also kept talking about himself - what he wanted to do in Loganville, how he needed help doing what God wanted, etc. Overall, not necessarily a situation I'd want to put myself into...

The following Sunday, we were in Manhattan - I had been sent on a business trip, and Amy came along. We visited a church there that was pretty cool. Kind of like a North Point wanna-be (or whatever standard they would have used for themselves), only they weren't anywhere near 100% in their execution. But they had four services on Sunday in Manhattan (though their space was limited in seating to probably about 400, and on Sunday evening when we went there were about 150), and had just started a satellite campus in Jersey City.

At this point, though, I began questioning the whole approach. On our way up the elevator (yes, this church was in a ballroom on the 6th floor), there was a greeter and another visitor in there with us. Some things the visitor said made me think she just didn't know how to take all of this in, like she was quite skeptical. I'm not sure what brought her to that church that night (she was alone), but I kept thinking about how the entire production was probably failing to capture her spiritual imagination.

The music was pretty good by church standards, but she probably couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited - it wasn't nearly as good as anything you'd hear on the radio (the fact that they sound mix was off probably wan't helping). Besides, as "relevant" as the music style was (it was pretty much exactly what I would do), her preference in music was probably a bit more hip than anything they could have tried to accomplish. (Though their rendition of Switchfoot's "This is Your Life" was decent.)

The sermon was a good presentation about how God has a purpose for you (it was basically the outline of the Purpose-Driven Life), but there was very little about it that was mysterious. It was presented based on reason, with some humor mixed in. Typical sermon. I'm thinking, she's probably here to see if God shows up, and all we tend to do is put on a show and try to convince everyone that we're right and that we're talented. It started making me skeptical of the entire approach.

The following Sunday, we made plans to visit another church where some friends have been attending. It was one of the better ones we had visited. It was the first Sunday for the new pastor. The people were genuinely friendly, and the music was great (the only one of the three we visited that didn't incorporate a praise team - a big plus for me!).

But one thing was consistent with each of these visits to these churches (as well as a visit we had made to North Point several months ago): pretty much the only people we had any amount of conversation with was the person who greeted us at the door, and the people who were taking care of our kids. And in those conversations, we never really got to know them. There was simply no time - we had to get our kids in place, find a seat, and be ready for the "show" to start. It's kind of like how Amy doesn't consider going to a movie to be a real "date". We don't get to talk much. Was our experience visiting these churches really any different?

The bigger and more successful the church, the worse the problem becomes. So the very things that make a church grow (inspiring sermon and music) also create the problem where you simply won't get to know anybody when you walk in the door. Is this how we're supposed to disciple the nations?

So not only had I started to become skeptical of the presentational approach, it's starting to gnaw at me more, because there's no time for building relationships...

We'd been wanting to visit some house churches, but it's kind of hard to find them since they're not particularly visible and don't generally have websites. And most of the ones we're aware of don't offer any sort of child care, and as I've tried to point out to the people I know involved in house churches of that nature, when you hvae a two-year-old and a four-year-old, you'll understand why you need something different for young kids.

But while searching for churches in Snellville, Amy found a link on a church's website to a website for a house church that meets in Suwanee on Sunday nights. After looking at the site, and really connecting with the vision that was shared there, we decided to check it out the next evening.

That Sunday night we went to the house church in Suwanee. It was a completely different experience. Rather than sitting, listening and simply singing along, we participated. We got to know everyone else there. They were not satisfied with just asking our names and finding out where we lived. They wanted to hear our story. And we got to learn about their stories. And our stories intersected.

This particular night, there were ten adults in attendance. With a group that size, you have a completely separate dynamic. Nobody is there to see a show - everyone is there to worship and grow. You contribute to the discussion, and see where the Spirit leads. You can get a type of interaction in a group of ten that you could never get in a group of even fifty, much less two thousand.

As a worship leader, it's quite a different experience to lead worship for ten people that you are getting to know, as opposed to a hundred or more, where you know maybe a couple dozen of them, some more of them, you know their names, and the rest of them are just faces.

You simply can't walk into and out of a house church anonymously.

We had already been thinking about and considering house churches already. But being involved with this group for the past two months has made it clear to us that this is the direction God has been leading us. As I look back over my own blog, I see that I have been asking questions that are best answered in the context of house church.

Beyond our own experience, there are many reasons why I'm convinced that gathering in house churches is a superior approach. More on that to come - stay tuned.

Labels: church, house church, life