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