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 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.

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

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

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