Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Church, but not as most view it

There is a thought provoking post by Jon over at The Theos Project on being outside the pale of institutional Christianity. After recalling a recent, awkward, conversation with a neighbor, he talks about why, and what it means, to be outside the pale:

But what if we embraced the void? What if we gave up our foundationalist instinct to find a center and just let be?

I think that if we could do so, then we would be forced to live faith without being able to fall back on an institution/organization/membership for security. We could then allow sacred spaces to open up naturally and organically as the spirit moves.

Most importantly, without a center or foundation, the us-versus-them exclusivistic attitude becomes more difficult to maintain. "Having a home church" means that one is "in," right? And those who don't are out. What if we were all out? What if we were all in? What if that didn't matter so much, anymore?

NOT having a church makes one live faith each moment for the moment, it does not allow for a psychological religious stabilizer.

<idle musing>
Please read the whole thing; he doesn't paint a rosy picture of being outside, nor does he condemn those inside. He simply evaluates what church is supposed to be, where it really is, and how he is responding to that. Personally, I think his response is very well thought out and has a scriptural foundation.

He isn't the only one who thinks this way; according to Barna, this is the fastest growing segment of the church. It used to be the nominal christians who left the institutional church; now it is the ones who really want to live out their faith moment-by-moment. The church doesn't know what to do with these kinds of people. I guess that is one reason that a friend of mine has started saying that he is "unchurched," although he gets together with other Christians throughout the week. He just doesn't want to be associated with the baggage that comes with the current definition of "church;" he would rather it were defined by the New Testament.
</idle musing>

7 comments:

Jonathan Erdman said...

Thanks for the link, James. And you summarized well my content and my intent: to engage in a productive discussion on the advantages/disadvantages of staying within an institutional church or leaving and allowing "church" to just happen.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan and James,


What do we do with elders and deacons in such if we don't have the "structure" rather that is house or building? How do we reconcile Titus 1 and Timothy 3, and 1 Thess 5 and Galatians 6 and Philippians 1:1-2 with the fact that their were many leaders in the church and these leaders seem to be "over" a church?

PS: I am not being antagonizstic here either really curious.

Jonathan Erdman said...

Lionel,

I think that's a good thought.

James might answer it different than myself, but I just simply think that the description of the churches in the NT is completely descriptive but not prescriptive. That is, the NT is an important guide to what "church" looked like in the early days, but these descriptions do not bind or lock believers into one way of "doing church" or organizing church.

I think the primary point of scripture seems to be that God wants us to be thinking about new ways to live out faith, not just relying on the book to dictate our actions.

Also, as a general discussion question, would it be possible to literally follow every example of the NT churches? For one thing, many in the early church sold their possessions and held their material possessions in common with one another. (Acts 2:43-45) Is this a prescriptive norm? Or just a description of people who were so in love with each other and cared so little about their earthly treasures that they just sold stuff and lived together? If the passage is prescriptive, then hippie farms would be a good reflection of Acts 2.

jps said...

Lionel,

I appreciate the question; it is something that has been discussed at length by Frank Viola and Gene Edwards in their books. While I disagree with much of their rhetoric, I believe they are correct that God raises up recognized leaders; we just acknowledge it by appointing them.

I suspect that Jon is on a bit different track here than I am, but that is fine. I do agree with him that the NT is descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is one reason that the church has looked different at different times.

As you know from reading To Preach or Not to Preach, there is a strong move by some to change the format again. Jon is just taking it in a different direction that they are. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is able and willing to use all who will surrender to his leading; the church should be big enough to recognize all as valid expressions of our devotion and commitment to him.

James

Anonymous said...

James,

How do you guys function?

jps said...

Lionel,

I know it sounds very disorganized and chaotic, but the Holy Spirit is truly the one in charge. Perhaps because we are small enough, there is no need for a hierarchy. But, I would argue that leadership as we understand it in the U.S. is not the same as Biblical leadership.

Peter, John, and Paul (to say nothing of Jesus) all stress that it must be servanthood. The example that comes to mind is Jesus washing the feet of the disciples in the Upper Room.

Does that help?

James

Anonymous said...

Yes it does! Thanks. I am really wrestling through all of this my friend.

BTW, the book we be in the mail NLT Saturday.