quote:Take, for example, a church with an anarchist ecclesiology. (Don't laugh-it's more common than you think.) This ecclesiology sees problems in "the institutional church" (which is another term for "the church wherever it actually exists") and concludes that they result from its being "organized." According to this way of thinking, the early church was blissfully spontaneous. The Holy Spirit led individuals with such power and mastery that the early church performed like a symphony without a score. The beautiful music poured out harmoniously from the untrained musicians as they were moved extemporaneously by the Invisible Conductor.
Never mind that no one has ever actually seen a church like this function for very long, or that when a church appears to so function, it turns out to be the product of covert human leadership and training from a real-though-unwritten rule book. Never mind that the whole second half of the New Testament seems to be about problems arising in the early church, with organized yet Spirit-inspired solutions being developed to deal with them. Never mind that organization is a fact of life for every organism-from paramecia to blue whales. Never mind, because some good folk in every generation are going to try to start churches that operate with as little overt organization as possible, fighting organization with at least as much zeal as they use in fighting sin.
Despite these words of criticism, I call these anti-organizationalists "good folk" with good reason, and not only because I was once one of them. They are idealists, and their idealism is attractive. They are driven to work hard and love long and bleed deep for their dream of building a community unspoiled by institutionalism and organization. And I wholeheartedly concur that organization and institutionalism can obstruct community as effectively as telephone wires can ruin a beautiful view. I sent one of these "good folk," a most enjoyable friend, a copy of this manuscript, and he replied, "I read your unfinished manuscript twice .... My experience tells me that [real Christianity] won't work in the institutional church no matter what side. The truth, as I see it, is that the visible and the physical work against the invisible and spiritual... If God is leading you to write this book, I am in your corner. However, in my heart, I just don't think "the church on the other side" will ever exist."
My friend is working out his perspective by lowering his expectations of the institutional church to near zero, focusing instead on interpersonal relationships-"loving my neighbors," as he would say. And I don't quarrel with him; I like what he is doing. But the fact is, if some well-meaning people like my friend, wary of the side effects of organization, gather regularly as friends in a home or a restaurant-not in an elaborate "church" building forming a group that thrives on unstructured relationships with no formal leadership and as little as possible of the dreaded "O word"- then one of four things will happen:
- The little proto-church will thrive for many years as a small circle of friends requiring very little organization, perhaps aided by the fact that (1) they don't call themselves a church, and (2) they don't invite too many people to join them.
- The little church will die after a few months or perhaps a few years.
- The little church will adopt a "cell church model," dividing in two as soon as the size of the group requires organization, thus increasing in numbers by multiplying small groups. However, if this works long-term (which seems to happen less in reality than in theory), they will soon discover that they are indeed organized-just differently-and that the organizational demands of keeping a cell-multiplication movement going (such as leadership training or problem solving) can equal or surpass those of a more traditional church.
- The little church will grow, change its ecclesiology - with agony, of course-and get organized. In the process of changing its ecclesiology, many late-night discussions will take place featuring heated debates that rival Luther's at Leipzig.
More than likely, this group, if it capitulates to organization, will enfranchise an ecclesiology that will allow the fledgling church to grow from, say, 40 to 150. At this level, the following structural elements will be typical:
- One pastor-volunteer, bivocational, or salaried
- A formal or informal board that serves as the volunteer staff of the church, attending to administration and ministry
At about 150, a church that wishes to keep growing will probably hire a second pastoral staff member. This move is far more monumental than it seems, for at least four reasons:
- The pastor, who may have excelled with volunteers, now may be asked to supervise the second staff person. Managing staff requires skills that are in many ways antithetical to those previously required with volunteers. Few people are good at both. If neither pastor is seen as the chief of staff, the church will generally slide into another slick of risks and problems, ranging from ineffectiveness due to a lack of accountability to ineffectiveness due to power struggles.
- The board must give up some of its power to this new staff person. It is human nature not to give up power without a struggle unless those who hold it are thoroughly exhausted and tired of the responsibility that comes with their authority.
- The second staff person, besides dealing with an inexperienced pastor and an ambivalent board, is working for a church that can barely afford to pay a salary and has little patience with setbacks or delays in productivity. To make matters worse, this person generally joins the staff with high ideals, boundless goodwill, and a bit of naivete. He may also bring any number of his own needs or pathologies to the situation - seeing the pastor as a father-figure, ministry as a way to be liked, associate-pastor status as a means to power without responsibility, or some other image.
- The congregation, with many idealists from the first stage, welcome the new staff person and fear him at the same time. Will this person compete with their beloved pastor (or, conversely, will this person compensate for the pastor they secretly distrust)? Will this person change the homey church they love by making it more "corporate" (i.e., organized)? Their unspoken mandate - an impossible assignment if ever there was one.. is this: Help our church grow, but don't you dare change it.
If the church survives this structural transition, it will more than likely grow toward numbers between 300 and 800, but another ceiling awaits it there. This ceiling results from some or all of the following:
- As additional staff are hired, the now-senior pastor's role changes: less ministry, more leadership, more staff management, more administration. Few pastors can survive a change in role of this magnitude.
- The additional staff hired at these early stages are nearly always generalists, or at least multitalented. A music director, for example, may also direct Christian education or small groups. But with growth in numbers comes greater demand for specialization. A "B+" musician who is also a "B+" Christian education director was a godsend to the church of 250; she may be an embarrassment to the church of 600 that wants-and can now afford "A"- caliber staff in both categories. To put it bluntly, the same staff that helped the church surmount the earlier ceiling can create this one by being good in general but not good enough in specialized areas.
- A fully staffed church no longer needs the board that helped create it. In place of volunteer administrators or unpaid pastors, it now needs a board that does one or both of the following: (1) provides oversight in a way more akin to a nonprofit board of directors, skilled in strategic planning, oversight, organizational management, budgeting, and whenever possible, fund-raising; ... (end quote)
THE CHURCH ON THE OTHER SlDE by Brian D. McLaren, Zondervan Publishing, pp 96-99
Brian McLaren is considered by many to be the leading spokesperson/writer for the emergent church movement. Certainly, he is the most popular in terms of book sales.
posted
Oh my; where to start. McLaren assumes too much of his personal experience is the norm, and seems almost to say it covers all the bases. This is almost a straw man, because I don't see anyone here suggesting organization is evil. Rather, we say organization does not have to follow the merchant-corporate model, which is about the only model he seems to believe can exist. Brother McLaren, why do you not examine the biblical extended family model, the organization which existed before civilization?
Let it not be seen as boasting to say I have studied organizational theory. The field is a well-established academic discipline. I happen to know from extensive studies by others a congregation larger than 75 is probably too large to avoid incorporating. Early American churches did fine for over a century without getting larger than that, nor did they follow the assumed model McLaren uses.
We know in Scripture there were full-time pastoral leaders, who were funded by collected donations. We know there were groups of senior members keeping things on track, whatever you want to call them. However, I see nothing to indicate in the New Testament record a necessity for extensive planning on paper, endless board meetings, and so forth. There seems to have been a preference for something approaching a type of feudalism, but with a great deal more accountabilty by the leaders. Even then, it's just a perception, and who's to say mine, or McLaren's, or anybody else's is "right"? What I do know is the historical record of congregational organizational experiences include things McLaren seems to ignore.
To the degree we in the West are unable to form an extended spiritual family model, it simply shows how far removed our culture is, and how much we have to learn to do what Scripture commands. Meanwhile, we realize up-front there is no human organization which is trouble-free, except for graveyards. We expect problems, we expect failures, we expect people to act fallen because they are. The organization is of no great importance, and letting it die when it's purpose is ended has no effect on true believers involved. Why do so many people assume dissolving a congregation is inherently bad? I consider huge centralized faith organizations a monstrosity by definition.
posted
I got half way done with my reply and lost it so I'll have to make this much more brief.
I am not fighting organization or structure. I am opposed to man's version of hierarchy. I don't think the early church or the modern church is without problems but that is what leads us to Christ our head.
Can anyone testify that you have seen “…a church like this function for very long”?
I agree that “covert human leadership” happens in the HC (I would think – we are just starting our home church next month). I think I know where this comment is coming from. I want to say “there is no leader” but there will be in some form or fashion. What I really want to say is that I don’t what the broken spirit of hierarchy to take over.
“They are idealists”. I think we all are to a certain extent. Considering the way my mind works I think I’ll spend my whole life learning to bring what is ideal down to earth a little.
“They are driven to work hard and love long and bleed deep for their dream of building a community unspoiled by institutionalism…”. I hope to say that about myself.
It is true that many of my experiences with the institutional church have in part lead me to the house church. If there were an institutional church in my area that I felt shared some of the core values I read on this forum I’m sure my family and I would be there. God has another plan though.
Who doesn’t “call themselves a church”? We are the church. Who doesn’t “invite too many people to join them”? This isn’t a club this the ever increasing kingdom of God.
I don’t think it is appropriate to call a church of 40 or 10 a “fledgling church” unless it has the club mentality mentioned above.
posted
Great posts everyone! This brings the core of the debate and struggle to the surface doesn't it? How can we survive without corporate structure? Who's in charge? Who's the pastor? I say this sacastically.
E Hust, you've spoken my heart by focusing on the family structure of the church. Where one generation passes things onto the next, fully expecting that babes in Christ today should become mature, elders tomorrow. And how wonderful for each of us to recognize others' gifting, maturity, and needed placement in the church. Oh, the church is organzied...but in my opinion not an organization.
I've seen and experienced this type of church for about five years, before we moved from Oregon to Colorado and before our family began church in our house. And I'll say it took years to get to the place of understanding the role of elders (plural) and not a (single) pastor-run congregation. I wonder if Brian McLaren's theory that the little home church must take on the organization model to grow and survive, stems from the idea that it's just too hard to be spiritually minded.
Remember the Old Testament cries of Israel, "We want a king! We want to be like the nations around us who have a king" It was difficult for them to be led by One they couldn't see. In the New Testament, Paul spoke to the Corinthians as carnal and not spiritual because of the envying, strife and divisions among them. Simply put, it takes spiritual depth to humble ourselves to one another! It takes maturity to get out of the way and allow God to have His way in our midst! And why on God's green earth must we create layers of leadership? Where in the New Testament chruch is there a directive for elders over elders, centralized government over churches, or a staff? Branches are to abide in the vine; not other branches. Nor is the church to rely on machinery (organizationalism).
I think many misguided decisions have been made in churches because we feel a need to "be doing something more". We need to grow! We need to build! We need to have a program! We should do what the church down the street is doing! We need to see something happening! And we can often miss the fact, that it is the Lord who adds to the church daily such as should be saved. Interestingly, growth sometimes happens becuase people leave.
I appreciate this discussion thread because it reminds me why our family is doing what it's doing. I can see our path in the scriptures; tracing our steps along a narrow way that leads to life. "According to this verse, our foot should go here, then here, then there." And when others point to a way that I cannot see in the Word, I need to trust in the Lord with all my heart and lean not on my own understanding. Incidentally, why will our homechurch die simply because we don't "organize?" I don't get that. Or....could it really be, because Bro. George and Sis. Martha have threatened to go somewhere else for fellowship if we don't... Mmmm. Well...maybe that's what they should do anyway. So then the real issue here isn't that the church will die if we don't organize; it's that a couple of folks won't get their way. And this all-too-common scenario illustrates how many things come to pass in churches. Doesn't that smell like stinky, carnal flesh?
posted
Strange that "Mr Generous Orthodoxy" should come down so hard on us. He speaks so, so highly of those in "other religious traditions." And I don't mean protestant or catholic.
It gets worse. Emergents are in an all out war against certainty. Granted, there's plenty we don't know and won't know. One of their books is even subtitled: From Absolute to Authentic. (As if these were incompatible.) Soooo, how can Brian be so certain of what He writes concerning the "anarchists?"
Even worse - for him: the predicitions he made in the above, several years ago, did not materialize. House churches have not died out due to lack of "organization" according to his ideas thereof. Surprise - they have actually increased according to most accounts.
Indeed, I expected the Emergent Church to have to start speaking out against simple church at some point - it is an indication of how vocal we are that McLaren has felt a need to address us so soon, when, as D said, he's all for tolerance.
But I, too, am surprised that he, of all people, should be so negative. It confirms my suspicion that these two movements will become polarized, because our premises are oppositional. Even his metric for success has presuppositions I don't have. I hope nothing I do lasts a moment beyond God's divine purpose. Jesus didn't linger! Was the church at Simon the Leper's a failure?
Many would want us to gloss over the differences and "all be in unity in Christ" but "how can two walk together unless they agree?"
I don't have to judge others - but I do have to make choices for how to live for myself, and I find that the more I choose to live "outside the Matrix" the more my existence is a stumbling block.
It's funny how everything is a contention point, "Why aren't you in school, kids..." "Have you seen 'Survivor'..." Why doesn't your son have a girlfriend... Why isn't your daughter at college... Why do you drink raw milk... Where's the frozen peas... When are you coming in for your check-up...
We can't get through a day without having to field such questions, unless we just stay home. And what part of "Go ye" would that be obeying?
Oh, and Isn't "die" part of our job description? Hello? Hellooooo?
Good responses all. Anarchy forever!
Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
quote:Indeed, I expected the Emergent Church to have to start speaking out against simple church at some point - it is an indication of how vocal we are that McLaren has felt a need to address us so soon...
Truth is, LA, simple church cannot seem to get enough of the emergent church. Just take a quick tour of the internet. There's House2House promoting an emergent conference sponsored by The Ooze. Go to The Ooze site and you'll see the very book, quoted above, recommended on their home page.
Check the back of Barna's Revolution in the Resources section and you'll see Brian McLaren pumped up as well as The Ooze. George Barna is/was supposedly our "friend in high places."
Here's Frank Viola on Brian McLaren from his February newsletter: "Despite the unfair (and often malicious and misguided) criticism he has received, I believe Brian is spearheading a very important work today. While I've not read everything he's written nor have I heard everything he's taught, I've never heard him say or write anything that wasn't in line with the spirit and attitude of Jesus Christ."
From the Dawn Europe site, under Post-Modernism, John White summarizes emergent Leonard Sweet's ideas, who also co-authored a book with McLaren.
The lines are really getting blurred, are they not? I will provide some links in a day or so concerning the clergy-dominated emergent church and its far-out teachings which extend way beyond matters of church structure. Feel free to do the same.
But, I don't think the two movements are are getting blurred, actually, I think this criticism is the beginning of the unblurring. I think.
Because of Barna and others lumping all the "alternative to IC" movements together there has been a lot of confusion for at least the last four years. When I first started googling this issue a year or so ago I found no one illuminating the issue, so I think (I think) it represents progress that these distinctions are being made.
This makes it so critical that we be able to articulate what simple church is about. It's not about starting from our old church and working back toward reaching our culture. It's about turning to the words of Jesus and obeying them in the belief that he is the ultimate answer to everything.
Blessings to you, Glory to him... Theocracy forever!
LA
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
Allow me to suggest this criticism is what we should expect. In another place, I wrote that the emergent movement would extend the life of the IC a few decades, but nothing more. Too bad so much of emergence means the likes of "Purchase Driven" religion -- empty of spiritual truth and seeking compromise with the ways of the world. As someone else said here, if the IC did more of what we were doing in HC, my wife and I would still be there. I actually rather like some of what emergent does, but it's window-dressing. Yep, give me good ol' stadium-rock praise! I don't need it, but I like it.
As for Barna, he is probably the worst about embracing the worldly success model of religion. He has bluntly denied the message where Jesus said we should expect troubles from this world because we reject it. For him and his associates, Christianity is defined as mere psychology, a means to peaceful life, prosperity, etc. It's simply reviving the Law of Moses -- which never offered more than peace, prosperity, physical health, etc. -- and avoiding the deeper truths of nailing your human hopes and dreams to the Cross.
Those of us who do HC because it's the only tool left us for true faith will always be outside the camp. I see emergents as just another flavor of IC. They want the apparent genunineness of our faith, but aren't willing to pay the full price. In my opinion, the lines are blurred only in popularly published opinion.
Email this page to someone.
