I have noticed something recently that has made me a little concerned. This concern stems from the idea that we need to change the Church to meet some over idealized concept of the New Testament Church. I have encountered more than one group recently who seems to think that they have special understanding of what constitutes the “early Church” and that everyone needs to adopt this understanding in order to be effective in today’s society.
Am I wrong for being concerned by this? I am not saying that there is no room for change in the Church. In fact, I am encouraged by the movement towards building greater community, both within the Church, and between the Church and the local community. However, I am concerned by the notion that there is something wrong with the traditional ways of the Church. And possibly the very idea of having a Church service with set songs, prepared sermons, etc. I am concerned by the desire to throw it all out entirely and rebuild to our (sometimes faulty) understanding of what the New Testament Church was. Especially when this understanding is often informed by the current fads and whims of society. When those fads and whims fade, what are we left with?
This is simply me thinking out loud in order to see what other people think of this. Am I being too touchy and protective of something that I am personally attached to? That could very well be the case. But it seems important to me currently.
the archives near Emmaus 
no, you are not being touchy… you are SPOT ON. We can make our way forward too well if all we are doing is looking behind us all the time…. The pathway to the future lies not in the past but in our future eschatological promises and fulfillment in Christ.
that’s “can’t”…
I call this the “Golden Age” fallacy. We identify some period of the church (for Protestants, often either the early church for the Reformation church), and think that being a healthy church means imitating that. One small problem – there was no Golden Age. The church has always been broken and in need of God’s grace. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from those who have gone before – we can and must – but they weren’t any more perfect than we are.
You don’t seem to be touchy, just wise about the fact that humans tend to over-react rather than find the proper balance between any two things. It seems that you are merely trying to protect that which is good about the way we do church, while being encouraged by some of the changes in emphasis that are being made.
When it comes to reacting against something that we perceive as negative, caution is rarely a bad thing.
Hey, Joshua. Thanks for posting this. First, I’m glad you’re concerned. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the typical order of worship, unless/until it becomes an idol unto itself. And often, folks have made it just that. Or – much more often, probably – folks who genuinely love their familiar ‘church service’ have misidentified that particular (place, time and style of) gathering with scripture’s general call that believers should gather. Many have misidentified attendance with participation, and many have wielded Heb.10:25 against people who don’t attend to this particular form.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a formalized liturgy, per se. There’s certainly nothing wrong with singing, reciting prayers, collecting money or listening to a message. There are, however, many aspects of the NT christian experience that we *don’t* see going on in our institutional forms today, which, by definition, is by design. Anything meant to remain instituted becomes necessarily fixed, however flexible or innovative it may also become.
I agree our historical goggles are often cloudy. I agree the fads and whims are frightening. But every other facet of western society is moving from top-down to bottom-up organization, and (although it’s not entirely a black and white contrast here) that *does* happen to mimic a lot of what we see in the NT’s Story of the earliest christians.
I’ve more interest in building up than tearing down, but sometimes you’ve got to kill a sacred cow or two in order to get someone’s mind to open up juuust a bit. 🙂
Cheers.
You are absolutely on the money. You have succinctly articulated something that has been festering at the back of my mind for some time now.
And Brian is dead right in his observation that there is no future in the past, and Marc dead right in that we musn’t get caught up in trying to live out some kind of ‘rose tinted’ glory days that are behind us, when in truth, the glory days are in front of us.
I’m actually relieved that you posted this.
@Brianfulthorp: I agree with you fully. History is valuable, however the Church needs to be about what God is doing/going to do from here on out.
@Marc: That is so true. I am constantly being made aware of just how much the Church needs God’s grace to continue. Nothing that we can do ourselves is going to make an impact unless God is with it. I like what you are saying about the “Golden Age” fallacy. That is very true of one denomination I was raised around as a kid.
@Luke: Thanks for the assurance! I know that there are somethings that are flexible in the Church. I just don’t think it is all bad.
cats? no wonder you’re sensitive, you’re allergic to cats and they’re slowly killing you.
Joshua, thanks for sharing.
There are over 112 million Christians worldwide that do not attend a traditional church. Every year, there are about one million Christians that leave the institutional church in the US. And the number of Christians meeting outside the organized church is somewhere around eleven million today!
There is a movement that has been sweeping the nation for some time now. George Barna has been pumping out the stats on this, especially in his most recent books “Revolution” and “Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices” (co-authored with my good friend, Frank Viola), he has gained the serious attention of scholars, theologians, lay persons, and church lovers everywhere.
I was in vocational ministry for seven years, and I have been meeting in homes since 2006, seeking to find the Lord within the priesthood of all believers. I know there are plenty of folks that are trying to recreate the first-century church, are anti-leadership, and who see “organic” church as a strategy. But that doesn’t describe all of us.
There are others who gather in homes due to a strong spiritual conviction, that they have been captivated by God’s eternal purpose in Christ through the church, and that NT churches are to be expressed locally and primarily in face-to-face community (not shoulder-to-shoulder services), with Christ being more than a spiritual figurehead.
There are many Christians, in the old spirit of Anabaptism, that believe there’s a real NT church pattern that has been given to us that should reflect the social Trinity, not the rigid hierarchal form of Church life, its false dichotomy of cleros/laos, and its pagan accumulation of ritual that often squelches the life of the Spirit.
Bonhoeffer touched on some of the idea in his book “Life Together.”
It’s not a crusade against “traditions” for us, it’s about being faithful to the teachings of Scripture as best we know how, as we assume others are doing. It has nothing to do with effectiveness for us. It’s about a dream the Lord has for his people.
I do understand your concerns, cause I once had them. I would just encourage you to look past the discussions about ministerial “missional” effectiveness, rejection of traditions, utopian dreams, job security, and consider that there may truly be something happening here that is purely organic and born of the Spirit of Christ.
Thanks, bro.
I recommend reading the following:
Ecclesiology–
“Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola
“Paul’s Idea of Community” by Robert Banks (NT scholar)
“Nexus: The World House Church Movement Reader” by Rad Zdero
“Pagan Christianity?” by George Barna & Frank Viola
“Going to the Root: 9 Proposals for Radical Church Renewal” by Christian Smith
Church History–
“The Torch of the Testimony” by John W. Kennedy
“The Pilgrim Church” by Edmund Broadbent
“The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin
@Jim- So if I got rid of my cat I could become comfortable with wild disorganized, improvised church, AND live longer? It looks like the Portland shelter is going to have a new resident.
@David: Thanks man for the reading tips. I will have to check them out.
While I have no doubt that you and others have pure motives in leaving the institutional Church. I am curious about a couple of things. How do you decide what to keep and what to reject from the institutional church? If this Church has been influenced by Paganism then do you reject basic doctrinal ideas that were also being developed during the same time as this Pagan infiltration of ritual and organized worship services?(i/e the Trinity or the Biblical Canon)
Also where do you view the role of The Holy Spirit in the development of the Church and it’s doctrines?
I’m extremely interested to hear your ideas.
Thanks for sharing!
Joshua, we do not act out of “rejection” to anyone. That’s the sort of thing I am asking you to lay aside. My use of “pagan accumulation” in church practice is not meant to provoke anger, I’m just stating facts. We all know it, I’m just stating the obvious.
So, moving forward does require us to take an honest look at Church History and ask the tough questions (deconstruction before construction). Most important of all, what’s the DNA of the church that models the eternal image of the Triune God, and is there a genuine NT church pattern?
I submit that many have assumed a great deal about the NT church and likely feel free to improve upon the NT pattern. It’s reflective in the lightening fast attempts to brush this sort of thing off and go on about our business.
There are some here that have experienced these same reactions to the claim that Jesus taught non-violence and actually expects us to follow him in love. I mean c’mon… where in “love your enemies” does it say not to kill them. 🙂
As for theology and doctrine, there has certainly been progress in our theological explorations of Christ and the way in which we communicate the mysterious Triune God. I wouldn’t call that “pagan accumulation.” I do admit there have been times where foreign “pagan” influences have distorted a biblical image of God in Christ.
Joshua, I’m suggesting that there was a clear NT pattern, divinely instituted by God, that is evident in the biblical text. I am challenging you and your readers to seriously consider whether the popular practice of the church is a development or a deviation from that NT pattern. Are we reading the NT church in first-century context, or have we forced our current ideas and practices on to the text? 🙂
Wouldn’t your readers agree that knowing Jesus in context has great value in understanding who he is and what he wants from us–knowing the living Jesus? I submit that we wouldn’t brush this aside with petty excuses. I believe that most here would say that being blasé about the person and work of Christ is dangerous. Why then do we feel we have the freedom to tamper with the NT pattern of the church that was born out of him, believing there is room for improvement?
As everyone is aware, this is an extremely sensitive issue (highly emotional) and so very little is accomplished in this venue. I don’t mind responding to further questions, but I seriously doubt that anything more than the beginnings of an investigation will result. Thank you for your open heart. I felt I had to chime in… it had my name all over it. 🙂
@ David: Thank you for your candor and for sharing your position in a place that might not necessarily be sympathetic to your ideas. And while I don’t agree with the conclusions you have drawn it makes for interesting conversation.
God bless man!
Thank you, brother!
😉
anyway all this was discussed a century ago by bauer in his fantastic book
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heresy-Earliest-Christianity-Walter/dp/0962364274
of course the problem is, every generation thinks its making some new discovery and forgets that theres nothing new under the sun.
anyway, take a look at bauer
@Joshua,
In lieu of your discussion with David I would suggest that we need to have a more expansive view of what in fact signifies a “house church.” It can be argued, and of course has, that First Baptist church of Portland, OR is a house church; that City Bible Church is a house church; that Central Bible church is a house church — based upon the NT model. And if the Apostle Paul were to write a letter to the “church” in Portland, it wouldn’t be to Central Bible church; but to all of the “house churches” that make up the “Church” in Portland (including all of the aforementioned churches).
In other words, defining “Institutional” church seems to be a rather fluid thing; esp. in the Protestant Free church movement, of which we are apart. So, what makes the church David meets at any different than the one you might attend (assuming you don’t meet in someone’s house — physically)? Is it size, address, location, polity, etc.? I think it a hard case to make that there is any real material difference between a so called “house church” (the kind that I’m assuming David is referencing) and “Central Bible church,” for example.
And I think it an even harder case to make that there is any kind of “mandate” for a particular NT church gvt or polity . . . this seems really quite post hoc.
What do you think?
@Josh and @Bobby: I’d agree with Bobby here. I don’t think that we have an obvious, uniform designation for church polity and leadership. Nor do I think we have a description of whether or not a church should meet in someone’s home as we think of homes today or a church building and so forth.
As Marc noted, there is no Golden Age. Even the apostolic era had serious issues. The Spirit is with the church through each era guiding her in her mission in various contexts.
@ Brian and @Bobby:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is why I have such a problem with the concept of reverting back to some form of early or proper Church. I don’t think we can know for certain how things functioned in a way that would justify throwing the idea of current church polity(granted it comes in many forms) or practice away. The idea being that the Church is in fact the worldwide body of believers in Christ. While the Church has had dark periods through its history. I believe that the Holy Spirit has always moved among the people of God and preserved the Church regardless of how dire the situation may seem. Maybe I’m just being naive and idealistic.
@Jim: Well I was going to go and order that book immediately, until I saw the price. Yikes! Maybe Bauer’s work is in need of a new printing?
as for bauer, his beliefs have been adopted by erhman. his books are cheaper.
@Doug: Thanks for the tip!
@Joshua,
I don’t think you’re being naive or idealistic!
@Brian,
Glad that we agree. We’re starting to do this too much lately, I’ll have to continue to work at being disagreeable a bit harder it appears 😉 kidding.
the bauer bookis on ebay for $17 right now.
Just to be clear… I wasn’t arguing for “house church” in my comments. People can meet in homes and still practice “institutional” Christianity.
I’m not referring to the meeting place of a local church, but the local “functioning” of a church–the very nature of the church. Meeting in homes is not necessary, but it is however most conducive to the familial community and organic Body life of Christ.
Robert Banks tackles this in his book, “Paul’s Idea of Community,” and so does Frank Viola in all of his books. The nature and functioning of the church in the NT is unlike any other religious group or political organization comparable to his day, and arguably our own. Banks examines Paul’s careful choice of words in describing this sort of community, where Christ is shared equally among one another (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:26). It is truly an ekklesia where all are ministers and priests (1 Pet. 2:9).
As I see it, the NT church is a Triune fellowship where members are giving and receiving in love, each one functioning without top-down leadership—power under, not power over. There is order, but familial flexibility. There are leaders, but not professional elites. There is real consensus, not democratic decision making. There is submission to spiritual authority, but not subjection. Everyone brings something to the table and freely uses their gift as the Spirit guides them. The church corporately gathers around Jesus, not a pastor/teacher. It’s a church that reflects the social Trinity.
Here’s how one author has expressed it:
“By ‘organic church,’ I mean a non-traditional church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic church life is a grass roots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, open-participatory meetings (opposed to pastor-to-pew services), non-hierarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional Leader and Head of the gathering. Put another way, organic church life is the “experience” of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, it’s the fellowship of the Triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings.”
@David,
How would you differentiate what your saying from a “denomination” like the Plymouth Brethren? Who voice the same sentiment about leadership and function as you’re noting. They are “elder ruled,” which seems “biblical;” I’m just trying to understand the distinction — besides maybe Anabaptist sensibilities — that differentiate all of what you’re saying from what I was sketching. In some ways, one could argue that this is just an issue of semantics or even “attitude;” but nothing really materially different from “established” denominations and polity as is in play in many “Evangelical” churches today.
My dad started a church (Conservative Baptist) when I was a wee little lad; it started out as a “house church,” face-to-face Bible study “home-group” like in the beginning. Of course as it grew then the facilities needed to changed etc. What I’m sensing is that what your communicating has everything to do with an Anabaptist approach (which I’m not saying is wrong); and less to do with talking about “how” the NT church did it, per se.
What a great conversation. I was heading down the road of emerging church etc until I read An Emergent Theology for an Emerging Church by Ray S Anderson and it somehow changed my thinking (and he was pro-EC as well). I felt a stronger call back to institutional church. Go figure.
I haven’t had time to read the lengthy comments here but I like what Marc said an, I would also hasten that any rejection of church because it does not fit one’s needs may be bordering on idolotary or at least consumerism. The EC is, in my opinion, just as consumerist as mega-churches.
I speak as a pastor when I say this; what ever happened to loving the church God gave you the way it is? Why do pastors seem to leave churches because they wont change or do church a certain way?
just my 2 cents.
@Mark,
Now, when you say “EC” do you mean Evangelical Calvinist 😉 . Btw, I would imagine given Ray Anderson’s love for Thomas Torrance that he in fact (conceptually) would fit into what we are calling Evangelical Calvinism — just an aside 🙂 .
The comments are fascinating. I almost forgot what the original post said, so I reread it. I think there’s a lot to be learned by examining the “primitive” church. It matters little what the bride of Christ is wearing, so long as she is faithful. The early church existed in a world of severe persecution with few trained leaders but a lot of Spirit. The modern church seems to be a bit inverted. Anyone who sees this is likely to question the modern church and want to somehow recapture the glory of the early church. In some ways this might be misguided, but imo that depends on the motivation for the quest, not the quest itself. I attend a UMC, though I grew up Baptist and have attended various Pentecostal and other protestant churches and a few Catholic churches. I have very close Messianic friends, Quakers, and a few others from “less mainstream” denominations. I have yet to find one that I agree with on every point either in doctrine or practice. And if I did find the perfect church I’d be the one to screw it up. The point is not the label or the traditions, but the heart of the believer and the One who is worshiped.