There is a lot of talk in the Southern Baptist Convention about the nature of the church. Words like organic, institution, movement, centralization, etc.. are thrown around quite often. I have read a few books on the issue and I have to be honest: I take a stand on the ‘not as popular’ side. What is the nature of the church in Acts? Most agree that the nature of the church in Acts is more of an organic, house to house church setting. In Acts we see the phrase ‘house to house’ numerous times. Paul addressed and spoke of house churches. Paul went house to house in order to disciple and preach. It is a reoccurring theme in the book of Acts.
What about today?
The church setting today is very different. We are very centralized. When someone says the word church the first thing people think of is where their ‘church’ meets. Many people do not like the house church concept, always saying, ‘Any successful house church stops becoming a house church because they grow and get a building.’ Good logic, if only that was true. Was the New Testament church not ‘successful’? Of course they were and yet they stayed in homes. They continued to grow by reproducing. The reproduced from house to house, community to community, village to village, and nation to nation.
The question usually becomes a question of cultural setting. Was the early church only an ‘organic’ house church type because of its culture or is that the way God designed it to be? I think that is the way God designed it to be. There is still a cultural aspect, but this aspect is a matter of variations within the organic nature of the church. It should not be a question of organic vs. institutional: it should be a question of what way the organic nature of the church will express itself in that particular culture. If you look at all of the great movements of the church throughout the world it has a very decentralized look, except America. South Korea and China are obvious examples.
I do no think one can make the argument that the house church setting wouldn’t work in our culture. I think the New Testament left us an example to follow. We should look to Acts not only to learn the principle of the church, but to also follow the direction of the church!
Is it wrong to meet outside of homes? No. I will use a church called Apex Community Church of Dayton, Ohio to be my example. They are a church from anywhere to 2500-3000 people. They are made up of over 60 house churches and meet together with four services on the weekends. You are not a member of Apex if you do not attend a house church. Just showing up on the weekends is not enough. I use Apex as an example because I think that they give the best example of practicing the organic nature of the church in our culture. They are a community of house churches that all meet together on the weekends in order to worship together, be united in mission together, and to celebrate that God saved them.
Jesus gave us the great commission. What is the best way to fulfill this commission? Looking at the book of Acts the answer seems to be by the church functioning in a decentralized, organic way. I do not care what you call it. You can call it house churches, cell groups, community groups, discipleship groups, or small groups. What matters is that groups are meeting outside of the big building with the church sign to disciple believers and reach their communities. In my opinion, Scripture lays out this example for one reason: it is the best way to fulfill the great commission. Most churches have four services that are almost identical. Sunday morning worship, Sunday School, Sunday evening worship, and prayer meeting on Wednesday nights: all have one person preach, some prayer, and some singing. Where is the time for confession? Exhortation? Repentance? Where in this centralized system can we fulfill all of the ‘one anothers’ that Scripture commands?
When people meet in homes or in small groups somewhere besides the big building with the sign it creates an atmosphere that is needed. It creates an atmosphere that opens the door to believers opening their lives to confess sin, pray personally with one another, grow closer together, and really be able to exhort and encourage each other. It also creates an evangelistic atmosphere that is welcoming to lost people who are intimidated by the ‘big church setting’ but are comfortable going to a small group with a good friend of their from work. A ‘House Church’ setting is the best missional, incarnational approach to ministry: not because of preference, personality, culture, but because it is the biblical model left for us.
The book of Acts gives more than principles about the church, it gives an example for the church.
The Church first met in the synagogue, before persecution drove it into homes. Read Acts Again. in Acts 3 Peter and John were on the way to the temple to pray.
The time may come, when persecution will once again drive it into homes as it has done in other lands.
I couldn’t agree more, Matt. I fear the issue may be more insidious than we’d like to admit. I think Acts is pretty clear, along with the rest of Scripture on this. But when the Bible gets in the way of our desires, we side-step it. A network of house meetings makes demands of us that our current popular structures do not. Our current structures enable us to keep others at whatever distance we want (including the elders of the church). Preach at me from a stage, make me feel guilty, spank me so that I can feel atoned through masochism until next week. But don’t come to my house and ask about my marriage. Don’t expect me to open my home to other people. Don’t even think about holding me accountable for other people’s well-being. Demand community, and I’ll just go find another preacher who’ll settle for stepping on my toes once or twice a week. And it takes serious ongoing heart change to embrace that kind of intimate partnership for the sake of the gospel.
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Hospitality
Dr. Foltz,
I think Acts is clear that they were meeting in the synagogues and homes early in Acts. Saul went ‘ravaging the church’ from ‘house to house.’ I think that is proof that ‘house to house’ was a concept in the very beginning of the church and not just after persecution. It was in homes that Saul went to ravage the church. They did meet in synagogues to come together in larger numbers to pray, hear the Word preached, and evangelized, but they also met often in homes. When Acts 2 says they ‘met together daily’ I do not think this meets every believer met at the synagogue every single day, but rather people were meeting in homes daily.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..When Do We Not Cast Our Pearls?
Darby,
Very well said. This kind of gospel call is radical and takes a community willing to completely open their lives to the people they serve with… Most people want no part of it.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..When Do We Not Cast Our Pearls?
Brother Paul,
You make a valid point about Acts, but is your point exclusive? Do you believe the structure of the church is such that only when persecution or some external source demands it, it decentralizes? Or do you believe there is a biblical mandate that transcends circumstances. IOW, I think there are some who think the current western structure is the default position, and anything else is circumstancially motivated. Is that your point as well?
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Hospitality
Dr. Foltz has mde an astute observation concerning where the early church met. They met in homes, when they were driven out of the temple. They also met in homes in other places, because they were not fully accepted in Society at that time. Indeed, they were likely and, in many instances, did lose their lives by public witness. I know of several groups that are house church oriented. It doesn’t make them any more spiritual than having buildings make people unspiritual. It all depends on the spirit of the people involved. While I am no a Landmarker (I once was), I do know that our predecessors prior to the reformation sometimes met in the woods. The first Baptist fight after the Reformation was over singing: “Whether they should sing at all.” After all, singing in the woods in a worship was likely to get you burned at the stake. The nature of the church is a spiritual body with a congregational government and pastors and deacons. Every doctrine of the Bible is two-sided and apparently contradictory. There is a universal spiritual nature to the church as well as a local, congregational, visible body of believers. This two-sidedness is meant to make people balanced, flexible, and creative. In short, help them to achieve spiritual maturity in order to serve and honor their Lord.
Thank you Dr Willingham for your kind words.
Brother Darby, persecution not only drove them into homes but out of Jerusalem. Jesus had instructed them to go into all the world and teach all nations, baptizoing them, and teaching them to observe what He had commanded. They stayed at jerusalem until Acts 8.
The myrtyrdom of Stephen andthe ensuing persecution was a tool in the hands of the Holy Spirit to get them to evangelize other lands.
God can use any means He so desires.
“They met in homes, when they were driven out of the temple.”
Dr. Willingham,
“I think Acts is clear that they were meeting in the synagogues and homes early in Acts. Saul went ‘ravaging the church’ from ‘house to house.’ I think that is proof that ‘house to house’ was a concept in the very beginning of the church and not just after persecution.”- ME
Scripture does not insinuate that they only met in homes after persecution. I would argue the exact opposite. It appears that they were meeting in homes from the beginning. Acts 2 says they met daily: Do you think they met in the synagogue every single day or that they were also meeting in homes? Also when it says Saul was ravaging the church it says he was going ‘house to house.’ It does not appear they were meeting in homes only after Saul was seeking after them, but rather Saul was seeking after them in their homes because that is where they had always met, along with the synagogue.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..When Do We Not Cast Our Pearls?
Dear Bro. Matt:
It is pretty easy to read the Bible and seemingly grasp what it is saying. Yes, they did meet in houses, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. The question is this: Was this a result of necessity or a precept from the Lord? The command is to assemble together (Hebs.10:25), positive implication of negative prohibition. Where is not stressed. In the present situation, especially as Christians are now needing to establish schools and other instruments of socialization, there is no prohibition for having meeting houses (that is the original term used by the Baptists before they transferred the word church to the building (a misnomer, if there was ever one)). Private homes might or might not be used, but there is no positive precept for such a meeting, requiring it for all of time. Six years of research revealed to me some of the many traps we can fall into in trying to follow the Bible. I could be wrong, but I think this is one of them. I know of several groups that follow the idea of meeting in homes. They are no better and no worse than those who meet in meeting houses. It is not a point worth a church fight over. In my researches, I found some who met in caves. Folks in the flatlands would have a problem with that. But the folks doing so were like those who met in the depth of the forests to keep from being burnt at the stake. I am sure that the place where they met was just as blessed at the meeting houses of the churches that I have pastored. Don’t lose the baby in the bath water. The presence of Christ in the midst of His people is the church, regardless of where they meet. In a salt mine (a prison) in the days of Rome, there was a church, an assembly of people who met wherever and whenever they could in that salt mine….Wake up! Brother, our world needs visitation of Heaven upon it. There are promises of such to come. Let us plead them and not spend our time freting over secondary issues. O yes, apparently the first church met in one of the porches of the temple. So when they were driven out, they met in homes. Jesus did not give us a precept as to where we should meet; only that we should meet together with Him in our midst. Remember the fellow who focuses only on the dot and misses the whole huge white page.
Oh for a revival in our churches, and a spiritual awakening in our land.
Oh that God would rend the heavens and visit us.
Oh for broken hearts, penitential tears, and confessions of wrongness.
Oh that The Holy spririt would purge the church of its dross.
then we would stop grasping after empty straws, and arguing over things that swallow a gnat.
May we pray, fast and weep UNTIL the Lord sends it upon us.
Thanks for a good and thoughtful discussion. As I read the post and comments, these were my thoughts.
Perhaps our own culture has influenced and insulated us in ways we would not have chosen. The institution is valued, but cannot provide life. It seems to me that the emphasis in the book of Acts is not location of meeting, but the transformed lives of the disciples of Christ. We are encouraged that they did meet regularly somewhere to worship and celebrate God and this new life.
My own research and anecdotal evidence informs me that people meet globally in locations for various reasons. The “big church” that is a turn-off and frightening to some is attractive to others. And the opposite is true. One pastor friend in Kenya (15,000 at last count) and the congregation he pastors once met on government land. They were “squatters” and could not purchase land of their own. In more persecuted parts of the globe, they meet in homes. When the persecution was over in Romania, the Romanian leaders would say without apology, “Now is the time for us to build our temples.” Why? The Orthodox Church had criticized Evangelicals, and especially Baptists and Pentecostals, as a cult. Their evidence? “They have no temples.”
I would offer that the Kingdom of God is pervasive and extends by and through the influence of people whose lives have been transformed by the Risen Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The corporate worship place is just that – a place. However, it can be a place of great witness in a community and a constant reminder of a people of God. Should the house church movement ever “catch on” in the USA, one of obstacles will be city zoning laws. It might prove difficult to reach a community alienated over parking wars. It is something to consider. The meeting place of the people of God has always been contextual with the cultural environment. No less is true today.
Ted Es last blog post..WELCOME 2009!!
You know what would bring about a revival?
A church ‘model’ that wasn’t over-centralized, program driven, and full blown consumerism. 😉
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
Matt, I agree with you here. It’s easy to just dismiss the idea as an irrelevant cultural artifact. Jim Elliff has written some helpful articles on house churches. I could provide links if you haven’t seen them. I personally am glad to see you and others standing on the “not as popular” side.
Barry Wallaces last blog post..Bruce Ware on the Atonement
Barry,
I would love the links. I really have read very little of what others have had to say on the topic except for Alan Hirsch’s book “The Forgotten Ways.”
One thing that strikes me is that Dr. Paul and Dr. James are both arguing no to worry about this topic, but rather worry about revival when in South Korea and China the thing I am arguing FOR brought about revival in both country’s. (Obviously, the Holy Spirit ‘brings about revival’ but He did it through exactly what I am arguing for.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
While I think Hirsch overstates his case by not suggesting that folks would meet in large groups if they could, and under-emphasizing the role of preaching, I think he has some valid points. I also think that in some people, there is just a willful blindness to the text of Scripture concerning the structure of the church. It’s ludicrous to think that what one sees in terms of community in the NT and what one sees across the American church landscape are comparable and merely contextually driven. I think this banner will have to be carried by those who see it. If others had seen it before now, they would have been working toward correction. Hirsch asks at what point we look to the leaders who have led us where we are and question their methods. I don’t think we have to do that so much. But we do have to be willing to lead in an alternate direction if needed.
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Hosea: The Whore’s Husband Cont.
Darby,
I like and agree with much of what you said. I’ll ask you one question, you said, “But we do have to be willing to lead in an alternate direction if needed.”, Do you think an alternate direction is needed?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
That’s always the 50,000,000,000,000 dollar question isn’t it? I do think an alternate direction is needed. I don’t think we need a revolution or anything. 🙂 However, it’s not enough to say, “We’re just going to try to be faithful to Scripture.” Everyone says that and I believe everyone we have in mind honestly tries to. However, sometimes we need something to smack us upside the head so that we see differently – like Hosea marrying a whore perhaps (or Hirsch’s overstatements). We may be close to having the new direction handed to us. In China it’s communism that caused the church to detach the western culture from the gospel. Maybe an economic crisis, like the kind that could close down seminaries and foreclose on 4o million dollar church “campuses” would force us to question our assumptions about what is biblical.
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Hosea: The Whore’s Husband Cont.
Matt,
Here are Jim’s articles:
Should I Say More About Meeting in Homes?
Christ Fellowship of Kansas City
Barry Wallaces last blog post..Bruce Ware on the Atonement
I have to ask the question even though I might regret it — Does it matter? Are we splitting hairs over trivial matters such as the proper place for worship?
There are folks that I specifically know of who work in a factory in a country where they must hold their church meetings in secret or perish. The folks I know of aren’t the only ones out their either.
Are we going to tell them they can only worship God and have “church” in a home, or in a temple/tabernacle/church or whatever we want to call it? I doubt that.
Are we going to stand up and die for them when the tanks come to their homes to knock them over? I highly doubt that.
Do we say then it is ok for them but for people who live in free lands that we should only meet in a certain place as an example to our Christian brothers?
What about either building structure gives credence to salvation? Nothing that I can see. Why must we fuss about these things when lost souls are so much in abundance around us?
Sallie
Sallies last blog post..High School Home School Question…
Sallie,
I am not arguing that church should only be done in a home or a specific building. I am arguing this:
“Jesus gave us the great commission. What is the best way to fulfill this commission? Looking at the book of Acts the answer seems to be by the church functioning in a decentralized, organic way. I do not care what you call it. You can call it house churches, cell groups, community groups, discipleship groups, or small groups. What matters is that groups are meeting outside of the big building with the church sign to disciple believers and reach their communities. In my opinion, Scripture lays out this example for one reason: it is the best way to fulfill the great commission.”
I dont think it is ‘splitting hairs’ to discuss and debate what they best way to fulfill the great commission. Maybe I should be clearer because I continually get responses saying, ‘who cares where people meet?’ I couldnt agree more. I do not care where people meet. I dont care if it is in a house, community center, or even a bar. What I care about is the church following the NT model, which in my opinion, is a decentralized ‘organic’ model. A model that isnt program-consumer driven.
I think I am going to write a follow up article addressing how our consumer-driven model works directly against the Great Commission. Maybe that will clear up my thoughts on this issue.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
Jesus said, Jn4:21, ‘NEITHER IN THIS MOUNTAIN, NOR YET AT JERUSALEM (SHALL YOU), WORSHIP THE FATHER. and Jn.4:23,24, BUT THE HOUR COMES, AND NOW IS, WHN THE TRUE WORSHIPPERS , SHALL WORSHIP THE FATHER IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH: FOR THE FATHER SEEKS SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM. GOD IS A SPIRIT: AND THEY THAT WORSHIP HIM MUST WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH. That, I believe, says it all on the subject of worship. It is like formal as opposed to informal worship. Dr. R. G. Lee told of an African American believer who attended the dedication of a railroad in the mountains of North Carolina. During theservice a minister read a prayer. The believer said, Well, I do declare, this is the first time I ever heard God read to about a railroad.” Like a good Baptist who leans to the informal I laughed as Lee intended. However, I did not laugh, when a Baptist minister friend told me that during WWII, he was in the Corps of Engineers, and one night they had to clear a mine field in the rain. Normally the chaplain was there to leadthem in prayer, but he did not show up then. All of the men knew the model prayer so thy joined hands and recited that prayer. The dear brother said to me, “Brother, Jim, that recited prayer really meanta lot to me that night.” I reckon so. Our biggest problem is being too judgmentaland too rigid in our thinking. We need to remember Jesus called for worship in spirit and truth. The attitude of humility is the key, and that with prayer for the Heavens to drop down (Isa.45:8) is the way, God willing, to another Great Awakening. C. S. Lewis said it well; it is to PULL DOWN DEEP HEAVEN ON THEIR HEADS. Let Heavencome down, it won’t matter where we are. I have preached in meeting houses, schools, hospitals, jails, on streets. I just pray,God help us. In February, God willing, I shall speak in a congregation where 208 years ago, Heaven came down and 500 were converted in one Sunday Morning worship service. I tremble at how far short I shall come of that glorious event, but my prayer is, “DO IT AGAIN, LORD!”
Great discussion everybody and extremely pertinent to the affairs of our day. I would like to offer my two cents worth real quick. One of my criticisms of the argument of the “not so popular” viewpoint is that I think they are standing to close to the trees to actually see the forest. What I mean is two-fold:
(1) I think they are too easily dismissing the references to the preaching at Solomon’s portico and the various other larger gatherings. I also think they too easily dismiss the cultural information. This was a poor early church who had people selling their possessions to be able to afford to care for widows. Moreover, it was a minority movement in a minority population of the Roman empire. How do you propose they construct a single locale for the 3000 added at Pentecost to worship? Never mind the fact that they were in the desert and central air was not invented for about another 1900 years. The cultural situation, even prior to persecution was not in favor of a centralized church, and in absence of statements advocating small scattered churches I think this is significant.
(2) It was said in an earlier comment that the early Jerusalem christians “did meet in synagogues to come together in larger numbers to pray, hear the Word preached, and evangelized, but they also met often in homes. When Acts 2 says they ‘met together daily’ I do not think this meets every believer met at the synagogue every single day, but rather people were meeting in homes daily.”
First off, Acts 2.46 reads, “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes . . . ” So, it does actually say that they were daily attending the temple. Maybe not everyone, but someone. As well, the “day by day” meetings in the homes does not necessarily indicate churches were taking place there. Yes, we do hear in places like Philemon 2 about “the church in [Philemon’s] house,” but as Baptists I think we would agree that there are certain qualifications for an ‘ekklesia,’ or gathering, to be an actual church. Tomorrow morning I am meeting with some guys in a home to study God’s word and share things that we’ve meditated on this week. That would be considered meeting “from house to house” for “teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5.42), but it would surely not constitute a church. We have to be careful in our zeal for a fresh expression of Christianity that we do not ourselves become guilty of forcing too much into the text.
Again, great discussion guys and I hope what I’ve said can stir the pot a little more.
Todd Buruss last blog post..Poor, Opressed Worm- Loving God’s Sovereignty as Displayed in Scripture
Dr. Willingham,
I think we are on two different pages. We are talking about getting to the same destination, but merely emphasizing two different aspects. I appreciated your last post and agree with every word. We are to worship in Spirit and in Truth… While we worship God in this was we are to also fulfill the Great Commission, this is part of our worship, I am only trying to determine what the most effective, biblical way to fulfill the Great Commission is and I don’t believe it is our consumeristic-program ‘me driven’ philosophy of ministry.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
Todd,
Thank you for the response. I am going to address your first point.
I don’t feel that us ‘not so popular’ view guys dismiss the obvious larger gatherings. In my post the church example that I use is an example that has the ‘organic’ house church setting AND the large corporate gathering. I am a half-breed. I do not think the church as a body should forsake large gatherings and I do not think they should forsake meeting in smaller more intimate settings, such as a home.
Let’s say they were not poor… Who’s says they would spend ridiculous amounts of money to build the 3,000 person auditorium with central air and heating? I don’t think they would. With there ‘church model’ such large buildings were not even a need, even with 3000 men getting saved on one day. So the question to me is ‘how could they build are large building’ but rather why would they… Looking through Scripture I think they would be appalled at the money wasted by the church today buying the nicest of buildings… Especially when there are still widows, orphans, homeless, etc. that need fed. I think we would all be greatly saddened at how many SBC churches spend more a year on there building than they do feeding the hungry, etc…
All in all, I want you to realize I am arguing for the model that says ‘only house churches’ because that is not what the early church did… They met in the temple and in homes. I think Apex Community Church is the best example of what I am promoting and of what I think Scripture teaches.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..In the Blogosphere
Matt,
Thanks for your response. I agree with you on the use of money issue. I am in Florida and one night I was teaching and decided to question the necessity of an aquarium replicating the parting of the Red Sea that is housed at FBC Jacksonville. Needless to say, I was almost stoned by some of the people in the group. However, people who took a beat top think about it came up to me afterwards and said, “You know, you’ve got a point.”
Let me say, I am in accord with you in the view of large AND small. I think that is appropriate and allows the Spirit to drive the nature of the church as it should. I do want to stress the necessity of a house church actually being a church, but beyond that I think that the big/small, centralized/decentralized issues are matters of local autonomy and should not be ruled on by the governing bodies nor looked down upon by people in other congregations.
Todd Buruss last blog post..Poor, Opressed Worm- Loving God’s Sovereignty as Displayed in Scripture
I’m glad Matt brought up the financial aspect, which I’d like to address first before going back to a couple of other points.
What would happen if Christians in fellowship were more focused on being “the Church” rather than being “a __insert your favorite flavor___ church?” The plain fact is that the vast majority of the funds that are collected within American Christendom are used to maintain facilities and church plants which a) provide services primarily aimed at the SAVED rather than the LOST, and b) are dedicated to the task of maintaining a SEPARATE and DISTINCT identity compared to other fellowships of believers. Where in the New Testament did Jesus or the apostles establish the denominational system of Christianity which emphasizes our DIFFERENCES rather than our COMMON FAITH? And what Biblical justification do we have for spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to simply maintain religious infrastructure? What would the effect on society be if all those funds were directed toward impacting a lost society in tangible, rubber-meets-the-road ways?
Secondly, Todd wrote, “as Baptists I think we would agree that there are certain qualifications for an ‘ekklesia,’ or gathering, to be an actual church. Tomorrow morning I am meeting with some guys in a home to study God’s word and share things that we’ve meditated on this week. That would be considered meeting “from house to house” for “teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5.42), but it would surely not constitute a church.” I fear the very first words of this quote is where the problem lies: “as Baptists.” The question is not what “Baptists” or any other denominationally identified group would consider “A church,” but what Jesus Christ and the apostles in the New Testament considered “THE church.” Similarly, Dr. Willingham wrote, “The nature of the church is a spiritual body with a congregational government and pastors and deacons.” Again, I suggest that is our modern view of what constitutes A church, as we define local fellowships, but it falls short of describing THE church, the collective body of believers.
The issue is not, I would submit, whether it’s “right” or “wrong” to worship in homes or public buildings or private edifices. The real issue is how we as Christians are going about being THE church, THE body of Christ in the world. And in the context of this particular discussion, I believe the ultimate question that has to be answered is whether or not our ways of “doing church” further the mission of THE church as set out for us by Jesus and the apostles. Or perhaps more specifically, is our way of doing church the BEST POSSIBLE USE of the resources we have available in terms of the impact we can have on a lost culture? Is the practice of maintaining large church plants which are intended mostly for the benefit of the club….er, I mean church members TRULY the best use of that money?
The reality is that we live in a post-Christian America that is as much of a mission field as any foreign land could possibly be. Yet we’re still partying like it’s 1955, still erecting our church buildings and still expecting the sinners to realize their need to “come to church.” We would fire international missionaries who took that approach, but we embrace it here at home. When we’re willing to ask ourselves the hard questions about how we can best impact our culture AS IT EXISTS TODAY, the mechanics of where and how to “do church” will fall into place. Unfortunately, for many of us, the process is exactly the other way around: here’s how we do church, now how can we make it appealing to a post-Christian culture without making any wholesale changes to OUR underlying religio-corporate (corpo-religious?) culture?
Dear Matt: I don’t recall ever approving the consumerism, me -centered worship of a lot of today’s church life. In fact, I am repulsed by it. The real issue, however, is to get at the intent behind what is being done. There are times when extravagance is approved of the Lord. Remember the woman and the expensive ointment which she used to anoint the feet of Jesus? I can’t say I like these ornate church buildings, etc., either, but a meeting house designed to last a while is no particular evil as it will serve multitudes and be a means of continued ministry. The intent of the people is the real issue at all times, Even people meeting in a cave can meet for the wrong reasons and dishonor the Lord. I did some reading in church history yesterday where our Baptist forebearers met in homes and then built meeting houses. The real intent of the church is to do the will of God with love. If a house church is called for, then by all means let that be done. If a meeting house would serve, let it be used. If more ornate (I really am not crazy about such things to put it mildly) places work, I hesitate here due to my antipathy for such things. Nevertheless, some people like cathedrals. If they want them, let them have them. If they intend the glory of God, then we can hardly be so severe in our judgments. Having lived a few years, having studied all 2000 yrs. of church history, knowing something of human depravity, desire, and yet consumed with a passion for the Greatest Awakening of all, the whole earth in one generation, and even a thousand generations, I find my heart wants Christ honored regardless of place. His glory is first, primary, second to nothing else, not even tolerating a competitor. That is the consuming passion. To plant His glory in the heart of all by free choice of the Sovereign Grace way which will be done as His wonderful grace and love melt the stony hearts. Then, the whole scence will shift to the question: “What is the best way to honor and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ?”
Matt —
I am enjoying the discussion here very much. I hope I didn’t see callous with my earlier post. It wasn’t intentional.
I think I’m lost on the use of the word “organic”.. to me that would mean meeting in the fields and forests or by the waters edge 🙂
We looked into house churches even before we moved to North Carolina but only found one or two available and with what seemed to be the thought of any theology or doctrine will work for us (the others advertising their “house church” meeting). That didn’t work for us 🙂
I look forward to your next post on the topic as you expound your thoughts, as well as the continuing discussion here.
In Christ,
Sallie
Sallies last blog post..High School Home School Question…
Sallie, the term “organic church” in this context is referring to a group of people who interact with one another like the different parts of an organism, rather than as members of a top-down, rigidly structured organization. One reason why the organic church concept seems so foreign to most “churched” people is because for centuries we have been indoctrinated as to how “church” is supposed to be done, i.e., with a well-defined leadership hierarchy consisting of a senior pastor, deacons, pastoral staff, etc. The problem with that is that you can’t really find that kind of structure in the New Testament. The NT church WAS, in fact, more like an organism in the sense that the members weren’t spectators to the show (worship service) being put on by the professional clergy. There WAS no professional clergy the way we understand it now.
Consider Ephesians 4:11-16: Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.”
We read this passage through the lens of our modern understanding of what church hierarchy is supposed to look like, but the POSITIONS of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, etc. in the NT church were not OFFICES in the sense we understand them today. These were individuals who were given particular gifts of ministry in order to empower the WHOLE BODY to become mature Christ-followers, but not to exercise hierarchical authority over highly structured, independent entities we know as “churches” today. The idea that the primary mode of worship for Christians is to come and sit in pews and spectate as professional clergy conduct a “service” would be totally foreign to the NT church. And the reason such a thing would be foreign to the early church is because it is in direct contradiction to everything Jesus and the apostles modeled. Real, life-changing ministry in the NT was always done in small groups. Yes, Jesus and the apostles preached and taught large crowds of people from time to time, but that was not their primary method of ministry.
Consider I Cor. 14:26-33 : Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you. No more than two or three should speak in tongues. They must speak one at a time, and someone must interpret what they say. But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately. Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. 32 Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people.
Many will read this passage and immediately get sidetracked over the issue of speaking in tongues, but that’s not the point of the passage. The real issue is how a typical “worship service” was conducted in an organic fellowship of believers. Even if we don’t go so far as to say that all “church services” MUST follow this pattern, let’s be honest, have you EVER seen a worship service that even came CLOSE to this kind of interaction? Why is that? Is it because God has changed, or because WE have changed?
“The NT church WAS, in fact, more like an organism in the sense that the members weren’t spectators to the show (worship service) being put on by the professional clergy.”
Although the whole Paul and Eutychus thing bears a strong resemblance to modern church. 🙂
I think we need to be careful right along the line you’ve mentioned here. This is one of the things I think Hirsch has played too fast and loose with in overstatement. I found myself frustrated at how eldership is under-emphasized and body gifting is given almost exclusive attention (in his book, not your comment). I think we need to be very careful about this.
First, there is something about a large group experience that cannot be duplicated by any other means. Why do you think Revelation speaks of how many beings are worshiping and how loud the environment? Why do you think football games, rock concerts and political rallies are so popular? Because there’s something to be said for large group experience. We all long to be lost in something bigger than ourselves. So we need both experience of God’s glory as a “spectator” and expression of God’s glory as a minister.
Second, while agreeing with organic notions of church in general, I think there’s a loosy-goosy view of leadership that fits more with the romantic unrealistic notions of relativistic postmoderns than the Bible. And we can’t fall for it. There is authority. It is centralized in eldership. It is God’s idea. And we can’t dismiss it or underplay it in the name of body life. And the chapter on how eldership fits into organic church is conspicuously absent in books on organic church.
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Should Men Work Outside the Home?
Dear Mr. Vance: I hardly think what I gave is the modern definition of the church. My specialty in research was the nature of the church. that definition is based upon explicit knowledge and analysis of the meaning of the term ekklesia in the Greek New Testament. Your presentation of what is a church reminds me of two groups that don’t claim to be a church, namely, the christian or church of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren, although I am not sure where the gift of tongues would quite fit into those two. In any case, both of the two groups might not come under the definition of a denomination in their own analysis, but others clearly see them as such. What group are you with Mr. Vance? This is an SBCvoices blog. I do not think the blog owner would mind others coming on. I don’t, but I do wish they would identify themselves. I hold less with a denomination than you might imagine, but I hold to doctrines which will bear up under the closest scrutiny in linguistics, etc. My big concern on writing is the Third Great Awakening, the winning of the whole earth by open, transparent, honest, clear teaching of what the written Word of God actually says. As to the professional ministry, I do not hold with such, believing that one must be called of God and gifted for the ministry, and one must also study. My thesis for the M.A. in American Social & Intellectual History was on the subject, “The Baptist & Ministerial Qualifications: 1750-1850.” It was an investigation into the biblical doctrine that Baptists hold and how it is applied. It was in this investigation that I discovered that biblical teachings are two-sided, apparently contradictory (the human mind has a problem with ideas that seem to be antithetical), and paradoxical. I also found out why they are this way; they make Christians balanced, flexible, and creative. God’s people in most, if not all, Christian groups eventually reach such a position, with variations, to some degree or another. The secret of such doctrines is the tension they produce in the human mind which enables one to come to grips with the reality of God’s Word and the reality of this world. I have been studying, reflecting, and thinking upon what Holy Writ teaches for 51 years. I have seen all of what is going on in this column before. Our great desire, indeed, our only desire is to advance the cause of the Lord Jesus Christ in this world. We might disagree on the how of doing it, and I think that is all this amounts to, but if we be true believers we must agree on the goal.
Dr. Willingham, I personally know Jay Vance to be a strong man of God with a very devout and good christian character. He is the father of a young soldier who I spoke of in an article of mine on SBCVoices a little while ago. He is no outsider to the SBC.
Jay, you said “The idea that the primary mode of worship for Christians is to come and sit in pews and spectate as professional clergy conduct a “service” would be totally foreign to the NT church.” and I am in complete agreement! I think you know my heart towards missions and being out working with people. Thanks for the explanation of “organic” when used in this sense!
In Christ,
Sallie
Sallies last blog post..High School Home School Question…
Darby, I totally agree with the need for BOTH large-group and small-group experiences in the Body life of Christians. I just don’t think much of what passes for large-group worship on a week-to-week basis in many (if not most) churches has much basis in NT teachings. As to the role of elderS (plural) in the local church, I absolutely agree this is a Biblical model. I also believe the modern professional clergy system as we know it, with a senior pastor at the top of the local church hierarchy, has little semblance to the Biblical eldership concept modeled for us in the NT.
Jay,
Then we are ready for tea and crepes. 🙂 I agree with your agreements.
Darby Livingstons last blog post..Should Men Work Outside the Home?
Barry,
Somehow I just saw the links you gave me. Thanks again!
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Bell and Luther: Same side of Reform?
I believe in congregational church government and ministry. Every member of the ekklesia is on an equal basis with every other member. No one is the superior of another. Every member of the body has a ministry which no one else can perform. Like the human body each part must function, if one is to have an effective life. It was baptist and congregational churches which provided the people with a means of training that made the Republican Democracy that we have in America work so well. Most other countries lack that acclamating agent to help their citizens get the kind of experience that can function in a free government. Consumerism in any form is anathema. Years ago I came across a Sunday School Quarterly of the Brethren; it was interlinear Greek, published in 1880. Wow! I have a Greek Analytical Concordance which I have used for 50 years; it was prepared by a Southern Baptist layman from Mississippi. He had owned a motel and sold it to give himself to the task of preparing a concordance that could be used to locate each word in the Greek New Testament. He was a Greek American. I say, “God is good.” I was the product of a broken home, raised on a sharecropper’s farm, saw an old country Baptist preacher pastor the church where my grandfather attended. I look back on griefs that were so great and yet see God’s absolute greatness displayed in such sorrows. I say, “Jesus doeth all things well.” Nay, He does them perfectly. His goodness is so great that we find it hard to believe. Study I Cors. I remember preaching from that epistle a lot in one church long ago and far away, which had fired the pastor before me for an unmentionable sin. They were ready to take their frustration out on the next pastor, and they did to some degree. But God was good, better than either they or any one had a right to expect. Brethren, if God saved a wretch like me, he can work out the most severe disappointments. He can save preachers who fail, churches that fail, societies that fail, mankind that is falling, a falling world. Save such, and bring joy in to lives of misery. That is the glory of God.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand
Matt,
You’re welcome, brother. Let me know what you think about the articles. You’ve got my email address. I’m glad you raised the issue. It’s an important one.
For whatever it’s worth, I agree with Jay’s main point–nothing that most of our churches do on a Sunday morning even remotely resembles the dynamic participatory ministry of 1 Cor. 14. And, as Darby pointed out, a strong plural eldership is needed to provide oversight and direction for that sort of dynamic gathering.
Barry Wallaces last blog post..I’m more talented with the sword
While I believe in the eldership, I am also painfully aware that it is abused just like the diaconate and the pastoral leadership and congregational government are abused. For instance, I know a place where the Pastor/Elder was retiring. The next Sunday a Pastor/Elder from another place was in the pulpit. When a former elder andmember asked, when is the congregation going to voe on the new Elder, the one retiring said, “Ask him. He’s your new pastor.”!!!!! Gentlemen, I suggest that, while a plurality of elders is a NT norm, the real issue lies in the hearts of all concerned in the local congregation. There must be prayer, providence, and participation by every one concerned. Even then, there can be and will be problems, God-given problems along with a few that He allows Satan to throw in. Think of Job. Think of Corinth and the churches of Galatia, etc. The churches then were just as problematic, etc., as our churches today. Let us pray for the ultimate visitation, a Third Great Awakening, one that awakens the whole earth.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand
DR, WILLINGHAM-38
Iam joining you in praying for a world wide awakening. unless we get it, it’s about over. We need a revival in our churches also.
Oh, that God’s people would fall in love with Him and each other.
Oh, that the lost were awakened to their lost condition…
Grant it, Oh God.
Dr. Paul Foltz
An awakening reaches all areas of society, including, and especially, the church. In Feb., d.v., I will speak in a church that was one of the centers of the Second Great Awakening in 1801. In that revival that church is said to have head 500 converted in one Sunday morning service or in a revival (different sources). In any case, out of that awakening within 20 years will come the Great Century of Missions. That Awakening and that Assn., Sandy Creek, and that church will produce along with other churches the great impetus to missions of Southern Baptists. The man who will suggest the founding of the Southern Seminary comes from that church, the theology of Sovereign Grace will come from the Assn. and Luther Rice and the man referred to along with the Charleston tradition. In deed the Sandy Creek and Charleston traditions had already united in Richard Furman (he was a Separate Baptist), and it continued with Basil Manley, Sr. who would follow Furman at FBC Charleston. So for about 60 years, FBC Charleston had Sandy Creek or Separate Baptist ministers. But it has been years since I stumbled over the facts about Furman’s background, so I will only assert definitely that the Sandy Creek and Charleston traditions flow together for sure in Basil Manley, Sr. And note the Sovereign Grace Faith is explicit in te 1816 Confession of Faith of Sandy Creek Assn., drawn up by a committee on which Manley served, as well as Hezekiah Harmon who was the founding pastor of Gum Springs, the church I once served, and who served the church in which that Awakening seems to have been focused (like the rays of sunlight through a magnifying glass). Now the chairman of the Confession committee was the Father of Missions among Southern Baptists, Luther Rice, who in his Memoirs declared, “Predestination is in the Bible and you had better preach it.” Manley was a delegate of the church and clerk of the assn. in that year. Later, he would be licensed to the ministry by that church. God have mercy upon us all. Thank you, Dr. Foltz.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand
I am joining the in invitation to pray for a world wide awakening. This is what we need in our churches in order to reach the goal of success for the world wide awakening program. When we pray something happens!
Oh, that God’s people would fall in love with Him and each other.
Oh, that the lost were awakened to their lost condition…
Grant it, Oh God.
Dennis Tuazon
WElcome Dennis Tuazon to the ranks of those praying for a Spiritual Awakening and A Revival. May God add to the ranks those who are committed in seeing these things brought to pass soon.
Brethren, I spoke twice in that church which once was an arm of Sandy Creek Church and which produced the minister who would set the tone to train ministers for the SBC. I refer to Basil Manly, Sr. I preached twice for that church (2/8 & 2/15). Today, they are as they have been for yrs. just a small country church with no one farming any more. The members are employed in other ways. My heart’s prayer is that God would raise up people to pray in every church for a visitation from God that would move the whole earth. My call to every one who reads this column is to give yourself every day to sometime for prayer for another Great Awakening. We are facing the possibility of terrible times, if the Lord does not intervene. I have read where some people have planned and worked for the whole world’s economy to collapse in order to institute policies designed to reduced the world’s population by some 4 billion people (I have since heard they intend to reduce it by 5.5 billion). C. S. Lewis was aware of this conspiracy. He even gave the answer to it in terms of pulling down deep heaven on their heads in his sci-fi novel, That Hideous Strength. There is a glorious consummation spoken of in Holy Scripture. Can it be that in the end we will experience the fall of such Heavenly power on the face of the whole earth that every last soul on the face of the earth at one time will be savingly converted. In short, a whole generation! And if one generation, why not a 1000 generations? After all, the promises to Abraham are that his seed are to be as numerous as the sand by the sea shore and the stars of heaven.Perhaps, the promise was a hyperbole as to the numbers involved, but they could be as literal as the grains of sand by every sea shore of the whole earth and the stars of seemingly infinite space. God help us to get a better vision of our opportunities.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand