Organic Church

In the last week I've been reading the book Organic Church by Neil Cole. It's been out for a while, but I never read it largely because of the cheesy cover and the cheesy picture of Neil in the back (I know I'm so fickle). I started reading it because I got a copy for free, but had I known what was in it I would have gladly shelled out some cash. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time.

Cole provides a powerfully prophetic message for all Christians. It is true that he promotes a very non-traditional approach to church (which I resonate with), but what he writes is not focused on the form of church so much as it is focued on calling us back to Christ. Here is a tasty sample from the book.

All of us invested in the Kingdom of God long deeply to be a part of a spontaneously growing and multiplying movement where God is doing the work. We read the book of Acts, and our spirits scream to be a part of something like that. When we hear reports of the Kingdom expanding and lives changing overseas in China or India, our souls are touched in a deep place that we seldom feel, and it reminds us that our own experience is so empty. It is unfortunate that we sacrifice our heart’s desire for lesser things. The reality is that as long as we invest in human-driven efforts, we will never see what we all really want to see…There is a risk involved in seeking a spontaneous movement. We must trust God to do His part. We must be willing to place ourselves in a position where, if he does not show up, we will be seen as complete fools. Most have not been willing to take that risk. We are often afraid that God’s reputation will be tarnished. This fear is not from heaven but hell. We will never see the dramatic power of God if we are too afraid to be placed in a position that requires His deliverance.

Do we even know what it would look like to put ourselves in such a place? Are we so comfortable that we wouldn't know how to be risky if we wanted to?

Liquid Church

I just finished this book after having it recommended by Drew Moser. Pete Ward does a good job of interacting with philosophical, theological, sociological, and practical issues in relation to being "liquid church" (his term for thinking of church primarily in regard to relationships and connections, not congregation). But the thing that has me thinking the most is his take on how the gospel should interact with our current culture of consumerism. Ward writes--

People who are looking for God will connect to the network because it offers what they want. In this sense liquid church locates itself firmly in the consumer nature of society. It seeks to offer the reality and fullness of God in a form that people want. There is no sellout involved, no dumbing down of the message. In fact, liquid church will remain committed to an exacting orthodoxy and a committed theology...As solid church has tried to adapt to modernity, it has adopted ways of using contemporary media and communications to package faith and offer it in the marketplace. Liquid church takes some of these changes and pushes them further by taking account of a more fluid market.

Is Christianity reconcilable with consumerism?

Emerging and Missional--Part Two

Based on the reading I've done in both emerging and missional literature, and conversations I've had with people who claim to be both, it seems there are some fundamental differences between the emerging and missional churches, but that they are not mutually exclusive and many people are bringing the two together.

It is much easier to deduce the basic principle of the missional church. As Alan Hirsch says, "the church's true and authentic organizing principle is mission." This is the starting point for anything that can rightly be included under the label of missional church. The focus is on a spiritual and physical redemption of individuals and the world. Things like community, worship, gathering, prayer, service, and study sprout up through the soil of mission and in its support. This does not mean that any of these things are purely utilitarian, but the Christian life is a whole that grows best in the context of mission. It is mission that shapes our prayer life to be more about God's kingdom than ourselves, worship to overflow from the fullness of a heart that is seeing God at work, community that is forged in the heat of shared endeavor. All of these things are a part of what it means to be the people of God in this world, but they are informed by mission--it is their context.

The missional church also has an inherently anti-institutional bent. As institutions grow they take more work, time, and resources to support themselves. All of this can naturally lead to an internal focus, which is anti-missional. There are some institutional churches that are very intentional about being missional, but institution has not proven to be the most conducive setting for fostering mission. (I would also say that being anti-institutional doesn't automatically make you missional. I think less institution fits better with mission but neither necessitates the other.)

The emergent church is a little harder to pin down. From my reading it seems to be more interested in engaging the predominant Western theology and pushing its boundaries. This has led to some wonderful discussion, but the outcome of it isn't always clear.

The emerging church movement also seems to fit better with the institutional church than the missional movement. There is more discussion of how to tweak and work within existing forms to make them more artistic, participatory, and engaging.

Both the emerging and missional church movements are disproportionately fueled by people under 40, but there are strong voices in each who are older. It will be interesting to see how each of these movements continues to take shape in the future.

Emergent Discission

In a post on the Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight summarizes a book called Inside the Organic Church. Especially interesting to me is that Bob Whitesel, the author of the book, found in his study of 12 "organic" churches that they were very orthodox in their theology. One of the things emergent has become known for it pushing the theological envelope, so I thought this was an interesting and encouraging finding. Check out the full summary on the Jesus Creed blog.

Just A Fad?

As I've delved deeper into the blog-o-sphere I made a startling discovery--not everyone thinks the missional church is a movement of the Holy Spirit! Okay, so I wasn't really surprised, but as I was reading through numerous posts and comments that gave the missional church the "fad" label, I began to wonder if I was being duped into giving my life to something that would pass faster than the rat tail.

After some reflection and prayer I was encouraged that the direction the missional church is headed isn't a fad. There are a few things that make me say this.

1. I continue to have conversations with people who are thinking "missional thoughts" without prompting from me or others. I believe the Holy Spirit is moving and bringing people into agreement and toward movement. I realize lots of people buy into fads, but the question is who motivates the thinking and action taking place.
2. I believe many of the concepts being advanced in the missional church paradigm are more philosophically consistent with biblical Christianity than the church philosophies that have dominated since the institutionalization of Christianity.
3. The missional church philosophy leads to a more biblical praxis of faith. This is especially true in how the form(s) communicate the deep cost of following Christ.

The reality is that only time will tell if it is a fad or not. I am convinced enough to give my life to it.

The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality

After reading The Forgotten Ways, I shuffled through the bibliography (which took a few minutes since there were 87 sources) and picked out some books for further reading. I just completed the first of the ones I ordered and it was great. The book is called The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality by Alan Roxburgh. I know, catchy title.

There were some concepts in the book that I hadn't been exposed to before that were really helpful in my continuing pursuit of understanding where our culture stands and how the church can best engage that faithfully. Below are a few of my favorite quotes.

"This role [pastor] is based on the cultural assumption of a church in the center of a society where people come from their public lives for spiritual instruction."

"The church's understanding of its changed social location will determine its praxis."

"Throw up a thousand spires higher than the Sears Tower, but they no longer have the power to attract."

"One fears that in North America, rather than hearing this call of the Spirit to embrace and listen to the voice of God in a place of strangeness, the churches are continuing to work hard at rediscovering modes of existence and symbols of power that will move them back to an imaginary center."

The book is only 67 pages long and well worth reading. But if you can find it at a library I'd do it. Those 67 pages are $14.95!

Networking Church

When you ask someone if they go to church, there are a number of things that most people will immediately associate with this question. Some of these are--1)Going to church involves showing up at a building at a certain time each week 2) The church has a pastor or pastors who are paid to run the programs and make sure "church" happens 3) There are specific ministries for groups such as children, youth, men, women, etc. A couple other questions people might ask to find out about a church are--1) What style of worship does it use? 2) How many people go there? (Usually measured by how many show up on a given Sunday morning). 3) What is its doctrinal statement?

It is primarily for this reason, the baggage associated with the word "church" in the United States, that we have begun to refer to what we are doing as a network. We won't have a building that we own, when we do meet as a large group we will do things to make sure people know that it only one small part of who we are as a "church," we won't have specific programs for specific ages, and we won't determine the effectiveness of what we're doing based on how many come to a group gathering (to be more fair, many churches that measure this don't use it as their sole indicator of church health).

I believe that we will be a church, but I want to be careful how that word is used and what it might communicate. We are the church of Christ and so we will continue to be that even if we have to use some different terminology to describe it.

A House Church: To be or not to be?

I want to continue the discussion Cory brought up about house churches and whether we will be one or not. The answer to that question is yes--and no--it kind of depends on your perspective.

The primary place of connection and growth for people will be their cell group. These are groups that will often meet in homes, but will also meet in office buildings, bars, coffee shops, libraries, or wherever the group decides. That will largely be determined by the way the group approaches reaching out to people and out of which subculture the group is formed. For instance, if a group forms at a workplace it would make sense for them to meet at that workplace, at least for their regular meetings.

These groups will develop their own rhythm for what they do and when they do it (with the help of a leader and in accord with some core practices). They will determine what they study, how they will serve their communities, how to care for each other, to whom the will reach out and how, etc. The freedom each cell group will have would move it toward the house church category.

But these cell groups will maintain a consciousness of a larger affiliation. By having all the cell groups come together on a regular basis we will reinforce the vision of the network, its diversity, and visually remind people that God is up to something much larger than any of us.

The cell groups will also be guided and held accountable by the network leadership. But this won't be done in a "fill out this report and turn it in once a month" kind of way. We hope to do this in the way the apostles checked in on and encouraged the churches they started. To stay informed about what is going on and then encourage, guide, and challenge based on that, at the same time maintaining that the network leadership doesn't control a given cell group.

So this network will be a church of churches. The cell groups will share many characteristics with house churches, but they will move in the same direction as a larger movement rather than placing themselves on an island.

Can a Home Be a House of God?

Scot McKnight of Jesus Creed posted an article from a suburban Chicago newspaper about house churches in the area. Read that article here. It's pretty intriguing and brings up a lot of questions that I've wrestled with over the last few months.

Where's the accountability? How do you inspire tithing and giving? What about worship gatherings? Serving the community? Do they easily become closed to others when the group grows close? How do they multiply?

Don't get me wrong. I see alot of good in house churches compared to institutionalized church. These are just questions. What we're trying to do will have some aspects of a house church. I'd love to discuss some of these issues, or other issues you have. And, maybe Trevor can add more to this conversation as well.