One of the biggest transition that I have wrestled through for the last 1.5 years is that of how to do church and is there a correct way? I am not convinced of “the” correct way. As Joe Miller says “the bible is really silent on how the church should function”. I think I agree more with Joe and here is why. If we look through the Pauline Epistles and Acts we can’t see “one way” to do church or how the church should meet or function. There seems to be a great amount of diversity on how people met. If we are honest it would be hard to make any clear case either way. From single elder led meetings that was one of many meetings in a particular area (there seems to be multiple houses in Romans and Ephesus while there may have been only one in all of Corinth at least when Paul wrote Corinthians 1). I think some place had women leaders (Philippi as the church met in Lydia’s house who would have been the most mature disciple in Phillipi), to some places where women not being able to teach due to the mess it was making (Ephesus).
So I am thinking this. I have come to the conclusion that it is the individual need, temperament, cultural setting and preference. I believe some people enjoy the weekly clear biblical exposition, while others like it more emergent. Some people like the big churches with worship leaders, good youth programs and simple, clear, biblical but practical sermons. Some people like the big weekly atmosphere with the tight nit small groups. Some like young energetic funny pastors like Driscoll and Chandler while other folks like the more detailed old school fellas like MacArthur and Swindoll. I think some people like strong doctrinal preaching while others enjoy a more interactive participatory. I think some people love churches that are heavily involved in overseas missions, while some people likes to see their church focus more on their local community. Some people like heavily evangelistic churches while others like churches who feed the poor and clothe the naked more. Some people like to meet in houses because they are convinced if Paul was here that is what he would do, while others feel the church that is growing and bursting out the seams is blessed by God (I neither agree or disagree).
Some people like the church with all the bells and whistles; from coffee shops, to work out facilities where they fell safe and believe that the church should do such things. While others believe that such a thing is why Jesus turned over the money changers table. Some people believe it is oppressive to keep women out of teaching ministries while others believe you are liberal loving heretic for such a stance.
I will tell you where I stand brothers and sisters. I like it simple and that is maybe because I am stupid. I am not convinced that we should meet in homes but if in a building it should be rented and for celebration style gatherings (unless that building is used to help rebuild the city more on this later). I think homes with 15-30 members with independent/interdependent shepherds/elders that come together once a month for celebration or maybe have to come together more frequently for some matter (maybe in March they meet weekly to teach a certain doctrine) seems to me to be the best way to meet. I think the Church that meets in America has way too much money wrapped in single use infrastructure (in the 100’s of billions). I think we should drink coffee at Starbucks and meet more nonbelievers than build one in our local church. I think we have way too much money wrapped up in staff positions, while I do believe an elder/teacher can receive a stipend due to the fact that he may have to take a job that allows him to provide oversight and lose out on potential income. I don’t believe a man who has the DESIRE (I Timothy 3) to provide oversight and walk in his gifting should be negotiating a salary, nor expect one as Jesus instructed “freely you have received freely you give” or Paul “it is better to give than to receive” our hearts should be to provide oversight for free and even at our own expense if necessary (that is why most men don’t want to go plant in rural or impoverished areas, the suburbs take much less faith and getting donors before one provides oversight is a sign of that).
I think many churches today to be complicated business entities who live for the entity and not the “Church” (the people who meet collectively). Many pastors are CEO’s and elders are “board of directors” they provide more business direction than care for the souls of those entrusted to them. They spend more time in “business meetings” than meeting with the saints in their homes or for lunch or for dinner. We know them as figure heads more than loving shepherds. Someone leaving their church isn’t really a concern for them because another person will come to take their spot! Many are sheepless shepherds which bibilcally speaking are no shepherds at all.
I think most of this falls away when we being to meet more simply! When we have shepherds caring for less people (in a lot of churches there are 6-8 elders for ever 2000 members, that is about a 300 to 1 ratio and I am being generous). Most elders have no clue if their members are maturing and I dare to say that most don’t even care. They provide more oversight to the entity anyway and the measure of a maturing church is numerical growth and church income not strong marriages, growing disciples, maturing parents, and loving disciples. Those things are left up to the expository sermons and conference numbers. However, in the simple church you don’t have more than 30 per elder. And since the elder/shepherds know those placed in their care they can recommend them for eldership and they do life with these individuals as they have more time to care for their souls. In most churches the Pulpit provides more shepherding than the Shepherds themselves.
Another plus for the more simple church to me is the level of flexibility provided. You don’t have to put on the “World’s Greatest Show” week after week. One can be led by the Spirit to pray the entire meeting. Or to provide counseling, or to go out collectively and beautify a park, or go over a sick members house and clean up for them and love on them and serve them. Or they can go to a nursing home that Sunday, or to a women’s shelter. However in the more traditional setting, one must put on the show, because it is the glue that holds the entire congregation together and sick members get put on prayer lists not visited. Going to a shelter or a nursing home is an event not part of the gathering and to miss income for a week can really throw a loophole in the “church budget”.
The last plus for the simple church is the flexibility to move economic resources and the trust given to the individual Christian to give his/her resources as needed. The first is a genuine plus for me. When we have a member lose his/her job, or if we have a member who needs a car fixed, or if they need help burying a love one or a doctor bill, or some other financial crisis, money isn’t earmarked for salaries, mortgages, building funds, or some other reason. So the red tape that many believers experience goes away. We can raise funds on the spot or over a given period to meet that need, not to mention since we know each other and are a family we ACTUALLY KNOW the need! The second is another big plus for me. Christians should be given the freedom to meet needs as they make disciples and pray for God’s direction with their finances. The more traditional setting has way too many fixed costs and things such as “tithing to the local church” or in more theological jargon “giving where you are being fed” are the norm. A great deal of the money (8-90%) is wrapped up in these fixed costs. And a saint on a tight budget who has a sick relative or coworker or sees another need has to say “I have given to my church I will have to send you to them”. And when the individual comes to that church the money is already spent or is locked up in “reserves” when saints don’t give as much during certain times of the year (Summers and Christmas).
So I really like the simple structure. There are many drawbacks. But a dependency upon the Spirit is where the simple church has to fall back on. Unlike the traditional church which has pragmatic pillars that support it, the simple church has to trust that the people who come will stay, the resources it needs will be provided and the growth will come through genuine loving disciples not “good church ministries”.
I close with this. The simple guys shouldn’t be so cocky to say they have it right and the the more traditional guys shouldn’t write off the simple guys as some incompetent emerging liberals who despise “church leadership” though we do despise “church authority” but so does Jesus (Matthew 20 and 23). I think both can play a huge part in the Sovereign plan of God to build His Church. So I think maybe we should spend more time loving and praying for one another versus “biting and devouring one another” as Paul says in Galatians 5.
Hello there!
This is an interesting conversation that you have initiated because so many Christians think of “the church” as a location… the church is the people!
I believe that what we now refer to as “church” is not what Jesus would refer to as His Church!
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
Lionel,
Move over! I’m in there too!
It’s very interesting that you published this post today. A few days ago, I wrote a post called “Keep It Simple Stupid” which will be published on Tuesday, I think. I’m not talking about ecclesiology (only) in my post, but all “-ologies” that believers tend to make more and more complex.
As for this post, I agree that simple is best. I’m concerned when the church organization becomes too complex, because the church soon gets lost in the organization… people get lost in the programs. (And, I mean “lost” in the sense that they don’t develop the relationships that that should be the focus of our lives – relationship with God and relationship with other.) So, in the complexity of church organizations, we soon substitute attendance and activity for spiritual maturity and relationship. It just doesn’t work – although from the outside complex organizations seem to work very well.
-Alan
Amen, Amen, Amen!
Please pray that I can find this in 2009, I looked for it intently in 2008 without success.
I have stopped looking, but have not stopped seeking and waiting on the Lord.
Bro. Hutch,
Don’t be surprised if God tells you that your lack of success in “finding one” is because He wants you to start one, LOL!!!
AMEN!!! I’ll be apart of that church!!!!
wait…..
of course if my hubbie decides to come first!! LOL
I am submissive you know
My dear brother Lionel,
You obviously have a preference in your ecclesiology for the small,simple church.But then you also admit that there are several models of church growth,and that there are situations where even the large mega church you don’t particularly fancy,may be appropriate.
I think it all depends on the specific mix of underlying factors,and that there are a variety of models.While I say this I am not unaware of the significant number of people who outrightly reject the position of such as Pastor Warren.According to them,we do not ‘help’ the Holy Spirit.All that Jesus asked us to do is to preach the Word.Methods,skills etc are not required in the church.I think this is not only a wrong position,but a wrong-headed one.
amen brother! I am glad you found value in something I wrote
Bro. Lawrence D.-
Hmmm…I know…thats kinda what I have been afraid to face.
I keep thinking that maybe Lionel will move to H-Town and I can be his super duper grand exalted assistant.
Lionel-
I love how you expressed how the usual pattern of giving in the insititional church can actually hinder ministering to the legitimate physical needs of the saints.
Even a very small congregation with very modest means can pool a fraction of the resources wasted on building maintennace and staff salaries to meet a need instantaneously-think of how our relationships in the local church would grow and the testimony we would have in the world.
Great Topic.
I have experienced both types of congregational models- the large church, and the home church. My wife and I left a church (600 member) that we had been attending for over 24 years because the leadership began implementing the “Rick Warren/Purpose Driven” methodology. Here are some of the things that concerned us and ultimately caused us to leave:
* The fact that the initial “transition” to a PD model was done in secret, without the knowledge of most of the congregation.
* The remaking of the pastor into a CEO as mentioned in your article.
* The deacon board no longer was voted into office, but was hand-picked by the pastor (they turned out to be “yes-men). The congregation lost their voice in this church.
* The gatherings became more “performance” than ministry- even to the point of instructing the worship team how to jump up and down! I was the worship pastor at the time, and tried to voice my opinion that putting on a great show should not be the goal. Rather, in reverence we should be completely about heart-felt worship of our God.
* With a clearly defined goal of targeting the 20-40 year old crowd, I was being asked (forced) to change the music style to mostly revved up rock and watered down lyrics. At this point I resigned as worship leader- one that I held for 21 years.
* Tithing teaching became almost an obsession. New members were required to sign a “covenant” card vowing to tithe- such coercion!
* The poor and the widow were being neglected. The church took in almost 1 million dollars last year, but gave out only 1/2 of 1 % to the poor. Yet the leadership had no problem in spending hundreds of thousands on LCD screens for the foyer, a state-of-the-art sound system, music CD’s, and elaborate music and drama presentations. Instead of helping the poor, they were guilting them into paying a tithe from money they could not afford to give.
Over time, God began to show us that we must move away from this setting. With His leading, my wife and I, along with two other couples who shared our views, quietly left the congregation to begin meeting in homes. It has been a tremendous blessing to gather for prayer, teaching from God’s Word, and fellowship. I doubt that we will ever return to the institutional church.
Concerning our stewardship, we are now free to give as the Lord leads us, not tithe into a system that devours the resources on the frivolous. Needless to say our focus concerning giving is to meet the needs of the poor. Whether giving directly to the poor,or through organisations who minister to them, the needy are being taken care of. I believe THAT is one of the main things Christianity is about.
A closing verse pretty much sums up what the Church should be about:
James 1:27
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
May God guide your journey with Him.
Todd
Ausssie John,
I don’t know how tech savy you are, but maybe, just maybe we can set up a video conference. Gmail has an unbelieveable tool. That also goes for Alan, Hutch, BLD and anyone else interested. My good buddy AT showed me how to do it and it is a lovely tool, we can all conference in I think.
Alan,
Can wait to see it. I think you have had the hugest influence in my current thinking of the church which is relationship centered on the person and work of Christ!
Hutch,
I am with BLD! I will begin praying that God would lead you that way. You have the heart, the knowledge and desire, I think you can start it!
Nicole,
You guys are doing it just not formally. You guys are providing loving pastoral care maybe just not called pastors. What would be your husbands concerns. Has he read Reimagining Church or some other work on simple churches? Is there an interest there?
Tunji,
If those churches can provide the type of care I describe yes. If not then no. There aren’t any that I know that does. The glue that hold those congergations together is not loving thriving relationships as Alan says, but programs and ministries and church buildings and worship teams. I guess I wouldn’t even want to give someone a platform where they can hide in seclusion, but maybe that is just me. However, men need to stop calling themselves “pastors” when they don’t pastor anything but business decisions and pulpits. We have redefined the word pastor/shepherd and should be ashamed of ourselves. Good preaching doesn’t give you a pass from proper/loving/caring-shepherdship. At least the bible doesn’t give such a pass.
Joe,
Long time no hear. You have me very interested in Barth.
Your “who wouldn’t be a pastor” series is book worthy my friend.
My problem, I suppose, is that I DO feel that the Bible gives us a recipe and an insight into God’s design for His Church.
Jesus destroyed the Temple so that we could become the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus became the High Priest so that we could become part of the priesthood of the Believer.
Jesus became the final sacrifice for sins so that we could offer our bodies as living sacrifices to God.
This means we do not need a temple/building, nor do we require a formal priesthood/clergy-class, nor do we require a blood sacrifice (which no one argues of course).
Does that mean that God doesn’t work in the Traditional Church? Of course not. God is at work and His Gospel is preached and the Kingdom is advanced regardless of modality.
However, I do feel that the New Testament is quite clear on God’s idea of what His Church should look like and how it should operate and gather, etc.
-kg
Whether its traditional or house, there are both advantages and disadvantages. We have a blueprint in regards to our mission and ethics. As long as we are faithful to God and what he has written in his word he will give us the wisdom to work in any given setting. I like Lionel’s house church model in that its mobile, personal and ready for action if there is a need in the chruch community. I think we should make church simple, practical, enjoyable and able to adapt in an ever changing world without losing out its Christ centerdness.
God is not finished reforming HIS BODY or Church! Whatever it looks like.
Steven O.
Lionel,
Sorry, I’m not very tech. savvy.
Lionel
Your comment of 5th Dec.I have attended in Lagos for the past 5 years or so,a medium sized(5,000 membership) church.For my wife and I it was a relief joining this assembly,as the quality and perspective of the preaching is as good as any I know of anywhere in the world.None of the dominant prosperity gospel you commonly hear in Nigeria,for example.
Also,however,there are more than 100 house fellowship centres(we host one) with designated house pastors,where the more intimate shepherding you crave for,is provided.
I think it is possible to be large,while not losing sight of the pastoral needs of your flock.My church is Latter Rain Assembly,Ikeja,Lagos,and the shepherd is Pastor Tunde Bakare.
Toddo
There are and there certainly will continue to be abuses in several churches,but the abuses you catalogue certainly did not arise because the Pastor implemented Rick Warren’s PD model.These aberrations may have more to do with personality flaws in the Pastor.
Please read The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren,comparing its recommendations with what went on at your former church.
Lionel-
Thank for the vote of confidence.
I may have the theory down, but I really need to be discipled and mentored by somene such as Alan who has real practical experience and wisdom regarding biblical church ecclesiology and church planting.
Ditto to your comments above regarding Alan.
tunji
I have to disagree with you about the purpose-driven model. The items I listed are EXACTLY what is pushed by the PDC consultants. Being a part of the ministry team at that time, I was able to see, first hand, what changes were being implemented.
This is, by no means, an isolated case. There are tens of thousands of churches that are following the PDC model. The end result is an organization that looks more like a corporation than anything else. My conviction is that the Body of Christ is so much more than that.
Since this thread is about “simple church”, I have attempted to contrast my experiences with the institutional church and the home (i.e. simple) church environment. One of the most obvious advantages of simple church is that there are no buildings to pay for, no staff salaries & benefits, no expenditures on the frivolous. Virtually all of our monetary giving goes to helping meet people’s needs. It’s relational! I believe THAT is close to the heart of God.
Blessings.
Todd
Toddo
I indeed have read PDC by Warren.I cant quite see there how what he advocates will lead to neglect of the poor and widows,an over-emphasis on tithing,secrecy of church administration,performance as opposed to ministry etc.
In all probability these arose from personal,character,or structural flaws,unrelated to the PDC model.If I may use one example,the Anglican Church has over its existence had particular parishes and indeed Provinces that have exhibited traits deviant from the model set.But does this invalidate the overall model?
tunji,
The implementation of the PDC model is not spelled out in detail in the PDC book. One of the books that has become the “gold-standard”, if you will, of the methodology is Transitioning- by Dan Southerland. It is a very enlightening volume that Rick Warren wrote the forward to and said “this manual will help you implement the principles of being purpose driven”. He recommends that a copy of this book be given to every staff member and that they follow the steps therein.
Below are a few examples of the items in my first post that are concerning…
On page 68 the plan is laid out to secure the support of the “power brokers” (those with influence over others) in the church for PD without the knowledge of the congregation. The intention to become purpose drive is not revealed to the congregation until it’s virtually too late to voice any concerns.
Those who are concerned about the change from “the gathering of believers for worship” to “a performance-based spiritual entertainment complex” are labled as “leaders from hell”- pg 115. Their concerns go unheeded and many times are asked to leave the church.
In the book, Mr. Southerland advocates the change to “extremely contemporary” music. The vast majority of churches trying to implement the PDC model reach out primarily to the younger people- to the exclusion of the older folks. That is why you will read MANY testimonies of older saints being forced out of the churches they supported for decades. It is such a shame- God is not the God of the young, only.
Make no mistake, this book is the blueprint that MANY churches are implementing.
I hope you are right- that my experiences are an aberration. From the large amount of reading I’ve done on the subject however, it appears that I am far from alone in dealing with this.
I am encouraged, though, that the Church is finally awakening to the weakness of this model, and are beginning to turn to more simple, relational gatherings. When the day is done, it all boils down to relationships.
Blessings.
Todd
You had a lot to say about finances. One observation: It’s not about the money. God, who provides, will provide all that is needed for His purposes whether from the widow’s mite or the rich man’s coffers.
Toddo
While at ease with PDC,the remarks you credit to Warren,endorsing Southerland’s work are quite disturbing,as well as the content of the book.I am trying to lay my hands on the book in Lagos.
The Church of Jesus Christ is not and must not be turned into a corporatist,fee-good,profit making enterprise.
tunji,
I do want to make a correction from my last post. In the interest of clarity, there should be no quotation marks around this excerpt-
“the gathering of believers for worship” to “a performance-based spiritual entertainment complex”
That was my assessment, not a direct quote from the book. The phrase “leaders from hell”, however is a direct quotation (comparing “resisters” to Sanballat in his take on the book of Nehemiah.
Just wanted to be clear on that, and not attribute anything to the author that is unwarranted.
Toddo