Decentralizing the Church
I have several great friends in my life who are thinkers. They are constantly asking questions, wondering why things are the way they are and asking how things really should be. We’re a group of people who are constantly teetering between the prophetic and the cynical. Often times, our short-sightedness keeps us from seeing the beauty of the future and focused only on what’s broken about today.
One of the easiest things to be skeptical about are systems. Let’s face it – anything created by a group of humans is destined to have broken pieces. This leads me to finding myself in nearly constant conversation about governments, economies and, of course, the Church. We spend a lot of time spinning our wheels, but occasionally, we’ll hit some solid ground and start making some progress.
Recently, my friend, Pete, sent me a book called, “The Divine Commodity,” in which, author Skye Jethani asserts that we live in a world defined by branding and consumerism and, for the most part, Christians live just like the rest of the world only they buy Christian stuff in the process.
Basically, Christians are no longer defined by a God-inspired supernatural change, rather they are defined by their t-shirts. So much truth there.
In order to create buy in, companies and organizations must convince their consumers that their lives would fall apart without them. Many churches also find it necessary to convince their congregants of the same thing. They accomplish this by providing a broad array of choices – usually sold by one charismatic personality – in an attempt to please their market share and then engage in mass marketing techniques in order to increase that market share. I work alongside lots of churches, and most of them function like this, and they are full of amazing, God-loving people. This is not an indictment against them. Rather, this is an opportunity for us to ask questions together.
I spend most of my time and have invested my most of my heart as a pastor at Status, a church community in Orlando. There are a lot of broken pieces about who we are, and I pray that we are constantly asking God how he can fix them. But the premise of Jethani’s book is one thing I think God has given us the grace to fight against : the comfort of the christian brand – mainly, by trying to ensure that everything we do turns people outward toward God and each other, but this has some problems of its own.
About a month ago, Josh Loveless asked me if I would write an article for the Neue Quarterly about what “church membership” looks like in our current context. I have no idea, so I declined. I honestly believe that God can speak directly into the lives of individuals. I believe that a group of believers can meet in a house and never come to a larger group gathering and have immense spiritual health. There are people who are part of our community that rarely step foot inside the building we meet in. And because of all of this, it seems like the idea of local church membership is dead. We now belong to a larger, global family and can grow regardless of our surroundings.
It all sounds like it works, but time after time over the last four years, I have seen this decentralization lead to spiritual demise. I have seen individuals, small groups of friends and entire house churches move away from the consistency, guidance, direction and accountability found in being part of a more formalized community. And what I’ve noticed is that, most of the time, the end result is individuals simply giving up on God.
I agree with Jathani’s assertion that we must move toward re-establishing our faith on the person of Jesus by moving away from the branding of Christianity. However, I think we’ve already encountered some of the negative effects of the, “I can walk away from everything ‘christian’ because I have Jesus” mentality.
So what’s the solution? I’m still not sure, but I’m asking, and hopefully you can help me find some answers.
Things I know :
- I want to be part of a church community that points people toward God, not an organization.
- There is a healthy balance between the sterility of systems and the adventure of faith.
- Inter-dependance is important.
Things I don’t know :
- How important is local church monogamy?
- What is a healthy level of commitment to a local community?
- Are there or are there not lines we should draw between our commitment to a community and our commitment to God?
Ultimately, the goal is to empower people to take responsibility for their own faith and submission to God. But it’s undeniable that this is best done in the context of community… Does that seem at odds to you too?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Are churches, in the organized sense, necessary at all? They provide community and teaching but both of those things are attainable outside of an "official" church in a less contrived and more organic, efficient way. If you want to hang out: do so. If you want to learn: do so. I think I'm saying something similar to you here, which is that ultimately we all need to take responsibility for our own faith rather than church shopping for a church to hand-hold and spoon-feed us. One can greatly simplify and grow their faith simply by ceasing to go to church altogether. Pray in your closet. Commune with friends. Read good books. Help the poor. Dispense with the BS.
Thoughts?
Post script: I just wanted to clarify that when I said above that we were "saying something similar" I only meant to refer to one taking responsibility for their faith. Beyond that, I'm sure our methods of doing that are quite different. Just didn't want to put words in your mouth or have you think I grossly misunderstood your post.
I had this lengthy response typed up but I think I'll spare you. My understanding is this:
- Church = the people of God
- The people of God carry out "the work" (Paul's words)
- Church monogamy and commitment hinge on those who you decide to "work" with.
Well, I actually think we do agree on most of what you've said here. I think that's what I'm struggling with. Yes, I do believe that people can pursue God on their own and casually with a few friends, but I have seen the immense benefits and pitfalls of both an unstructured and structured methodology.
What's also interesting is that most structured church settings started off as pretty unstructured and, because of their effectiveness, people were drawn toward them – thus, bringing about the structure.
If I might challenge a little bit of your heart for a moment… The thing I think is most different about our perspectives is mostly an approach ruled by cynicism in one case and optimism in the other.
It seems that you use words like contrived, hand-holding, spoon-feeding and BS to describe any group of people that incorporate discipline into maturing their faith. From my experience, spending time with people and talking about God in a casual, friendly setting is important, but I see so much incredible potential in the disciplined fellowship of the believers to learn, pray, listen and speak together.
If I may,
when I was homeless back in 2006, I concluded that my home was my church. That is to say, insofar as "home" is a place – geographical, spiritual, existential – in which one feels comfort, a sense of belonging, and peace, I feel most at home when I am with my church, whoever they may be at any given time. At that time, it was a discipleship group which boasted such notable friends as Seth, Emily McGuire, Jon Jordan and Jorge Pina. In my homelessness, they came and kept me company so that I wouldn't have to wander the streets alone. Having roamed the streets for several days, I had begun to grasp what it means to be displaced and dispossessed. But when I sat and shared with my brethren at DMAC, I knew what it meant to be a part of community, to be comforted, to belong, and to know peace. When I went to Status that Sunday I climbed on stage and painted "HOME = CHURCH" on a huge canvass.
Of course, I could have met God and communed with Him in my solitude as a homeless man. But I do believe that God intends for us to share in His glory together – to worship, to serve, to love, to work towards personal and communal Shalom, to manifesting His Kingdom – together! This doesn't mean supporting or subscribing to a dogma or system – it means loving and serving one's family. It's not much different from marriage, I think. People don't love and remain faithful to their spouse for the sake of an institution (Godly though the institution may be). They do it for their wife, whom they love, and they do it for God. That's what community should look like, I think: People fully devoted (in faith, hope, and love), to each other and to God.
here is another book to get you thinking
pagan christianity
by george barna + frank viola
Emilie has read that.
I'm a fan of the book that came after 'Pagan Christianity' titled 'Reimagining Church' and I'm working on the book after that called 'Finding Organic Church'. Viola sheds much light on the subject of the Church.
Yeah… I've skimmed that book. So, admittedly, I'm not an authority on its content. But in the skimming, it seemed to kinda be the same line of thought of, "we shouldn't have Christmas trees because that's from a pagan ritual a long time ago." Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I say, "SO WHAT." I think God is big enough to redeem the idea of a Christmas tree from ancient pagans.
I agree with most of what you've said here as well. We agree that there are benefits and pitfalls of both unstructured and structured methodologies. I presume we would agree that the pendulum could swing too far in either direction. I also presume we would agree that there probably isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
I am envious of your optimism. I have a friend who jokes that he would love to be an optimist but he likes being right too much. It's a joke but there is truth to it. Being a realist often precludes optimism. That said, I'm not opposed to reforming my views on structured church. I could be convinced of its merits.
For me, pragmatism has won out. For example, reading for an hour will nearly always yield more than listening to a sermon for an hour. I'll take C.S. Lewis or Kierkegaard over seeker-sensitive tripe any day of the week. It is, like you advocated, taking responsibility for the maturation of ones faith.
I guess my question to you for further discussion would be this: what specific benefits does a structured, codified community offer that an unstructured, organic community does not offer?
Thoughts?
Viola does come off pretty harsh much of the time; I think you'd actually get the most out of 'Finding Organic Church' it seems the most humble of all the material of his I've read. And I agree, God is big enough to redeem/use anything He wishes, heck, I'm sure there are maybe even some people out there who have had authentic spiritual change due to taking in a late night televangelism infomercial – but as Emilie pointed out last night (we had a great conversation due to this blog) just because God CAN use something doesn't mean He doesn't have intentions on the way things SHOULD be done. Which is something we are all driving at. I'm thankful that our culture is malleable and progressive.
I found Pagan Christianity to be somewhat of an extreme but thought-provoking read, but it seems mostly geared toward people who still think of the church as a building or the church service, which is not the issue you are talking about here. I think I ultimately came away with the same conclusion: that God can redeem all broken things that arise out of a result of culture, even if it's a structured church service (or a Christmas tree, for that matter).
I do think that there is both an individual and community-based paradigm that is critical to outworkings of our faith and we are remiss if we fail to equally engage in both.
"One can greatly simplify and grow their faith simply by ceasing to go to church altogether. Pray in your closet. Commune with friends. Read good books. Help the poor. Dispense with the BS. " Unfortunately, I've seen this play out over and over again, in my friends' lives and in my own life. This kind of mentality is true in the sense that you can certainly experience growth in these things. But we must recognize that this kind of mindset is completely derived from an individualistic, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, pure 100% American mentality, and not the whole picture of God's kingdom. We have to recognize that for what it is: convenient, pragmatic and ultimately self-sufficient American mentality, not the fabric of what God's community and kingdom looks like. We're not atoms floating around making it on our own; we were designed for togetherness with each other and with God.
I don't have any answers or ideas about church membership but I do know that where people are committed to the local church community, and have a commitment and devotion to contribute in one specific area (think of the churches in Macedonia, Philippi, Antioch or any of the NT churches) in addition to a commitment to global communities and personal intimacy with God, that is where the churches absolutely thrive and grow. Whatever the implications and calls for church membership are, formal or informal, there certainly needs to be a commitment to the local community of believers. Meeting formally in the large assembly (ekklesia) is just as important as meeting informally in homes and coffeeshops.
fantastic response. I really loved that last paragraph in particular.
It is very important to recall Church history so that we A) don't perpetuate the crimes of the 3rd century and B) so that we draw inspiration from the 1st.
I've learned somewhat recently that the word ekklesia at the time of the writing never specifically had a spiritual connotation; it was just as you said a "large assembly" like a town hall council meeting. The reason it was used was because of it's use in the Septuagint, the first mention of the word ekklesia reveals that the word is a greek translation of the hebrew word qahal. The history of Qahal finds it's origins in genesis but organizes itself in the Exodus. This understanding of the Church being an assembly of God's people (rather than a man made system), that has a history rooted in being gathered together to wander in the wilderness has radically changed my worldview. The Church simply is the worldwide body of Christ wandering in the wild for purposes of coming alongside Yahweh in participating in His work.
continued:
Pockets of organisms (large and small) gather when like minded people are purposed together for this work; Church membership fails when it is simply about comitting to a particular building (or denomination) these nouns in and of themselves are inert. People whether they are aware of it or not, are comitted to the forward motion of life and that's why you'll find Paul and Peter working together at a particular body in scripture and then Paul and Barnabus, or Paul and then Apollos; whatever the case, it always come back around to the "work".
First, optimism/realism… I very much understand this. Here's what I've been learning about myself lately : The line between prophet and cynic is slim. A cynic sees what's broken about today. A prophet sees what can be beautiful about tomorrow. I'm not ignorant about what's broken, and I'm not naive about the limits of what can be.
One of the things that has shaped me in some really big ways related to this idea is an NPR podcast I heard a while back that follows several creatives battling manic depression. It reminds me of geniuses like Earnest Hemmingway – their brokenness didn't prevent them from greatness. Let me know if you want a link.
As far as the reading/listening conversation. Obviously, it comes down to the 'who.' I've listened to plenty of 18 minute TED talks that have awakened me to things I've never even thought about before, and I've read for hours and not gained much. I agree with you… "seeker-sensitive tripe" is a waste of time.
Lastly, I think it's interesting the adjectives you apply to structured and unstructured – codified and organic – because neither is guaranteed by or limited to either methodology.
For example, while Status is pretty structured, we nearly always try to turn them toward the organic. About two years ago, we were encountering some issues and were asking what we should do about them. It was in those conversations that we began talking about organic versus organizational. That is, we don't wan to come up with organizational solutions to people's problems, we want to help facilitate relationships in which people help one another.
However, at the same time, there are some benefits of having the support of organization :
- Connectivity : no one forces anyone to engage in relationship with anyone else, but there certainly are plenty of opportunities. Most of the people I know, I probably would not if my church community did not exist (including you).
- Relational Growth : One could certainly try to live in a larger community without ever engaging with people he or she are uncomfortable with, but I can tell you that there have certainly been times I have been forced into relationships I would have not chosen to engage in. Sometimes, that's been fantastic, other times, not so.
- Discipline : I've found that being around people that are seeking God together encourages more consistency.
- Accountability : Being part of a consistent community with similar foundations provides more opportunity for refinement.
- Ideological Diversity : Just as there are people who I would not normally choose to be in relationship with because of personality, our community has allowed me to encounter people that differ in their expression of faith. Most of the posts and comments on this blog are examples of that.
Ultimately, I suppose the only things I can say the structured community offers is more opportunity. All the things I listed above are only encountered if individuals take initiative. I can say, though, that most often, I am less likely to engage in the things above when they are not even present before me. So, the likelihood of people growing in these areas is greater in – at least the Status community.
I'll also admit that the Status community might differ from other (or most) structured congregations. But that doesn't discount the fact that the organic and the organizational can exist in a healthy, Spirit-inspired way. I think that's the dream of the church of Acts.
This is fantastic stuff, Seth.
A most rousing discussion.
The thoughts and wrestlings here are beautiful in their own right. Not just for the result they produce, but for the journey that they represent. The simple fact is that God is moving among believers – seeding questions, initiating discussions, prodding change, and generally stirring things up.
Many in the preceding generation are seeing this move as a bad thing, but we, the younger, see it as a breath of fresh air. Modernism in the church is reaching it’s conclusion and with the future so dim, we have nowhere to look but to history.
So the questions that arise are incredibly human. Deeply spiritual. Gut-wrenchingly genuine. And most importantly – God inspired.
If we can agree that this is more than a cultural upheaval but the beginning of a God inspired transformation of His body – we really need to listen to Him carefully for answers. I believe God has been at this for much longer than our radar is capable of registering and wants to dynamically alter the way we approach church and The Church.
A few questions:
1. Is there anything synthetic that man has made that is better than it’s organic counterpart? Contrived spiritual experiences or naturally occurring ones? Church marketing or relational community growth?
2. Is bigger and more better? (with true community, with worship, with studying the scriptures, etc)
3. If Jesus came to the planet today instead of during the first century, would He plant a church? Would He name it? Would He be a traveling evangelist? Does He value community and if so, what kind?
4. Which is more important: church growth or discipleship? Which do we spend more time focusing on?
5. What’s the smallest/simplest form of church? What does it require and what does it definitely NOT need? (seats, stage, band, a pastor, a building, a crowd, an offering…)
6. Is church patterned after the business world, or is the corporate world patterned after the church? And should they look similar at all?
7. If you take the building away from the church today, what do you have left?
8. Is the type of church that we esteem today something that ANYONE can start or is it only for the elite? And should it be that way? Does God esteem the well educated and highly qualified over the poor and undereducated when it comes to building His church?
9. With greatly diminishing numbers of our generation showing up in churches despite our constant attempts to tweak them into relevance, what will the church look like in 10 years? In 20 years? In 50 years?
10. Is Christ TRULY the functioning and active head of our church expressions, or just the honorary “head”? Do we believe that He really CAN be the head and we don’t need and shouldn’t rely on the “pastoral headship” of a human being? Or do we demand a human “king” as the Israelites once did, against the desires of God himself?
With all these questions in mind I wonder how we got to where we are now. Why do we fear christians without institutional structures – unleashed to be a blessing to the nations? Do we not trust men and their unruly hearts? Do we not trust the Holy Spirit and his power to guide and correct? Have we created such dependent Christians that if freed from the walls of the church they would run wild with no discretion or discipline?
I think it’s time to raise the bar on discipleship and make “being the church” easier. Decentralize it. Free the church to be what it was meant to be! If we had more true disciples and less “church attenders” this world would look radically different, would it not?
We should look at God’s natural structures for cues on the how the church should operate… For example, God created families, man created corporations. The church looks FAR more like a corporation right now than a family. Maybe we should reconsider.
Just some thoughts… Thanks for blogging yours.
I'm sure you've heard of or read the book "The Starfish and the Spider". It's a study in decentralized organizations. Really good stuff for the church to examine.
hm. No I haven't. I'll check it out. Thanks!
A most rousing discussion.
The thoughts and wrestlings here are beautiful in their own right. Not just for the result they produce, but for the journey that they represent. The simple fact is that God is moving among believers – seeding questions, initiating discussions, prodding change, and generally stirring things up.
Many in the preceding generation are seeing this move as a bad thing, but we, the younger, see it as a breath of fresh air. Modernism in the church is reaching it’s conclusion and with the future so dim, we have nowhere to look but to history.
So the questions that arise are incredibly human. Deeply spiritual. Gut-wrenchingly genuine. And most importantly – God inspired.
If we can agree that this is more than a cultural upheaval but the beginning of a God inspired transformation of His body – we really need to listen to Him carefully for answers. I believe God has been at this for much longer than our radar is capable of registering and wants to dynamically alter the way we approach church and The Church.
A few questions:
1. Is there anything synthetic that man has made that is better than it’s organic counterpart? Contrived spiritual experiences or naturally occurring ones? Church marketing or relational community growth?
2. Is bigger and more better? (with true community, with worship, with studying the scriptures, etc)
3. If Jesus came to the planet today instead of during the first century, would He plant a church? Would He name it? Would He be a traveling evangelist? Does He value community and if so, what kind?
4. Which is more important: church growth or discipleship? Which do we spend more time focusing on?
5. What’s the smallest/simplest form of church? What does it require and what does it definitely NOT need? (seats, stage, band, a pastor, a building, a crowd, an offering…)
6. Is church patterned after the business world, or is the corporate world patterned after the church? And should they look similar at all?
7. If you take the building away from the church today, what do you have left?
8. Is the type of church that we esteem today something that ANYONE can start or is it only for the elite? And should it be that way? Does God esteem the well educated and highly qualified over the poor and undereducated when it comes to building His church?
9. With greatly diminishing numbers of our generation showing up in churches despite our constant attempts to tweak them into relevance, what will the church look like in 10 years? In 20 years? In 50 years?
10. Is Christ TRULY the functioning and active head of our church expressions, or just the honorary “head”? Do we believe that He really CAN be the head and we don’t need and shouldn’t rely on the “pastoral headship” of a human being? Or do we demand a human “king” as the Israelites once did, against the desires of God himself?
With all these questions in mind I wonder how we got to where we are now. Why do we fear christians without institutional structures – unleashed to be a blessing to the nations? Do we not trust men and their unruly hearts? Do we not trust the Holy Spirit and his power to guide and correct? Have we created such dependent Christians that if freed from the walls of the church they would run wild with no discretion or discipline?
I think it’s time to raise the bar on discipleship and make “being the church” easier. Decentralize it. Free the church to be what it was meant to be! If we had more true disciples and less “church attenders” this world would look radically different, would it not?
We should look at God’s natural structures for cues on the how the church should operate… For example, God created families, man created corporations. The church looks FAR more like a corporation right now than a family. Maybe we should reconsider.
Just some thoughts… Thanks for blogging yours.
Hey Noah. Great questions. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts :
1. There are synthetic things that man has made that enable actions that man would not otherwise attempt – the internet, for example, enables instantaneous global communication. There is neither inherent goodness or badness in that communication. It is simply a tool much like, I would say transportation or the invention of steel.
The word "contrived" has an negative connotation built into it meaning, so I'd say that contrived experiences will never amount to a naturally occurring one. Additionally, church marketing, most often, seems to be an alternative to the natural attraction of the Holy Spirit.
2. Bigger or more are relative terms. Bigger than what? Is 100,000 better than 1,000? If we're talking about followers of Jesus, yes. If we're talking about a small group Bible study both are not ideal. That being said, I will relate it to the idea that decisions are most often better when made between neighbors rather than the federal government.
3. Jesus planted a church of 12, then he went around getting other people to join spiritually. The difficult part for me is all the moving around. Jesus didn't invest long term with lots of people. I, on the other hand, thrive on long term investment.
4. Related to question 3… Jesus seemed more concerned with church growth. But we were then commanded to make disciples. Both are important.
5. Smallest form of church is two believers. Simplest? I don't know… maybe talking? But smallest and simplest are not always the best option, are they?
6. I'm not sure if there should be a pattern for church. There might be commonalities, but we need to move around reproduction and toward inspired response.
7. depends on the weather… wet, hot, cold people.
8. The church of scripture is comprised of people utilizing their gifts. God does not esteem the well educated over the uneducated, but neither does he despise the well educated. Let's hope the well educated are gifted teachers and can help educate the uneducated. All the while, the well educated must have an understanding that the Holy Spirit uses the simplest of things to confound the wise.
9. I think that, as long as the Church is segmented generationally, we'll have this problem. This is a different post altogether, though.
10. I'll say that, just as with our individual, everyday lives, there must be a constant reminder to keep Christ as the head of all we do. No question about it. That said, there is a difference between headship and leadership. Both seem to be important.
Ultimately, the foundation of any relationship must be Christ. Whether it's 2 people, 100 people, 1,000 or 10,000 people, our only hope is that God will redeem our brokenness and free us to love well.
Man-It's really one of the bet books I've read in a while. The guy who recommended it to me is on staff at Mosaic in LA and he recommended Divine Commodity as well. The two go great together.
[...] I have a lot of friends that have an aversion to large groups (I realize that’s a relative term) of anything, including churches. I’m thankful for that because it makes me ask lots of questions. One thing I’ve come to see as true is that it’s possible to simultaneously centralize people and decentralize decision-making. As a result, I really do believe that there are some benefits to a centralized gathering of believers including : Connectivity, Relational Growth, Discipline, Accountability and Ideological Diversity. For more on that, check out the comments section of Decentralizing the Church. [...]
[...] Right now, I’m inspired by a book: The Divine Commodity. It’s been eye opening for me to realize the effects that branding and consumerism have had on the American church. We are so saturated with a consumer-driven culture that it has distorted our view of Christ and how to share His love effectively in a world, and specifically a country, driven by overconsumption. I’ll have more to say on it by the end of the week. I’m halfway through. Jethani uses Vincent van Gogh’s paintings to illustrate his ideas. Van Gogh had a much more spiritual life than you’d expect. He was at one point a vagabond missionary who removed himself from the conventional church. Starry Night explains his vision of the emptiness and inauthenticity of the church in his time. I think it speaks to today’s church as well. More on the book later. Thanks to my friend Cole NeSmith for sparking my interest in it with his blog post about the decentralization of the church. [...]
Leave your response!
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Most Viewed