students of jesus

I think I will stick with His vision because I can't even see the road signs with mine! Thanks for the good word P.Ray.

wow, this is excellent. some of your most insightful stuff yet. thanks Ray.

Hey Ray,

Thanks for your thoughts here. I guess I see Hebrews 10:25 a bit different than being described. I think giving up on The Church is much different from not attending institutional church meetings. Assembling together is certainly important--I think we should consider why it is. After doing so it's worth asking how we can best assemble for those reasons. I would suggest that this may/will look different for people/cultures and even in different stages of our journey. I know that the form of community that I need these days in order to continue growing together in the body looks much different than it has for me in previous times.

What are your thoughts?

Right ON, Ray! Thanks for this.

Thanks so much, Erica, Sammy and Hauswife.

Chad: you raise very reasonable questions. There's no doubt that the social dynamics of the church as an institution are fair game for comment, criticism, and perhaps even opting out. Your point regarding what, exactly, it means to "assemble" is well-taken, and you can be sure it will take on a different look from culture to culture. The mere act of assembling doesn't guarantee community, either. So I think we agree in a lot of areas.

For me, the problem in North America is believers are opting out of the traditional church in large numbers **without** giving much consideration to what the Lord has in mind. Most people who give up on the church do so out of unresolved hurts, and or a consumerist mindset that expresses itself in statements like "the church just wasn't meeting my needs." In my view these are foolish--and dangerous--reasons to go.

I support any person or group who determines to measure their lives (individually and corporately) by Biblical models, and I recognize those models can vary widely. I just don't see that happening very often. Instead, I see wealthy North American believers looking to craft a cafeteria-style faith in which the chief factor is personal preference.

Finally, I refer you (forgive me) to Monday's post, where I was so impressed with Jon M. Reid's repentant response after getting to know the leaders of his local church more intimately.

I'd love to hear about/read your experiences in crafting a thoughtful corporate alternative--because the institutional church doesn't have long to live in our world. Peace

Thanks for asking the tough questions here and for doing the interpretive work. There is a measure of faith you mention in your comment in that we need to trust Jesus to build to his church. So while we don't have to play the 501C3 church game, we can't opt out of being part of his people and gathering where his Spirit calls us.

Thanks for the great conversation, Ray.

I liked Jon's post on Monday too, and expressed that to him. What a great heart and attitude he has.

I certainly don't mean to hijack your thread here... Sorry if my comments have taken it from the direction you intended.

My journey has certainly been interesting. Here are the highlights.
* I always intended to be in the church, hopefully helping to run it.
* My degree is in church ministries.
* I spent over sixteen years in professional, full-time church ministry.
* When I left, it wasn't of my choosing. The church ended the discipleship school I was running. I think they fully expected me to find another 'ministry' job.
* My wife and I both felt God was telling us to "Be" the church, not "Go" to one.
* There has been significant differences outside of the shell that we used to experience as "church".
* We are not trying to organize something, just live out our lives with the people God puts in front of us.
* I don't know how long this part of our journey is, but it is healthy, we are growing, there is good fruit, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what I'm missing...

Hi Ed: Thanks for mentioning "playing the 501 (c) 3 game." I'm as grateful for tax deductions as the next guy, but organizing and registering along those lines often lulls church leadership into accepting an U.S. corporate model of church structure. That comes at the cost of accepting the "church as business" mentality so prevalent in the U.S. today. It's deadly.

Chad: You're not hijacking at all! Thanks for sharing a little more of your personal journey.

It sounds like you are content and living a life filled with God's grace. The "fruit" of your posts (and blog) always tastes sweet, and Jesus said a good tree bears good fruit--so clearly you and your family are doing something right!

I read each bullet point with great interest, and here are a few reactions: I'm sure you have discovered God's goodness extends beyond the confines of a church or ministry school. You apparently worked long enough in "professional ministry" to realize the pitfalls (and blessings) of such an arrangement. Getting outside the "shell" is eye-opening. God lives and goes where He wants, though many Christians are shocked to find that the Almighty's address is not always the church's address.

Which leaves me with only one area of concern. As I read Acts and the epistles, I see them organizing, and struggling with organization. A few examples:
*You can't add 3,000 people in a day without needing organization the day after that.
* Peter & Paul's actions in Acts 10 - 14 forced the varied leaders in many cities to come together--not to vote--but to seek God together *and* share the results of their counsel.
* Paul & Barnabas, even though chosen by the Holy Spirit, remained connected and accountable to the church in Antioch, although that connection and accountability looked radically different (and healthier) than the church-as-business corporate models we have today.
* Paul wrote letters to the churches he planted (or his disciples planted). Clearly he believed there were some ties that remained. In fact, he regularly defended his apostleship.

I am no fan of the North American 20th & 21th century church-as-business model. Forget the 501 (c) 3 status: we would be better off organizing around house church models, Ephesian models, or even (gasp!) liturgical models. But still, design and structure--accountable structure--are implicit in the church as I understand her. Why else would you feel called to leadership or discipling?

As always, Peace!

this is samuel:

i really like this discussion, and i've almost left a comment about 10 times but each time slash it because this topic is so subtle. i'll just make a list of random thoughts that have no particular correlation, so forgive the roughness:

*jesus grew up in a very religious, traditional, and liturgical setting but he must have been involved and committed in some sense because he was recieved (initially) in synagogues to both read and teach.
*also, jesus never spoke against the form of the synagogue - something each church form (charismatic/evangelical/liturgical) tends to do toward the other.
*i have more grace for people who have dropped out of church than ever before. most of what we do on a sunday morning involves 3-10 people talking, playing instruments, doing something; while everyone else (100-5,000 or so) literally sit and spectate. that's a mess.
*at the same time, if someone is currently not attending classic church (aka - sunday morning or sat night organized meetings), i'm ok with that but would encourage them to actively search for, pray for, and/or form a community that engages the presence of God together - how else will they find what they (and the Holy Spirit within them) are looking for?

finally, Ray what do you mean by 'design and structure'? those words could mean a number of things. could the word 'intentional' be substituted there? if not, why?

Good morning, Samuel:

Thanks for your input. I could hear the wheels turning in your brain--even from Horse Cave!

I definitely had the synagogue in mind as Chad and I have chatted. And what's interesting to me about the synagogue is that it grew out of the cultural setting of Babylonian captivity--not from a Torah command. It's an example of God's people adapting from their received tradition to something new due to current conditions, in this case from Temple worship to house worship. Hmmm, sound familiar?

By "structure" I had in mind the idea that even organic things require structure. Humans need skeletons and microbiological functions in order to function. Even single-celled organisms require structure. It's part of God's design. The problem in our day is the failings of the traditional church model are evident to all, and many are leaving the church--without any intentionality regarding how they can leave the old wineskin and still obey the Lord by entering into something new.

In my view, the "something new" will be characterized by:
* "assembling regularly" (Hebrews 10 25)
* possess structural spiritual authority (Hebrews 13:7; *all* of Titus and 1 Timothy, and plenty more examples)
* provide real opportunities to live out Colossians 3: 12-17
* and be reproducible through the generations (Matthew 28: 16-20)

These four are the first that came into my mind. Perhaps they are the start of another blog post! Stay tuned, and thanks for playing are game. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

Ray, Samuel and others.

Enjoying the conversation. I don't know that I have much wisdom here, just a few observations to toss in the pot about the above characterizations.

I'm not sure that the context for assembling regularly was for the purpose of having weekly meetings as much as it was for encouraging the believers not to try to live out their faith alone. We are part of a body and were designed (here is the important structure!) for growth in community.

My experience with the spiritual authority idea is that it is overplayed. I see two things happening in our culture- we've replaced the headship of the church, which is supposed to be Christ, with a hierarchy of leaders. I don't think this was intended. At all. We'll talk about Jesus as being the head but then live it out like he is on a long vacation and put us in charge while he is away. My friends, these things ought not so to be. Even Paul, who certainly showed some deference to leadership really put them in their place in Galatians.

Sure the Col passage is great lived out with believers, but no, not just in a weekly meeting. That is unfortunately a part of our current culture. We have created a set of behaviors, language, and practices that we have in our church services that aren't in play in the rest of our lives. Not sure that this is really fulfilling the heart of this passage.

And the reproducible nature of our community is certainly important. I think even by the nature of that word it is best formed in intimacy and outside of the lab. I guess if we figure out what we are trying to reproduce it will help us determine how to best do it. Much of what I've seen defined as discipleship had more to do with filling the holes in a system, being a cog in a growing machine, rather than being part of an organic body.

Keep writing, Ray! I look forward to hearing more or your thoughts.

thanks for sharing your thoughts Chad, i've read them a few times, and if i understand you right, i think i can agree - especially the hub of what's going on here - "we are part of a body and were designed for growth in community." that is indeed the main point, i think, and the reality to which the weekly or organized meetings act as the shadow cast.

i do have some hesitations and/or questions, if you'll allow me to write a long response. again, this is a nuanced subject and hard to parse out:

-you mention reservations about 'spiritual authority' as we've known it. we can all cite examples of how we've been hurt by church leaders (and i'm not a church leader - in any official sense - in case you are wondering) because they (the church leaders) saw and treated us more or less as servants (property) rather than sons. surely they would not have felt comfortable doing this had Jesus been in the room. Here are some questions: what do you make of the parable(s) where Jesus talks about a master going on a trip, and while he's gone some servants beating the other servants. i only bring this up because even though Jesus is present with us, there is still a type of absence from him that we endure, hopefully the absence a girl betrothed feels for her guy. in other words, yes, we should get our instructions from the head Himself, but invariably we (and our leaders) will make mistakes in these efforts to hear him and follow him, ultimately because we are sinful and the absence we feel from him has a type of legitimacy. Yet we are responsible to learn and get it right, because he is present with us! i'm def not one of these guys that believes in talking to or about God as if he's in the other room.

my second observation/question would be what do you make of Jesus himself appointing leaders - the 12 apostles that we know of, and some of them (Peter in particular, the one he seemingly left in charge of all the other leaders) made gross errors - dividing over circumcision, which, is really the equivalent of racism in our day - implying that one group of people are inherently superior to the other. talk about hurtful! I would bet the farm some of Peters' sheep were so hurt by that blunder that they left, saying, as Ray has so aptly summed it: forget it, I’m going to the pub (with my true friends who also love Jesus, not like that fraud Pete!).

that's the first bit, thanks for listening Chad, and i'll post some more questions i have as well
-samuel

My final response to Chad's eloquent and thoughtful comments: if we leave these assemblies up to informality and spontaneity only, wouldn't it be probable that if Charlie doesn't like Bradly (and vice versa) the two just wouldn't really ever put themselves in a position of genuine interaction? - and this decision would probably be made by both of them without ever really knowing they had made it? Even if somewhat superficial, an organized meeting does force (in some sense) Charlie and Bradly to be around each other and hence learn how to love each other - or if one of them chooses not to, he will be keenly aware of the choice he has made (because it entails him leaving that particular church meeting permanently and maybe even taking a few families with him).

again Chad, i am not arguing. i really like what you are saying and i agree with the heart of it - i wonder if there isn't some danger in giving up completely on any sort of 'organized' meeting.

Peace
-samuel

Hi Samuel,

I just have a minute here so my response will be briefer than what the conversation deserves.

As to the first point, I think Jesus physical absence was made up for by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Church is currently empowered by the presence of God. I do think this fact is still sorely missed by much of the church.

As to the second point, I think we often read into these stories the leadership style we are used to. There are just as many stories that emphasize the 40, the 70, the women, the multitudes of disciples, etc. Also, when Jesus talked about leadership it was always upside down, not hierarchal. It is symbolized with a towel, not a scepter.

And to your last response. I see that division happening whether someone is in a formal setting or not. Personally, I've felt much more promptings towards reconciliation and forgiveness these past couple of years outside of that given structure. While in it, I was always dealing with an us vs. them expression.

Trust me, Samuel, I haven't given up on all forms of organized meetings either, but I'm treating them more honestly (I think).

IMHO local churches ought to be of 'manageable size'. Meaning, don't take in more people than you can minister....if there are more coming in start another one - meaning split the church into two churches. Train enough people to lead.

I guess it IS the matter of size. When there are more...there is no enough fellowship and growing...and people only want to 'leave' the church coz they are not 'getting' what they want.

Size has become an idol in many places. Church definitely HAS to grow...but please dont try and have it all in one building, lest no one is catered properly.

Hey! dont go to the Pub! Go to the Church. Never quit, please.

this is samuel:

i really like this discussion, and i've almost left a comment about 10 times but each time slash it because this topic is so subtle. i'll just make a list of random thoughts that have no particular correlation, so forgive the roughness:

*jesus grew up in a very religious, traditional, and liturgical setting but he must have been involved and committed in some sense because he was recieved (initially) in synagogues to both read and teach.
*also, jesus never spoke against the form of the synagogue - something each church form (charismatic/evangelical/liturgical) tends to do toward the other.
*i have more grace for people who have dropped out of church than ever before. most of what we do on a sunday morning involves 3-10 people talking, playing instruments, doing something; while everyone else (100-5,000 or so) literally sit and spectate. that's a mess.
*at the same time, if someone is currently not attending classic church (aka - sunday morning or sat night organized meetings), i'm ok with that but would encourage them to actively search for, pray for, and/or form a community that engages the presence of God together - how else will they find what they (and the Holy Spirit within them) are looking for?

finally, Ray what do you mean by 'design and structure'? those words could mean a number of things. could the word 'intentional' be substituted there? if not, why?

Ray, Samuel and others.

Enjoying the conversation. I don't know that I have much wisdom here, just a few observations to toss in the pot about the above characterizations.

I'm not sure that the context for assembling regularly was for the purpose of having weekly meetings as much as it was for encouraging the believers not to try to live out their faith alone. We are part of a body and were designed (here is the important structure!) for growth in community.

My experience with the spiritual authority idea is that it is overplayed. I see two things happening in our culture- we've replaced the headship of the church, which is supposed to be Christ, with a hierarchy of leaders. I don't think this was intended. At all. We'll talk about Jesus as being the head but then live it out like he is on a long vacation and put us in charge while he is away. My friends, these things ought not so to be. Even Paul, who certainly showed some deference to leadership really put them in their place in Galatians.

Sure the Col passage is great lived out with believers, but no, not just in a weekly meeting. That is unfortunately a part of our current culture. We have created a set of behaviors, language, and practices that we have in our church services that aren't in play in the rest of our lives. Not sure that this is really fulfilling the heart of this passage.

And the reproducible nature of our community is certainly important. I think even by the nature of that word it is best formed in intimacy and outside of the lab. I guess if we figure out what we are trying to reproduce it will help us determine how to best do it. Much of what I've seen defined as discipleship had more to do with filling the holes in a system, being a cog in a growing machine, rather than being part of an organic body.

Keep writing, Ray! I look forward to hearing more or your thoughts.

My final response to Chad's eloquent and thoughtful comments: if we leave these assemblies up to informality and spontaneity only, wouldn't it be probable that if Charlie doesn't like Bradly (and vice versa) the two just wouldn't really ever put themselves in a position of genuine interaction? - and this decision would probably be made by both of them without ever really knowing they had made it? Even if somewhat superficial, an organized meeting does force (in some sense) Charlie and Bradly to be around each other and hence learn how to love each other - or if one of them chooses not to, he will be keenly aware of the choice he has made (because it entails him leaving that particular church meeting permanently and maybe even taking a few families with him).

again Chad, i am not arguing. i really like what you are saying and i agree with the heart of it - i wonder if there isn't some danger in giving up completely on any sort of 'organized' meeting.

Peace
-samuel

IMHO local churches ought to be of 'manageable size'. Meaning, don't take in more people than you can minister....if there are more coming in start another one - meaning split the church into two churches. Train enough people to lead.

I guess it IS the matter of size. When there are more...there is no enough fellowship and growing...and people only want to 'leave' the church coz they are not 'getting' what they want.

Size has become an idol in many places. Church definitely HAS to grow...but please dont try and have it all in one building, lest no one is catered properly.