As I have established elsewhere, the saga of the early church has been obscured for centuries because our New Testament books are arranged out of order. The present arrangement of the New Testament books has created a seedbed for the very damaging “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study, where out-of-context “proof-texts” are lashed together to support man-made doctrines and practices.
In Greek mythology, a man named Procrustes owned a magical bed that had the unique property of matching whoever laid upon it. But his bed was not so magical. Procrustes had a crude method for creating his “one-size-fits-all” bed. If the person laying upon it was too small, Procrustes would stretch his limbs out to fit the bed! If the person was too large, Procrustes would chop off the person’s limbs to make them fit!
The modern concept of “church” is a Procrustean bed. Scriptures that do not fit its shape are either chopped off (dismissed) or they are stretched out to fit its mold.
Many of the practices of the contemporary church are without Scriptural merit. Yet we justify them by our “cut and paste” hermeneutic. These man-invented practices are at odds with the organic nature of the church. They are also contrary to the Kingdom of God. In fact, they hinder the Kingdom from advancing. They do not reflect the rule of Jesus Christ, nor do they express His Headship and His glorious Personality (the very things that the church is called to bear). Instead, they reflect the enthronement of man’s ideas and traditions, smothering the church’s natural expression.
Regrettably, many people today justify these practices by saying that the church is different in every culture. Therefore, in our culture, God accepts the clergy-system, the performance-spectator order of worship, the single pastor (or bishop), the practice and mentality of church being a place where you “go,” and a host of other practices that were created around the 4th century as a result of Christians borrowing from the Greco-Roman customs of their day.
But this argument is severely flawed. Let me explain.
I will borrow from Paul when he said, “does not nature teach you?”
It is clear from the New Testament that the church is a living organism. It’s a new biological entity. To borrow C.S. Lewis’ language, it’s a “new species” (Eph. 2:15; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 10:32; Col. 3:11; 2 Cor. 5:17). This organism is produced when the living seed of the gospel of Christ is planted in the hearts of women and men, and they are allowed to gather together.
Interestingly, the organism of the church has a DNA which produces certain identifiable features. Some of them are: The experience of community, the fruits of the Spirit, a familial love and devotion among its members; the every-member functioning of the Body of Christ, the centrality of Jesus Christ, open-participatory gatherings, etc.
Now . . . while the seed of the gospel will naturally produce these particular features, how they are expressed may look slightly different from culture to culture. For instance, I once planted an organic church in the country of Chile. The songs they wrote, the way they interacted with each other, their meetings, what they did with the children, all looked different from organic churches born in England, or the United States, or Australia. However, the same basic features that reside in the DNA of the church were all present. Never did any of these churches produce a clergy system, a single pastor, a hierarchical structure, an order of worship that rendered the majority passive, etc.
In nature, we have a flowering shrub called a Bigleaf Hydrangea. If you took the seed of that shrub and planted it in the soil of Indiana, it would yield pink flowers when it blooms. If you took that same seed and planted it in the soil of Brazil or Poland, it would produce blue flowers. And if you took the same exact seed and planted it in another kind of soil, it would yield purple flowers. (The reason has to do with the different ph levels in the various soils.)
However, the Bigleaf Hydrangea will never produce thorns or thistles. It will never bear oranges or apples. Nor will it grow tall like a tree. Why? These features are not within the DNA of the seed. In the same way, the church of Jesus Christ . . . when planted properly and left on its own without humanly-devised interference . . . will produce certain features by virtue of its DNA.
Like the Bigleaf Hydrangea, it may look different from culture to culture, but it will have the same basic form wherever it is allowed to flourish. Yet when fallen man introduces human traditions into this living organism, the church loses her organic features and produces foreign elements that run contrary to its DNA.
Another example would be the basic element of human life. Humans who are native to China appear different than humans who are native to North America. Humans who are native to Sweden look different from humans who are native to North Africa. However, the human DNA is the same for all, and the basic features of humanity are present for each one. By contrast, I once saw a man who had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on plastic surgery to make him look like a cat! This is a violation of the natural DNA of humanity. It is unnatural and artificial.
Consequently, the culture may slightly change the appearance of an organic church depending on where it is born. However, the culture should never be allowed to govern its expression by violating its genetic code.
The church expresses and advances the Kingdom of God best when she is allowed to express herself the way that God created her, and when she refuses to be co-opted by the traditions and organizational systems of fallen humans.
–
For further details, see the book, Reimagining Church
CULTURE=The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
And now we find our world with a “Christian culture”, patterned after the world’s culture.
For three years I worked with the children of a church, trying to help those who had grown up “in church” to see that there was a relationship with Jesus beyond “their” building; beyond the “Christian holidays”; beyond “Children’s church” and VBS.
Because of Jesus working through me, these children were enthralled by all that I said through the ways and means God used through me. They listened, but nothing could tear them away from their already ingrained “Christian culture”. At times some came close, but when they saw what disruption it would cause in “their church family” (and how much time it takes to have a deep rela. with Jesus), they stopped their pursuit.
Oh that our God would stir up the status quo of the “Christian” “powers that be” and set God’s children free – free – free.
Just open your eyes and look, who do you see? Do you see a leader who is human, or Jesus Christ? Does it matter to you? Do you think it matters to Jesus Christ whether He is Head of His body? If you look up when you gather with others, and you see a leader who is human, you then know Jesus Christ is not the Head of that gathering. Why is that so difficult? You do not have to be scholar to see, just simply open your eyes.
Good points. The difference between organic chuch and programmed church is the difference between what is produced by God and what is produced by human effort, plans, and/or traditions. For God to produce His life in His church, we have to take our hands off of it and allow it to be His, not just in name, but His in actual Lordship and practical control.
That’s a very tough thing to do. Get any group of people together and at least one person wants to take over and direct things. Sometimes the person directing things is even doing it to protect the church from the possibility of another, less qualified person taking over. It seems like few people want to step back and allow the Holy Spirit to actually take over. However unless God literally runs and directs a church meeting, it is a meeting made by man and won’t carry God’s DNA.
Steve: Right. On the ground, the direction comes from different places at different times. And there is the corporate witness involved. In the beginning, it comes from those who plant the church and lay the foundation. But their role is to show how a church can find the Lord’s mind and will through corporate leadership. And they leave the church on its own for that to flourish. Most believers have never seen a church operating by corporate leadership. They only know the one-man ruler model. But this of which we speak is very practical and it works. However, the cross in practice is necessary.
Thank you for sharing this. It is good to be reminded of the Lord and His ways in contrast to what man has attempted to devise in the name of God. The example of the big leaf hydrangea and humans is a very clear example. All creation speaks of the truth in Christ.
While I do agree with you on most everything you noted, Frank, I’m still amazed at how many churches continue to grow and do so abundantly. Look at mega-churches. It does cause me a level of confusion. If, as you say, “The church expresses and advances the Kingdom of God best when she is allowed to express herself the way that God created her, and when she refuses to be co-opted by the traditions and organizational systems of fallen humans.” then why does it seem like so many churches are indeed flourishing?
Again…I do agree with you, Frank. I’m just a tad confused.
Hi Rose: From the data and stats I’ve seen, most traditional churches . . . both small and large . . . are struggling right now. 1700+ pastors a month in the U.S. leave the conventional pastorate in this country. I’m sure that some large churches continue to hold their numbers and perhaps grow even, but filling a building to hear a weekly sermon isn’t a measure of the Kingdom of God being manifested in my view. The Kingdom is manifested in the things I discussed in the article and in the related articles at the bottom. It really hasn’t nothing to do with numbers of people attending a 2 hour event on Sunday morning. So it seems to me anyway.
Very good. I will be passing this one along…
Good article Frank!
“Now . . . while the seed of the gospel will naturally produce these particular features, how they are expressed may look slightly different from culture to culture”
A couple of weeks ago during a meeting one of the brothers in our fellowship brought out an analogy that really painted an amazing picture. He described how by man’s desire to control, and produce corn, lead them to genetically alter the corns’ seed that is able to imperveous to insects, and pests and a host of other “negative” things and grew taller and more rapidly, however in the process it also rendered the corns seed incapable of reproduction.
Alot of the excuses i hear for not letting every participate the need for order and there are a host other problems that come along with community. Which is as frank points out the cross in our lives. I’ve also heard Frank call it the frictions that forms the living stones.
Thanks Otto. I’d only add one other word. If a group of Christians isn’t specifically equipped on how to function in a coordinated way, in a way where they are actually sharing Christ and not just ideas and opinions and concepts, then such a meeting usually does end up in chaos or the group typically dissolves. Thus why I’ve never advocated people just doing a free-for-all meeting on their own. We should follow the principles that God put in place for raising up the ekklesia and not ignore them.
Rose: I wouldn’t say that just because a “church” is a “mega-church”, necessarily means it is “growing” and maturing in the truest sense of those words. People by nature are attracted to personalities and performances. This is why the biggest churches are headed up by big personalities and employ the highest level of performers. But peer into the depths of these mammoth “churches” and you’d be shocked at what you find. Obviously, there will always be a portion that truly love God and pursue him wholeheartedly, but mixed in are many who have no faith at all but simply attend out of duty, or worse yet, for their own personal reasons, ie; to meet people, mingle, even to prey upon others. Within the institutional church there is a large portion of people who do not even know God and have no interest in pursuing a real relationship with him. So, just because a church is large, does not necessarily mean it is successful. I know, because I’ve been involved in several of them and even the best one’s are the same. In contrast, within the intimate, committed, and self giving habitat of the organic church, those kinds of people cannot survive for very long. It will be evident to ALL present each persons’ true motives and who is producing real fruit. This dynamic is impossible in the “mega-church” even when detailed accountability programs exist. It’s simply impossible to intimately know and follow up on thousands, much less tens of thousands of people. People who really don’t “care” about having a growing, maturing, sacrificial relationship with God, do not want to be exposed and thus avoid organic churches.
J.D. Thanks for your comment. Great answer! Lots of Christians also just want to put in their 2 hours on Sunday to get motivated or inspired. That’s really not the Kingdom in operation either.
Thanks, and I completely agree. I’ve been apart of a couple of groups that were not based on any of principles and have either been “taken over”, digressed into an institution in a home, or dissolved completely. Environments like that become smothering or even somewhat hostile. I know the group I’m meeting with now has had a worker there before but before I moved to the area. I can definitely tell the difference. I just started your book Finding Organic Church, i hope that will set a vision also. Thanks
Thank you for the beautiful illustration of the church. I read this today in The Torch of the Testimony:
“When that which is revealed of God is crystalized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely human energy, it becomes an impenetrable barrier to the truth. The life of the Spirit can never be confined within the framework of religious tradition. God is much greater than man’s thoughts concerning Him, and the plant of the church grows best in a soil uncluttered by the pretty hedgerows of man’s limited understanding.”
I agree frank with your reply to Otto, i have being asking for our small group who meet in a house to follow the New-Testament church pattern not opinions or concepts but that is a problem.
I once attended a giant ministry conference and came away so saddend, but at the time couldn’t put my finger on why. I concluded that it was how the line between money and ministry seems to inevitably become blurred. This is what is sad. And more often than not, the leaders reach heights of stardom, turning the focus from Jesus. This is the part that is saddest. And it is wrong.
My tendency is to think that God wants to use our lives on the real life scale, tending to the needs of those in our lives on a one-on-one basis, not more than we can handle, personally expressing the love of Christ. And it provides balance, because we also need to be ministered to by those in our lives.
I agree that helping masses of is not always God’s idea of success. Our idea of help can often be different than His.
your illustrations in here are $.
made me think twice about the parable of the mustard seed that was planted and grew into a tree…which is kind of disturbing because the mustard plant does not have the dna makeup to become tree, and certainly not something that birds can perch in. wonder what Jesus was pointing to there…
Sybiljean: Regarding your culture comments. I once heard a guy state that “culture is stronger than the anointing”. I was kind of offended at first but as he explained it you could really see the power culture or tradition has. Jesus himself, the son of God, was unable to minister in his home town because of the culture of unbelief there. And Paul stated that traditions nullify the word of God. Wow.
JRUST: Thanks for pointing that out about the mustard tree. I always wondered what kind of mustard plant grew into a tree. Perhaps there is something else that can be drawn from that parable than typically taught.
Rose: The “mega-church” I attended in Dallas, Tx., though it was very big and wealthy, it was a far-cry from what I’ve experineced (spiritually) meeting in an organic way. I’ve found real community and a family that loves me and the Lord (all the things that this particual church promised me when I joined). I did all they told me, joined the “community groups,” the disciple classes, etc. and found very little spiritual growth in myself and others. If fact, the “community group” I was in spent more time talking about the pastor than they did about our Lord Jesus Christ.
I don’t write all this to bash the institutional church, I say this because now that I’ve seen the church function the way Frank describes, there is no other alternatives. I can now completely agree with Frank and others when they say that this was God’s original intent with the church: that it functions under the direct Headship of Jesus Christ as each member functions. Free from a clergy-laity system. (See Ephesians 4:1-16)
Hi Frank: I really enjoy your material and am quite intrigued with your idea that scripture is story, and not a jigsaw puzzle. Regarding your reference to “cut and paste” hermeneutics, didn’t you use that same method above with your scripture references to the “new species”? How do I know when I am using cut and paste hermeneutics? Is this left up to the individual? For example, the mega churches in my area would propose that they are in fact following the New Testament pattern of church. You aren’t both right, are you? How does one preach a sermon or give a talk on an entire book? I hope you can feel out where I am going with this line of questions, keep doing what you’re doing.
Chance: no, the article is not based on the cut-and-paste approach. The article, and for that matter, all of the articles I’ve written are not based on proof-texting but on *the narrative of the New Testament church* as the backdrop. Consequently, Scripture references aren’t taken out of context. They are pieces of the story. In the beginning of the article, the book “The Untold Story of the New Testament Church” is linked to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that. Your other question is answered in that book: http://www.ptmin.org/untold
Regarding your question about mega church, you’ll want to read “Pagan Christianity” – http://www.PaganChristianity.org – these two books will help you to understand the context for the article and it will answer your questions in detail.
While I agree in theory, it is much harder to live out in practice. For example, blogs are widely used in our culture to help people get their message out. You have adopted this cultural, man-made practice for such a use. When pastors and church buildings were adopted by the church, they were the “blogs” of the day. They helped spread the message. And yet while they might have been effective in the past, they may not be effective today, any more than blogs will be effective 100 years from now.
Furthermore, we must realize that what we read about in the New Testament was just as culturally influenced as were clergy and church buildings 1500 years ago. Synagogues, Jewish festivals, and temple worship were some of the primary cultural influences which helped shape the early church. If we say that their way was the right way, then what we are really saying is that the Jewish culture is the divinely inspired “correct” culture. And if this is so, there are deep ramifications for our diet and weekly schedule.
Please do not misunderstand. I am one of those 1700+ pastors per month in the US who leave the professional ministry. I left because I was convinced that the clergy system and church buildings absolutely get in the way of the Kingdom of God and message of the Gospel. I agree with you 100% on this. I just think that in the past, the clergy system and the buildings were actually quite helpful to create community, advance the Kingdom, and preach the Gospel.
Jeremy: I’m lost, bro. The issue is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN that if something is post-apostolic, it’s wrong. Or should be avoided.
The issue is that which REDIFINES the ekklesia, violates the DNA of the church, and is in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus and apostles should be discarded for that which God has inspired, ordained, and wishes to give birth to in our time. And I might add IS giving birth to in our time, which maps to NT principle.
God has used the clergy-system despite that it’s not His will, not because of it. Restoration is what He’s up to and has been for a long time.
PAGAN CHRISTIANITY, REIMAGINING CHURCH, and FINDING ORGANIC CHURCH unravel the above statement in great detail. Those books were written not from theory, but from practice. Organic church life isn’t an unreachable ideal. If we are willing to follow the Lord’s way rather than our own, when it comes to raising up the church, it happens because He is faithful.
In short, I cannot in good conscience compare those systems that violate the DNA of the church and usurp the Lord’s Headship with modern blogs.
I disagree with the notion the the “clergy” system helped spread Christianity. The clergy/laity divide prevented the masses from being able to study God’s word for themselves for over 1200 years. Prayer, song and scripture was kept in Latin so that the masses would not realize how badly the Vatican/Orthodoxy had perverted God’s plan. If Peter was a “pope”, how could he “be sent” to the home of the Roman
Centurion? The apostles lives (physically) were far closer to that of homeless people than to the gold and garb of clergy in the Vatican. God’s word cannot change because when God speaks, his words become reality. Popes change rules as they please. I read in our local newspaper that the current pope says it’s okay for male prostitutes to use condoms. Tomorrow he will probably say praying to Satan is okay while you rob a bank but it would be “better” if you used automatic weapons to shoot the guards (to get money for your condoms). Look at the social and financial state of the nations where clerical perversions of Christianity are common. Clergy simply opens the door for theocracy which goes against everything Jesus (and the Apostles) stood for. If Jesus wanted a Christian theocracy, he would have accepted Satan’s offer of “ownership” of entire world during the 40 day fasting and set up a throne in Jerusalem. Each Church (congregation) was intended to be independent and self determining. Each church was to have internal leadership, but that leadership was to be chosen from the membership and be examples to other members by their actions as members not above. God’s plan never changed. Man attempted to improve God’s plan and got “crusades”, inquisitions, and militant atheism
Andrew: I’m with you. The clergy system hasn’t been a help to the eternal purpose of God, but a hindrance. Yet God, given His inimitable way, has worked and does work despite of it.
Frank, you and other writers on organic church talk often about anti-hierarchal leadership, not having a clergy system, no one taking over a meeting, etc.
I agree with those sentiments, but wonder how we can still embrace the NT concepts of pastors, preachers, etc. It seems to me that the NT still points to a person of God being raised up for each body of believers as the prophetic voice, visionary, shepherd, etc. for that spiritual family. Now, I agree that this has been badly distorted, but I think we still have to honor that.
Tim: This is a very involved discussion. I answer it in detail in my book REIMAGINING CHURCH. Every text on leadership in the NT is addressed. http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org