Yesterday, Christianity Today published my response to Mark Galli’s article on organic church.
For those of you who have been following the dialogue, this article is where I fall on it.
I hope it clears some of the fog that surrounds this issue.
Why the Organic Church Is Not Exactly a Movement
by Frank Viola
If the driving force of any movement or phenomenon is not Jesus Christ, we are building castles in the air.
Words are funny things. Sometimes a word can get into the drinking water of a subculture and morph into clay. A word becomes clay when it loses its universal meaning and becomes molded and shaped to mean different things to different people.
Enter the phrase organic church.
Organic church, or “organic expression of the church,” or “organic church life” are terms that owe a debt to one man who’s rarely mentioned in these discussions—British author and teacher T. Austin Sparks. As far as I know, he is the first person to use this term, and he used it often.
When T. Austin Sparks employed the word organic to refer to church, he was not speaking of a system, a method, a technique, or even a movement. Instead, he was speaking of the particular expression a church takes when she is living according to her God-given nature as a living organism.
Note his words:
God’s way and law of fullness is that of organic life. In the Divine order, life produces its own organism, whether it be vegetable, animal, human, or spiritual. This means that everything comes from the inside. Function, order, and fruit issue from this law of life within. It was solely on this principle that what we have in the New Testament came into being. Organized Christianity has entirely reversed this order.
Taking my cue from Sparks, I’ve been using the terms organic church and organic expression of the church since 1993.
For Sparks, myself, and many others, organic church refers to a body of believers who are learning to live by the indwelling life of Christ together. And out of that living, the church takes on a certain expression. That expression is marked by some of the following features: the every-member functioning of the body, the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ, consensual decision making, open-participatory gatherings, and passing through seasons (meaning the church is not tied down to ritual, but moves according to the season she finds herself in).
Today the phrase organic church is in vogue, but it has been converted to clay.
Some mold it as a method of church to win souls and change the world for Christ, a sentiment that harkens back to D. L. Moody and J. R. Mott. These advocates see the church as a soul-winning station. Its chief mission is the evangelization of the world.
Others mold it as a synonym for house church. A house church is simply a group of Christians that meets in a home for their corporate worship. That can take countless forms and expressions. House churches can range from institutional services in a living room with pews firmly bolted to the floor, to glorified Bible studies, supper-fests, “bless-me” clubs, healthy Christian communities, or first-rate cults.
As I’ve often said, meeting in a home doesn’t make you a church any more than sitting in a donut shop makes you a police officer (no offense to police officers; the better part of my family is in law enforcement!). There’s nothing magical about meeting in a home. And the living room, while a great place to gather, should never be the Christian’s passion.
Consequently, those who are regarded as voices of what some are calling the organic church movement do not all agree on what the church is, nor how she expresses herself on the earth. Nor do they see eye to eye on God’s ultimate intention.
That said, organic church is not a monolith, and therefore, it cannot rightly be called a movement.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that there is a phenomenon today where countless Christians are leaving institutional forms of church and exploring non-traditional forms of church in pursuit of authentic, shared-life community.
I’ve been gathering in organic expressions of the church (as defined above) for the last 21 years. And from my observations, many of the people who are leaving the institutional form of church presently are leaving because they are following a spiritual instinct. They are saying and thinking, “There has got to be more to Jesus Christ and his body than this.” Or as Reggie McNeal once put it, “A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.”
Some are calling this a move of God. Others see it as a departure from God’s will (for them, leaving the institutional form of church means leaving church itself). And of course others are calling it a movement.
Nevertheless, here are a few observations regarding the drive to experience organic church life. Note that this is how the terrain looks from my hill. I’m looking at the backs of the rocks while others may see their fronts:
1. The return to more organic forms of church (church as organism rather than church as institution) is nothing new. The U.S. has had two such phenomena already. One occurred in the late ’60s and early ’70s. Many young people in America were coming to Christ and finding authentic community. It was later hijacked by an authoritarian movement that smothered and killed it. The other occurred in the late ’80s and early ’90s.
2. The impulse to return to organic church life has happened historically in other times and places. You can find it among the Radical Reformers, the Anabaptists in particular. It had a beautiful start in Plymouth, England, with what later became known as the Plymouth Brethren, and still later in China among those who were tagged the Little Flock. (Each ended up in a different place from where they began, but that’s another discussion.)
3. All of the above streams of the Christian faith didn’t set out to change the world. That wasn’t their governing motive. They instead consecrated themselves to please the Lord and to make a home for him on this earth. They sought to return to the centrality of Jesus Christ and the living experience of his body. As a result of that, some of them had a profound influence on their surrounding societies. But that wasn’t their goal.
4. Movement mentality always seems to seep into any genuine move of God. I’m defining movement here as the idea that big is better and numbers mean success. Historically, the church of Jesus Christ passes through seasons. Some of those seasons are marked by revivals where many souls are brought into the kingdom of God. At such times, it’s almost effortless to lead people to Christ. But while revivals produce numerical growth, they do not produce depth. We are wise to observe that Paul planted approximately 13 churches in his lifetime. The apostle was far more concerned with building quality—”gold, silver, and precious stone”—than he was with amassing big numbers (see 1 Cor. 3).
5. Historically, movements become monuments (or they go off the rails) when Jesus Christ is not front and center, the beating heart and foundation. When some other thing—even a good thing like trying to change the world, saving souls, or multiplying churches—replaces the pursuit of Christ, we lose our way.
All told: There is a phenomenon going on today. Perhaps a move of God’s Spirit (?). But it’s nothing new. It’s simply a repeat of past currents. What will determine its success, longevity, and quality is not any human technique or method. The cutting-edge must be Jesus Christ as the only foundation, the centrality, and the supremacy. I am keenly aware that virtually every Christian bulbously claims that Jesus is the center of what they’re doing. But listen to the rhetoric carefully, and you’ll discover if it’s Christ or some other thing that’s being pushed and promoted.
So many things can replace our Lord. But God’s eternal purpose—that which has been in his heart since before time—will never be fulfilled if our first rattle out of the box is a new way of doing church, a method for multiplying churches, or a technique to change the world. God’s purpose will only be restored if we blindly and singularly make Christ our pursuit, our life, and our motive. Everything else will flow out of that.
SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLES – we encourage you to read these to get the full picture
Article – House Church vs. Organic Church
Article – What is an Organic Church? A Plea for Clarity
Audio – Epic Jesus: The Christ You Never Knew – Organic Church Defined Like You’ve Not Heard Before
Audio – Why I Don’t Advocate House Church.
Article – Stop Looking for an Organic Church!
Article – Why You Can’t Find an Organic Church
Important Update – Frank answers your questions about house church/organic church
ReChurch Series – Frank’s full-length books on kingdom, radical church restoration, and God’s eternal purpose
Pagan Christianity
Reimagining Church
From Eternity to Here
Finding Organic Church
These books all build on each other. They are not stand-alone volumes.
Frank’s landmark book is Insurgence: Reclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom (Baker, 2018).
What is an Organic Church? A Plea for Clarity
Hi Frank and friends,
I’ve been reading some Watchman Nee lately and have been blown away by his own understanding of the the eternal pupose and church/christian life. I also love history and understand the organic church has not always been called the organic church. Nee wrote in the mid 1900’s, but I’d like to go back further still. I’m very interested in learning more of the history behind organic church life through the centuries. The organic expression of the church is not a movement, but has always been present. Can you point me in the direction of some good resources?
Ryan: Yes, read the “Church Shelf” books at http://www.ptmin.org/library – I’d also recommend “The Pilgrim Church” by Broadbent.
Hi, Frank!
Sorry more questions! Hope you get to read and response.
How is this form of organic church different from the ones shared by Graham Cooke and Neil Cole in their books below?
Permission Granted (To Do Church Differently In The 21st Century) by Graham Cooke & Gary Goodell
Organic Church by Neil Cole
Willy: read this and you’ll have your answer: http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/missional-organic-church-an-interview-with-neil-cole-frank-viola/
Also, read REIMAGINING CHURCH and take a look at this first-hand report: http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/visiting-an-organic-church-a-firsthand-report/
What a blessing to finally hear someone talk about church as I first envisioned it should be when I read the Bible the first time. The day after recognizing the grace experience for the gift that it is, I bought a Bible. Over the next week I read it cover to cover five times. That is allI did for six to seven days. Every waking moment was in the word. I began my search for the Body of Christ. Over the years I have found fellowship in various churches and groups, but only once in that journey did I experience what you would call “organic” church.
I joined with a “crash pad” ministry where we took in strays every night giving them a place to rest, wash, eat and hear the word of God. An extended group of about twenty was involved. We were all growing in Christ together and sharing the ups and downs of that experience together as well. We were eventually convinced that affiliation with a larger church body would be more appropriate for us and provide more benefit for the people we were reaching out to. People like we had been. Not long after that the beauty of the ministry disappeared. Depending on God became fund raising. Compassion became formalized service and flexible caring became structured like you would expect at any non-christian soup kitchen. Concerns about liability shut down the bedding down for the night. Eventually the ministry and the people who started it disappeared.
Only recently have I begun to taste that wine again. I pray that this time I will not be lead away from the table. I am searching for others who yearn for that same flavor and hunger for that same spiritual meal.
Well written and yes I agree as well your last paragraph is what “Christians” should be all about! God is what we need, in order to be a success at all in anything that we do we need His hand! It may take an instant for some people to realize this, it may take years, but if we don’t listen to Him, then we are only listening to ourselves, others… a selfish act. He gave Himself for us, the least we could do is listen to Him. He speaks the truth, no lies. God is awesome!
Yo Daniel – right on!
I like this statement: “God’s way and law of fullness is that of organic life”. I am continually amazed how unique God’s working in my life is. His way is organic. It is full of life and constantly creating new life. It is a great place to be, but sadly sometimes a bit lonely….
I loved what you had to say in this article. However, I struggled with your use of the word “if” twice in the last paragraph. I’m sure you were not trying to say that what we humans do or do not do can determine God’s ability to fulfill His purpose, but in using the word “if” you inferred that, and appeared to undermine the sovereignty of God. I hope I’m not being overly critical here–just thought you might appreciate my pointing out how your last paragraph may come across. Thanks for your passionate commitment to communicating the grand purposes of God and the critical importance of living by the indwelling Christ.
There’s a great deal of “if” in the NT. But God’s sovereignty covers the “if’s.” God will get His purpose in the end, but it will a people who are co-working and cooperating with Him. Remember: Jesus “could not do” many miracles in his hometown “because of their unbelief,” the Scripture says. And Paul’s mysterious statement in one of his epistles. “We set out to do such and such, BUT SATAN HINDERED US.” Humans and God’s enemy can definitely thwart God’s purpose for a time and in a given place; but in the end, our glorious Lord will obtain a people who will cooperate with Him to bring it to pass. In this way, we are indeed co-laborers with Him as Paul put it.
The people who criticize organic expressions of church are of no concern to me. The greatest tragedy is the many rich young rulers out there who read the books, hear the testimonies, and feel the Spirit of God shifting the ground beneath them, but do nothing. Something holds them back. These are my friends, peers of mine. The younger ones; especially arriving out of Bible college and going straight to seminary or working for a mission agency have no appreciable or marketable skills outside of church work. They have the passion and desire, but somewhere they have come to believe that organic expressions of faith are just a seminarians’ way of “experimenting in college.” They want to hear my stories of church and they express their hopes for church planting and being more “missional” in their church, and I’m like…”you guys don’t get do you?” Follow Jesus where he leads. You don’t tell Him what you’re going to do.
Perhaps Mark Galli has hit on something that is indicative of movements. They do plateau and they often resist and struggle against some establishment until they either fail or subvert that establishment to become the force they once sought to overthrow. But, Frank, has reminded us that torch-bearers have lit the way of Jesus throughout history.
Read the whole chapter of Acts chapter 5. In my paraphrase I’ll simply say one verse, “If God is behind something, you can’t stop it–well, you could try but then you would be fighting God.” Well, the movement really never started if God is behind it, because He is eternal (wink, wink, Frank). I’m pretty happy about that.
Hi Frank, thank you for setting out the original meaning of the term ‘organic church’ so clearly. Someone needed to say it the way you just did!
I’ve just put together a brief list of the main contributions to the online discussion that has taken place. You and others might find it useful.
Thanks for the kind words, Chris. Your blog entry is very helpful to those who want to follow the conversation. Thanks for putting it together.
last paragraph most impactful to me. Thanks as always.
Frank…Loved the article. Hope you don’t mind that I posted a link to it on my blog as the “organic” Church discussion has lately reigned supreme on there. I had posted the other link from the original discussion and this was a great follow up (no offense to Neil Cole, but yours was a more specific answer/response to some questions that may be raised by those confused by what’s going on outside the institution and therefore I didn’t link his to the blog). One of the best points you continue to make (in a few words) is that basically the Church itself is Organic and that Organic Church is not just another method that the institution was missing. Though I must say, don’t be surprised when the “Mega Churches” (who have many wonderful brothers and sisters attending who are part of the same body, under the same glorious head) start handing out bumper stickers for those who want to join their “organic church” ministry on their “campus” just to get up to speed with the cultural infatuation with new marketing schemes. Gotta keep the question asking consumers on their “team”, those Pastors don’t want anybody “stealing their sheep”. (my tongue is in cheek right now) Keep up the great work, you are being prayed for!
Pursuing Christ first as we gather in His name and allowing Him the freedom to direct our meetings, however He chooses, is itself “a new way of doing church.” (How rare that concept is in church history.) However, you are correct in saying that Jesus must be the reason for our gathering together. Instead of our pursuing specific results or outcomes, we must pursue HIm.
I was part of an organic move of God on a college campus in the early 70s. And after about 4 years, it did come under human authoritan control. Letting Christ rule and control became secondary to establishing structre.
Mary got this whole organic thing right when she said to the servants in Cana: “Whatsoever He says to you, do it.”
Steve. So true, at the same time, the church has a DNA and certain characteristics that flow from it that transcend culture and time, just like the nature of God. See “Reimagining Church” for details.
Wow… Galli really doesn’t ‘get it,’ does he? I thank God he has opened my eyes, and while I still struggle with how to/being organically Christian and following Christ in community, I am glad I can see beyond the years of tradition and institutionalization to see that this is NOT a movement or a call for transformation of the existing superstructure, but a commitment to Christ in my own life, regardless of who follows, or rather walks with me, or whether it changes the church at large – what matters – what has ALWAYS mattered – is how Christ transforms ME. Thanks, Frank.
Paul, thanks for the kind words. I actually agree with some of Mark’s observations/sentiments in the article. Especially regarding world transformation.
Excellent points but it should be noted that others have used “organic” or “organism” regarding the church. Bonhoeffer is one that comes to mind. He even echoes some of the sentiments of the “organic church” in his Letters and Papers from Prison and hinted at them in his earlier Communio Sanctorum.
Sparks was using the term before D.B. and Watchman Nee (who also used it). Mary E.McDonough also. Can you give me quotes and references please for the DB references using this term. Thanks.
I found your response to Galli’s article to be a good start, as the term “organic church” has become so caricaturized, and so obscured in the thinking of most people who remain in institutional settings. What struck me as I read his article on Christianity Today, was just how deep the institutional mindset goes, and how difficult it is for someone with that mindset to not measure things in those institutional categories. Just the declaration that the “organic church will crash” is itself evidence that Mr. Galli does not understand what he is critiquing. He mentions “that still small voice that called them into ministry in the first place”, seemingly not realizing that the very concept of going into “ministry” (in terms of serving beyond the rest of the “laity”) is itself being rejected as something that has no origin in the scriptures or early church history…
Overall, it basically came across like an underhanded way of dismissing the things being said by many voices today, while trying to appear as though he affirms them… I couldn’t help but think it revealed a deeper sense of fear and uncertainty, which I have encountered in many friends who are involved in “fulltime ministry”. On the outside, they usually try and act unimpressed and skeptical, but deep down I can sense a genuine worry. They would love to dismiss these truths as just another fad or passing thing, and that in the long run business will keep going on as usual. And even though many “movements” in the past appeared to have been swallowed up by institutions, or fizzled out, we forget that those are only external observations made by humans, trying to see things on the “bigger picture”. In reality, people have been living their faith in an “organic” sense, in every generation, only most of them did so anonymously, simpy because they weren’t trying to start some “movement” or make a name for themselves, but to live in obediance to the Spirit. (which ironically, is what Galli was saying that these radical organic-church people need to come back to…)
Anyways, I appreciated your thoughts here, underlining many of the misconceptions that are so prevalent today… Thx
Excellent points! The last paragraph is, quite honestly, brilliant…it sums up what Christianity SHOULD be about.