Evidence for God from Science

ageofknowledge wrote:Where is the accountability in that model? What stops cult leaders and false teachers from arising and leading many astray within the body? I'm not seeing it.

What stops it in the current institutional model? You could argue the institutional model, by concentrating power and influence in a few under a sense of human hierarchy has done more to fragment and divide the universal organic body of Christ. When the overall body of Christ is passive, not cognizant of the priesthood of all believers and further not sensible of the headship of Christ, then the model that elevate clergy over laity empowers false teachers and divisive teaching and the result in the protestant movement in any case is over 33,000 different denominations today. Where's the accountability in that?

We're all accountable to God through Christ. The Bible never assigns accountability to humans in this regard.

Matt 12:36 - But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. (Accountable to God)

Matt 18:23 - Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. (The king is God)

Luke 16:2 - So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' (Parable again speaking of God as the one to whom account is given)

Rom 3:19 - Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (pretty clear there)

Rom 14:12 - So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (pretty clear there)

I Cor 4:5 - Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. (Only God there)

Heb 4:13 - Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (I don't see any church leadership and human accountability chain there, do you?)

Heb 13:17 - Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (We can talk more about this and what it meant to those at the time it was written and whom it was written to. It was definitely not written with the view of a hierarchical church organization, with several layers descending as it were from God and through several human layers then to those. The only word of accountability in this passage is of those construed as leaders and they are the ones who are accountable to God in that context, not others accountable to them.

I Pet 4:5 - But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

Accountability is given to God and God alone. The minute to begin to add layers of human hierarchy and authority then you deny the priesthood of all believers and you create an ultimate authority in that chain, whether it's a denomination head, a pope, even a board and they are no longer accountable to anyone. The claim is that they're accountable to God. You just have to take their word for it and even if they are sincere and humble in that charge, in the end, you have made the body of Christ in that regard, passive, submissive and out of the loop of discernment. Look at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The decisions were not deferred to the apostles (and who would be closer to the authority of Christ in that day and age?)> The assembly made the decision as the body of Christ with Christ as the head.

It's amazingly ironic to me to hear churches in the protestant tradition today making the argument for hierarchy and human layers of authority. That's precisely one of the strong arguments made by the Catholic Church at the time as to why Protestants should not leave the church because they would lose that accountability and covering, and if you look at it now, they were right at least in terms of the divisions, factions, schisms created, but the irony is that so many of them have those elements of "accountability" and "leadership" and again, we have 33,000 denominations with so many doctrines and beliefs spread across the spectrum. It hasn't worked all that well has it? That's what happens, in my opinion, when we emasculate (and yes I'm using that word) the majority of those within the body of Christ and rely upon human structures without the moving and working of the Spirit within the body as a whole. Hierarchy is more efficient. Hierarchy is more orderly, humanly speaking. It operates and can continue operating however long after the last vestige of any real presence and work of the Holy Spirit is gone. The power of Christ to demonstrate Love, Unity (not always unanimity) and patience working through things, even when it is messy (and it can be) (see the Jerusalem Council again and the church at Corinth) is displayed when the body works as a whole in a manner counter to human wisdom. If you want sterile order and shallow relationships, you can get that at the Kiwanis Club, but that's not the picture painted in scriptures of all of us as members of the body, functioning together, under the headship of Christ.

I'm not being facetious with this next statement. If we want covering, hierarchy and authority then we should simply leave Protestantism and return to the Catholic Church. Many, even prominent protestant theologians have done just that. The man who taught me the most in my undergraduate education at Oral Roberts University did that as well and there's been a strong movement that way from those who look at what the protestant church as a whole has become and frankly, if I were convinced that the reason the protestant movement as a whole has become what it is now in many regards I would do the same. The reality is that that structure is still present in most protestant churches; there are just different people in similar positions within Human hierarchy.

We can discuss this more and speak about what I think a NT picture of leadership and submission looked like in the first 300 years of the Church before it took on a different model.

blessings,

bart (and merry christmas!)

I may as well put this up as well. This is my review of the sequel to Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Reimagining Church by Frank Viola is the follow-up to Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. Where Pagan Christianity deconstructs the Institutional Church and hierarchical clergy system, Reimagining Church positively asserts and builds up a description of what the early church was and what it can be again.

In presenting this review, I have to disclose that I received a copy of this book from the author to review after establishing contact with the author as a result of a review that I did on his earlier book, Pagan Christianity. No promises were made as to the review I would provide. I expected I would enjoy and appreciate this book based on the first book, but I did not read this book with any predisposition toward giving it a positive review other than what is mentioned above. I've done my best to read and evaluate this book on its own merits with no promises made or implied to the author.

Reimagining Church does a very effective job of not falling into the trap of imitating the early church by sanctifying or advocating those things that are cultural. By a careful examination of Scripture, principles are expounded and drawn out that can in turn be applied today in a manner that supersedes culture or which can be applied in the context of culture without compromise.

The book divides into two parts addressing those components that are most often (wrongly according to the author) associated with "church" in American culture, namely location (a church building) and clergy (hierarchical leadership).

Community and gatherings, addresses first the basic truth of what the New Testament (NT) proclaims is the "church". Church in the NT, "ecclesia" in koine Greek, is never indicative of a set location. It refers to the organic body, or in simpler terms, the people. While this is a commonly accepted truth, in practice, most people still think of Church as a place where you go. The theory doesn't have much impact of most of our practice in this realm.

Reasserting this truth, a case is built from the ground up to imagine what a church might look like that accepts this truth and discards the tradition, the smuggled-in pagan temple practice and the institutional substitute for grass roots, personally and communally experienced faith that Christ seemed to assume, the apostles delivered and confirmed and the early church practiced. Following this reimagining and definition of what the church is (not where it is or how it does things) the issues of meetings, communion, gathering places, family like nature of the church, unity and how this ties into God's overall purposes and plans are examined with much reference to Scripture as well as continual reinforcement of the basic principles which underlie it all.

The second section of the book deals with Leadership and Accountability. In particular it demonstrates how such a church can function without the presence of hired clergy, offices of elders or deacons and without established hierarchy where an artificial distinction is drawn between clergy and laity.

Addressed in this section are the issues of leadership in general, how oversight and authority reside within the body as a whole, decision-making by consensus, a repudiation of the popular "spiritual covering" practices and understanding of many Christians over the past several decades, authority and submission in the context of no formal hierarchy (apart from the headship of Christ) an examination of the apostolic tradition and then some thoughts and examinations on where the reader who accepts most of these premises can go in their desire to move in this direction.

All in all, this is a book that will challenge many readers and in this reviewer's opinion it bears more than one reading with time taken to reread and examine the claims to determine in one's own heart and mind whether what is taught is in fact grounded in the word of God. I suspect the author himself would encourage this strongly because accepting what is said on the authority of the author would in the end be no better than what the book warns against in terms of the passive acceptance of "truth" within today's institutional and hierarchical churches.

5 stars. I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

You completely ignored over 2,0000 years of church history. You ignored the councils, creeds, restoration and reform movements, etc... asking a question in answer to a question as if they never existed or guided Christiandom???!

Don't pretend like it isn't necessary or desirable for Christiandom to implement desirable workable organizational and communication models with good accountability properly integrated to protect the flock.

Standardizing on a model restricting Christians to disconnected transient wandering small fellowships of Christians isn't desirable for Christiandom.

I haven't read the book but it seems to me that simply saying churches are based on pagan temple worship, when the apostolic/early church came out of Jewish temple worship, is a misnomer to start with.

The problem as I see it right now isn't the specific format the evangelical church uses in coming together (sing, pray, speech, pray, go home and ignore everyone until next Wednesday evening or Sunday at which point the cycle repeats), though that certainly should be scrapped at this point for something that yields much better results, but rather the focus and lifestyle of Christians.

Evangelicalism has basically digressed to an almost complete obsession and focus on emotional and intellectual self-fulfillment by the rank and file with about a third of the leaders obsessed on material gain. I see little point in continuing this paradigm. It needs to be completely reformed. But that's where the discussion becomes important. Your model appears to be almost fatally flawed and would result in many undesirable consequences.

You completely ignored over 2,0000 years of church history. You ignored the councils, creeds, restoration and reform movements, etc... asking a question in answer to a question as if they never existed or guided Christiandom???!

You asked me a one sentence question about accountability and I answered it directly and as thoroughly as I can. If you wished me to address these issues then you could have included them in your question and you could have dealt with the material I provided you instead of asking additional questions, but if that is what you wish, I can continue, but I'd appreciate you addressing the answers you've been given before moving on to additional questions.

Which councils, creeds, restoration and reform meetings and specific elements do you wish to address and how does it tie into this discussion? How does that tie into the Biblical concept of accountability that ties to God and God alone? Earlier in this thread Luther was mentioned. How did he deal with all these elements? Did he state that unless he could be convinced by Scripture that the convictions he had developed were wrong, that he would stand upon scripture? Where were all the councils, creeds, restoration and reform movements there or is that something selective that we can pick and choose as we wish?

Don't pretend like it isn't necessary or desirable for Christiandom to implement desirable workable organizational and communication models with good accountability properly integrated to protect the flock.

Humanly speaking it makes good business sense to do all those things. In fact, that why I worked in the system for 20 years and was educated with a Bachelors in Business Administration in addition to my biblical studies and a master of science in organizational leadership. I'm very able to address all these issues. You appealed to accountability. I dealt with it pretty thoroughly with Biblical references. Do you have any Biblical references that support accountability to anyone but God in this context? Is the issue "common sense" or is it a Biblical model. If so, then demonstrate the model you propose Biblically.

I haven't read the book but it seems to me that simply saying churches are based on pagan temple worship, when the apostolic/early church came out of Jewish temple worship, is a misnomer to start with.

Read the book then. It says a great deal more than that and it is one of the best researched, annotated and footnoted book you'll ever read. The apostolic/early church came out of the synagogue system more than temple worship. It's very common to attribute many of the elements in today's Institutional Church to the OT system (which is condeming enough in my opinion in that Jesus' death and resurrection ended that) but the reality is, with very little room for dispute that most of the elements in today's church have their roots in pagan temple worship and not even the Jewish Temple system. It's a very threatening book to read. In fact, in the front of the book there's a disclaimer given to all readers that if they are happy and comfortable with church as it is and as they practice it to not bother reading Pagan Christianity. I'm not surprised that many of these claims would create an emotional response. It is rather disconcerting for many and to some extent it was for me as well. There's not much point however in arguing the points here if you're going to argue based on what it sounds to you like the book is saying. If you want to discuss the book at that level, then with all due respect, read the book and see what you think after reading it. I see little value in discussing your impression of what is said about a book. I'm not trying to say that unkindly. It's not realistic or fair however to ask me to effectively summarize an entire book to answer questions when the book is available to be read. At the least, it might be helpful to make less dogmatic assumptions and assertions if you haven't read it.

The problem as I see it right now isn't the specific format the evangelical church uses in coming together (sing, pray, speech, pray, go home and ignore everyone until next Wednesday evening or Sunday at which point the cycle repeats), though that certainly should be scrapped at this point for something that yields much better results, but rather the focus and lifestyle of Christians.

Respectfully, that seems to me a self-contradictory statement. Format can be neutral. However, when the format itself, enables people to come to "church" remain distant and non-intimate with one another, then the format itself, is indeed at the very least, part of the problem. The focus and lifestyle of a "christian" in the purest sense of the word is Christ. Living in the freedom he's purchased for us and also then in the midst of that freedom to develop a deep and personal relationship and that includes communion and fellowship with one another at a deep and personal level.

Evangelicalism has basically digressed to an almost complete obsession and focus on emotional and intellectual self-fulfillment by the rank and file with about a third of the leaders obsessed on material gain. I see little point in continuing this paradigm. It needs to be completely reformed. But that's where the discussion becomes important. Your model appears to be almost fatally flawed and would result in many undesirable consequences.

You'd be amazed I think, if you stopped and looked at the basic order and elements of "services" accross all types of churches, not just evangelical and saw how similar all those elements are across the board, and then also examined them as Pagan Christianity (PC) does. Many of the elements within the service itself, have no real roots in scripture and indeed descend from traditions rooted in history and the significant change of Christianity as a "religion" with its adoption.

When did the greatest growth within the church take place? Was it during those first 3 centuries when there was so little of the organization and communication and accountability models? Was it during prosecution? Was it without buildings, a professional clergy before a nice santized, socially accepted form of Christianity came? There are many traditions of Christianity in addition to the Roman Catholic and the Protestant which is mostly just a branch of that tradition. Most of the greatest growth today is taking place in the third world and countries like China where there is persecution and the Church is underground and operating very closely to the principles and relational practices that were characteristic of the early church.

The more I am growing in an understanding and appreciation of what organic church really is, the less I'm impressed or motivated by efficiency and the other benefits cried out for those defending the institutional system that developed after that strongest and most important era of growth in the church. The Holy Spirit is not always "efficient". Relationships take time to build and develop and in many regards, I daresay they are not "efficient". Machines are more efficient in many regards than the human body, and yet I don't think we'd be crying to reduce the human element of spirituality, relationship and regeneration in Christ and declare machines who lack these inefficient qualities.

As it stands however, the call in this context is not to try and rebuild the church in the model of the early church (there isn't a clear single model of that anyway, there are at least 5 in the NT and all different in many ways) and to ignore the differences of culture and tradition. The issue is that more than the culture has been stripped from that early church. The very core beliefs, values and practices have been replaced by stowaways from other sources that are not Biblical in the first place. Does that mean that there can't be culture, tradition and adjusted practices because we live in a different world today? I don't think that's the case at all. People however, are not all that different now than they were then and the needs of the human heart and the desire of God and Christ to bring us to himself and the image of Christ are not different either.

I hope there is a significant revival and renewal of God's people as there has been in seasons of the past. I think that is part of our problem though to be honest. God is always willing to meet His people and work individually and collectively in their midst. When the systems and practices we have in place are contributing to what needs to be overcome and are not biblical in the first place, then why protect them and keep them? Toss them out and return to those things the Bible teaches and practices and reinculcate Christian community and yes, be sloppy, inefficient and reckless about it if needed. Maybe then we'll begin to know and rely upon God and one another and let this shallow, anemic system that institutionalizes mediocrity and makes it the norm.

Again, that is very difficult for many to hear. It is scary. It puts a whole a class of people within the church out of work and requires them to be as Paul in working from a sense of calling rather than professional training and positions of authority and security bestowed upon them by men. It removes buildings and leaves us with only each other and God to make it through this life.

The fact is however, that that is how the church started, how it thrived and thrives today under persecution and these other elements have nothing to do with any biblical call or instrutions in how to be (and not to go to) the church.

Your response was a lot of blather. No offense.

ageofknowledge wrote:Your response was a lot of blather. No offense.

Age, your response was a personal attack and no interaction with the responses to the questions you asked. No offense taken, but if you're going to choose to engage on a subject, and ask questions, it's common courtesy to respond and interact with some connection to the answer you're given, some scriptural defense for what you're saying and at a minimum, if you're going to pass judgment on a book to put some minumum effort in to read it.

If you choose not to, that's your choice but it doesn't reflect well on the position you're attempting to defend, whatever that may be.

blessings,

bart

Ok fine. The book is on its way. I see you understand the necessity of organization and like me long for organization that yields much better results than we are seeing with the current model (e.g. assembly with cell groups value added). The problem though really transcends organization and I think you understand this too. I was too quick to call your post blather. I retract my statement and apologize for that. I am very much frustrated at the transient superficial relationships between Christians and Christans with God at this point primarily.

I can see many of your points, Bart, but i do wonder if this is amounting to removing things that are rather harmless because of the other factors.

For instance, 200 years ago, the church was a much more tightly knit body of believers partly because of the culture and the times. People did not travel many miles to go to church, they went primarily to the neighborhood church with everyone else. There may have been different denominations as cities grew, but with the smaller towns and cities you knew who everyone was and what was going on. They knew the needs of the congregation and gathered together to take care of each other.

(let's blame it all on the car and suburbia )

Would it not be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction? There is value in knowing that the church leaders are qualified and ideally (I agree that this is ideally) that discipleship leads to having older members acting as elders and deacons...

can you draw me a picture of what this new organic church looks like? Meetings, services, sacraments, how it is organized? Would you have guidelines for leadership? What would they be?

Thanks...

ageofknowledge wrote:Ok fine. The book is on its way. I see you understand the necessity of organization and like me long for organization that yields much better results than we are seeing with the current model (e.g. assembly with cell groups value added). The problem though really transcends organization and I think you understand this too. I was too quick to call your post blather. I retract my statement and apologize for that. I am very much frustrated at the transient superficial relationships between Christians and Christans with God at this point primarily.

Apology accepted and I'm glad that you see we're hoping for the same thing. It doesn't bother me at all to be disagreed with. I understand your frustration and share much of it. Please feel free to continue the discussion and then when you get the book if you want go deeper on some issues, please feel free to do that, and I'll try and keep my answers shorter and more focused if you would find that more helpful.

I dare say many here who know me may think I've gone somewhat off the deep end and I don't fault anyone for wanting to stay within and redeem more traditional fellowships. I'm just at the point in my own personal walk where I don't see the value to that and am part of a growing movement to build something in a less traditional context and that path is not for everyone.

blessings,

bart

zoegirl wrote:I can see many of your points, Bart, but i do wonder if this is amounting to removing things that are rather harmless because of the other factors.

For instance, 200 years ago, the church was a much more tightly knit body of believers partly because of the culture and the times. People did not travel many miles to go to church, they went primarily to the neighborhood church with everyone else. There may have been different denominations as cities grew, but with the smaller towns and cities you knew who everyone was and what was going on. They knew the needs of the congregation and gathered together to take care of each other.

(let's blame it all on the car and suburbia )

Would it not be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction? There is value in knowing that the church leaders are qualified and ideally (I agree that this is ideally) that discipleship leads to having older members acting as elders and deacons...

can you draw me a picture of what this new organic church looks like? Meetings, services, sacraments, how it is organized? Would you have guidelines for leadership? What would they be?

Thanks...

Hey Zoegirl,

Those are good points. I think you're right that there are huge cultural and technology differences in our day, time and location compared to the early church and I agree that just trying to imitate the culture and practices of the early church may in fact not be the answer. I completely agree with what I think the next statement from this would be and that is that different cultural elements and communication methods (and the transportation methods you mention too) might make for different organizations and elements to the church. Some groups such as the Amish and Old Mennonites for example have take positions of limiting technology in order to maintain an agrarian tightly knit group and that is not what I'm advicating or what I think Viola and others in the organic movement are advocating.

I'm going to be upfront with you as well and tell you that I do not consider myself an expert or someone who could tell others how to start and run an organic fellowship. I have a background in church leadership, biblical studies and also in organizational psychology so it's an area that fascinates me, and I've intellectually read up on it a lot and sought to understand but there's a huge difference between that and practical experience, which I'm just beginning to live as our organic fellowship right now has just started in the past month. We have another group that's been established for several years that we've met with for a while before we began to meet. We're also collectively sponsoring a conference this July to bring Frank Viola out as a means to learn more, and to draw others into the experience who are searching as well.

At a very high level then I'll tell you what the meeting look like that I've been part of with the larger more established group and hope that helps. The group averages about 15 -25 in a meeting per week. Most of the participants are younger than me (which I understand is unusual as many organic fellowships have a much higher number of older participants). We are racially diverse to an extent that is reflective of metropolitan Washington DC, which is where I live, but is very unusual in other groups that I've been a part of throughout my experience in traditional churches. Those of us who are white are about maybe 40 - 50% of the group on average, and there are african americans, carribean black americans, eastern europeans, some latino brothers and sisters. I personally love that element of it by the way.

We use an internet service called "Meetup" that allows us to join and communicate with one another by mass email throughout the week. Discussions take place as to where we will meet next, (there is no set meeting location although some homes are used more than others and there are times we meet in community centers) Usually a thread starts the day after the meeting. Meetings are usually but not always on Friday or Saturday night. We also have social meetings with invites to one anothers homes for birthday celebrations, calls for help moving and things like that.

When a meeting is set outside of the social ones and again the goal is to do this weekly and the established group does this, then there is some discussion on the topic or purpose of the meeting and everyone participating is to spend some time on that element. It might be a Bible verse or passage, it might be something from a book. People come prepared to discuss. Some have elements of teaching, some have elements of encouragement, some may write a song to a familiar tune. The established group has a song book that has developed over the years and songs are added and dropped over time. Sometimes we sing old hymns or maranatha choruses as well but that is not a steady diet. Usually there is a meal with everyone bringing in something and there is a good deal of sharing that takes place over the course of the meal. A Lords supper element is usually present to some degree but it is not the same everytime and the focus is upon remembering Jesus in the whole context of His life, ministry and current headship.

ONe of the things that Frank Viola has said in his books, and in the most recent practical one which is titled, Finding Organic Church, is that organic church doesn't just happen and it requires a great deal of unlearning for many participants as well as learning new things. There are common problems in the fellowships that i can see as well. There can be dominant personalities within the meeting who have to be backed off a little in order to allow the shier and less assertive members to share and participate as well. There can be a tendency for new members to come and assimilate in who aren't familiar with how things are done who use their participation in the meetings to try and recreate the tradition or church structure and service that they are familiar with. There can be an overemphasis upon fellowship and a lack of corporate attention to the elements of exhorting, teaching etc. to where the fellowship just becomes a social gathering, which is not the intent.

That's just a small list. There's probably a lot more in theory to be said but again, my experience is limited and I would not be a person who would seek to be a planter or short-term leader within an organic group because I have no business doing that until I have some experience behind me and it's not a given that because I was a leader in institutional churches that I should be in this context and so, imperfectly, I'm sure, I'm veing very deliberate early on to keep a low profile and not dominate. Organic church in many regards is not easier than the institutional model. It is far harder and more open to abuse and problems. I suspect it's possible that the group we form may not take root. It's primarily made of people who are specifically looking for a form of organic church and who have found each other through social networking on the internet. That's a legitimate means in my opinion, but I understand that many successful organizations have arisen more in the context of finding others in the course of day to day relations and neighbors and things have arisen in that context through the vision and leadership of one person, but the problem with that in many cases is that it is very easy for that leader to become a de facto pastor and then you're back to the hierarchical model and the organic community elements wither and die out or the group fades.

So I don't know if that answers your question or if it doesn't make it a harder thing to describe and define, but that's the best I can do with where I am right now.

blessings,

bart

All,

At Bart's invitation, just wanted to add my $0.02. Along with another brother, his wife, and a sister from Baltimore, I began to fellowship organically about three years ago (maybe more or less--the date we actually started meeting eludes me) in the group Bart mentioned in his last post. Since that time, the church has grown into what Bart already described. I don't think his description requires any elucidation (though I am happy to offer more detail if you have specific questions). I'd just like to add a little more food for prayerful consideration.

First, I wouldn't try to reason out the "right" or "wrong" of institutional or organic churches. In the Garden of Eden, two trees stood before Adam and Eve. One was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The other was the Tree of Life. If we seek to analyze and identify the good and evil of institutional church, or organic church, or any other church, we may be committing the very same error over again. It probably isn't worth our time to try to discern the good and the evil. Instead, we should seek that other Tree--Life--and eat of Him instead. If you are eating of the Tree of Life in your institutional church, far be it from me (or Bart, or Frank, no doubt) to sway you from eating. Keep eating of Him. But if your Spirit tells you that the fruit you are eating in church (whether organic, institutional, or otherwise) isn't Life--time to hit the road. I think Frank takes the "right or wrong" approach in Pagan Christianity because 1) that's the approach most of us are familiar with and 2) it validates the dissatisfaction that many people feel when they attend institutional churches. Many of us have thought, at one time or another, "This [insert contemporary church practice here] can't really be Biblical." Frank's historical/academic/Tree of Knowledge approach gives some credence to our feelings and liberates us to cast off the institutional church and seek Jesus Christ, if we are so led.

Second, Age, your concern about false teaching in the organic church is the number one concern I have encountered in my time discussing it with others. And here's my answer: you're absolutely, 100% right. Organic churches do offer an unprecedented opportunity for false teachers to come in and teach. And unlike the institutional church, which carefully tests those who teach, anyone can come in and teach anything in an organic church. I have often found myself offended, or annoyed, or tested by other brothers and sisters expressing things that I believed to be not Biblical. But here's the strange thing--I'm pretty sure I've said some un-Biblical things myself. I mean, let's face it--I'm a human being, right? I'm not infallible. There are, I am sure, many parts of my doctrine that are not fully accurate. Yet the Lord has offered me grace in those areas (that I am not even aware of). And I offer that same grace to others. And I hope you'll offer that same grace to me; I promise I will offer it to you.

Now, there's another matter of outright falsehood and pure disruption and confusion. Frankly, in the years of fellowshipping with the church in DC, I've never, NEVER encountered the former. We've had Muslims and non-believers attend the group, yet no one has ever spoken anything contrary to the Lordship and deity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the bodily death, resurrection, and atonement of Christ, or any of the other "basic" doctrines that define Christianity as a belief system. If that ever does happen (and it might!), I would respond to that brother or sister at Christ's leading. My human inclination is to tell you that I would contradict them. But I don't know if that response would be appropriate for the situation. Anyway, I would respond in a way that resonated with my Spirit and I am sure that others would as well. The bottom line is that no one would leave confused about what the church believed, no matter what one of the attendees might believe and express.

As to confusion, I've seen and heard of that being handled in different ways. In another church I was a part of in Jacksonville, FL, I remember a very loud and obnoxious visitor dominating the sharing in a meeting. This went on for about three minutes until a sister politely interrupted him (I know that sounds like a contradiction, but you'd have to be there and know this sister) and said, "Brother, stop talking and listen for the rest of the night." And you know what? He did! In another situation (this is a story I have heard, not my personal experience), a brother came in to a church and begin to lecture those believers on the falsehoods he thought they believed in. After a couple minutes, the group began to leave the living room they were meeting in one by one and gathered in the kitchen. In the end, that brother was left all by himself. He probably got the message.

Finally, God's eternal purpose on earth is love. Jesus told us the two greatest commandments; in these, He said, were summarized all of the Law and the Prophets. He spent the final hours before his death sharing with the disciples about the love they would have for one another (John 14-17). The purpose of the church is love. She is His Bride, and should manifest love to Him. Equally, she is composed of many members, all of whom ought to be allowed to love one another. This is where earlier discussions about the format of institutional church become relevant. If you and I sit side by side and sing songs, and listen to a sermon, surely we share an experience, but do we share love? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it a stretch to say probably not? I'll let you decide. But it would be very difficult for us to share a meal, to sing a song you or I wrote, to hear each other share our experience of Christ, and to spend time together after the meeting without truly loving each other. I'll tell you this--the first time I hear you speak out a "false doctrine" but resist a human (not spiritual) urge to correct you, I will be showing you love. In fact, a love you aren't even aware of! We'll bear with each other in addition to bearing each others' burdens (which we'll also do). I'll recognize that you aren't a disposable aspect of my Christian life. In fact, you're an absolutely critical part of my Christian life, and all the more so when you offend me and suddenly I have to take up the Cross just to look at you again. But I will take up His Cross, and so will you, and suddenly He will have achieved His eternal purpose on earth: His image, lived out in one unified Body.

I apologize if this has been an overly long and rambling digression from an otherwise edifying conversation. I encourage all of you--if you are dissatisfied with the institution, don't be satisfied with dissatisfaction. Heed the Lord's Spirit in your life, find a local organic fellowship, and begin meeting.

Love you all.

In Christ,

Will

I hope you guys don't mind, but since there were so many questions, I put a note out to those who meet in the organic fellowship that I referenced and I invited them to read this thread and participate if they want. I didn't do that to try and start or win an argument. I really am fairly new and my knowledge is theorhetical and not practical to the extent that some of these believers are and so I hoped that would be helpful and welcome.

We'll back off if it becomes a problem and if any of you feel unfairly piled on, just say the word and I'll ask my friends to back out. It just seemed to me that it was beneficial to hear from others involved in the fellowship and to not take me as an authoritative voice by myself, which interestingly enough is part of the organic fellowship in my opinion.

Thanks Will for joining in.

Thanks Bart....

Fascinating discussion. I will try and find the Viola book.

I agree with the point about accountability and fellowship. I also agree with a lot about how passive and man-centered most churches have become.

Maybe I just don't understand the organic church concept well enough, but I don't understand how it deals with the Biblical mandate of elders, given as gifts to certain people to instruct and lead the body of Christ.

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Hi Dan,

The short answer is that it's pretty clear in the NT that the term "church" is referring to believers in terms of a group of people, or an organism. The greek word "ecclessia" means "assembly of people." It was used in contexts outside the NT commonly for political assemblies as well. It referred to the people in an assembly, not the location or building. When you look at the terms and metaphors used in the NT, it's striking that they are all organic in the sense that they speak of the church as a living body, the bride of christ, and even in one case when it alludes to a building, it refers to us as "living stones". It's pretty clear.

Hey Bart, I agree with the meaning here and understand you fully on this, but would you acknowledge that there *were* buildings which housed the assembly? I believe that at times these buildings were nothing more than a small room in a brother's house, or even a derelicty building of no elegance; this is I suppose to be expected of the times. But I believe that there wqere actually churches raised before Constantine; do you believe this, Bart?

Canuckster1127 wrote:You have to put Luther in the context of his day. I would tend to agree with you that Luther wasn't necessarily decrying the building of building. Remember that Luther's original desire was to see the Catholic Church reformed, not to leave. As things unfolded, the Reformation was about a great many number of things and carried a lot of different factors. It was in part fueled by the printing press and the resultant increase of literacy in society and as a result of that people were able to read and interpret the scriptures themselves. It was in part a political movement of sovereign nations to cast off the ties to the Roman Catholic Church which had tremendous political power and wealth. Monarchies saw an opportunity to confiscate their land and buildings and raise up churches that were loyal to themselves rather than a Pope in Italy. That's why the Anglican Church, for example, is still headed by the King or Queen of England to this day.

Anmd you can lump ole 'Enry in there as havingh less than pious motives for breaking of England from Rome! But, while this is obvious, the breakaway was indeed needed and was a good thing overall.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Now, I believe Luther was sincere in his motives and actions, but that doesn't means that politically and socially other factors weren't playing in on them as well and being capitalized upon by others.

I agree. Luther was indeed sincere; a Protestant hero, if you will.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The reality is, at least how I see it, that you'd be hard pressed to find many churches that don't say that they believe the "church" in the NT is referring to the bride of christ and the body of believers. In most cases however, all that appears to me to be is pious rhetoric because it doesn't translate into how they do things and what their priorities are. Remember that the early church didn't have buildings or dedicated meeting places for about the first 300 years and then things changed very quickly when Rome adopted Christianity as its State Religion and overnight absorbed and adopted many of the locations, priests and practices of the prior Greek/Roman pantheon of gods.

You see, I disagree with this Bart. I'm saying there *were* buildings described as the church before Constantine...? There must've been buildings as there was certainly secrecy among many Christians in practicing their faith; they could not have prayed and held meeting openly.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Reformation was a major shift in one sense, but the changes to the practices of church when you look at them in whole, while significant in many areas, overall, haven't really changed all that much. The sermon in Protestant Churches is more the center of the time and emphasis in the service as opposed to the mass in the Roman Catholic Church, but both are present in most churches. The Reformation in terms of its impact really wasn't a reformation of the church as a whole as the RCC is still larger than protestantism combined and since the Reformation took place the Protestant movement has continued to break away from one another in all sorts of splits and schisms to where today, by conservative estimates you have about 33,000 different groups and denominations.

Can't disagree too mush with you here, friend. Just to say that one thing Protestantism did do was turn a light onto the corrupt and overly-powerful Catholic church. It's just a shame that this organisation still feels it right to have a Pope as its head. I find this one of the most unChristian aspects to have come from Catholicism.

Canuckster1127 wrote:So you are making sense and I hope this answer helps. Don't take my word for it though. It's easy to study and see for yourself and decide if what I'm telling you is accurate and fair.

blessings,

bart

Thank you ever so much, Bart, for taking the time to respond in such de[th. It's very much appreciated.

God bless.