We all need the Church--Christ' bride is indeed his representative here on earth.

However, if what we call church is our programs, our structure, our buildings or our institutions then there lies our problem. These are all man-made and many have not changed to address the modern people or even the postmodern.

As a veteran minister and church person, I see that there is some justification to where people are at. Those that feel they need church today seem to be ones that are looking for a comfort and fortress to protect them and their kids. They are not seeing an army on a mission to reach the world.

I find both this and Skye's earlier post on the calling to be very affirming. Gordon Fee, in his book "Paul, The Spirit, and The People of God" wrote along this same line: "Though entered individually,salvation is seldom if ever thought of simply as a one-to-one relationship with God. While such a relationship in included... 'to be saved' means especially to be joined to the people of God. In this sense...Cyprian had it right: there is no salvation outside the church, because God is saving a PEOPLE for His name, not a miscellaneous, unconnected set of individuals....God is not just saving individuals and preparing them for heaven; rather He is creating a PEOPLE among whom He can live and who in their life together will reporduce God's life and character." (pp. 64 & 66). Fee's study really has encouraged me in understanding anew what it means to be part of a church, in all its imperfections.

Excellent points. I wonder, however, if the question, "Who needs the church?" is not incomplete. The answer depends on the rest of the question, "For what?"

Nobody needs the church to live the self-centered, sub-biblical life than many pass off as Christianity. But everyone needs the church if they would life life as a follower of Jesus, understanding that they are here for a purpose, and together have an exalted role as God's representatives in the world, bringing the message of reconciliation.

The leaders of most churches are at least partly to blame for the sad present situation, in that they have not taught and modeled that we are a called-out, set apart, sent in, missional people. It's not about us, it's about Jesus! It's about honoring him in our lives and knowing him as the lover of our souls. Until that truth is held high, people will continue to see the church as optional, at best.

One of the struggles I have faced in the past is that I have been in a state of transition. I have moved a few times and so have bounced around to several different churches. In those times, my closest friends (we were spread out in several communities) and our Bible study group became more of "the church" to me than any official body of believers. I still attended a church regularly, but that was my observation.

Here's a question I'd like to hear discussed by people who are smarter than me -- what makes meeting in a nice building on a Sunday morning more "church" than meeting together with a Bible study group? Is this idea that we have to meet with this larger body of believers a biblical construct or a man-made one?

As I look through the New Testament, it seems that those first meetings of the church would have looked a lot more like Bible Studies than the church services that we have today. The ministry was lay-driven rather than staff-driven, and it seems the meetings were often happening in people's homes.

And yet somehow we push the idea that unless a believer is meeting in this large fellowship there is something wrong with them. I don't think there were too many weekly gatherings of 500 + people in the New Testament era. Any thoughts?

Here's something that I think about often in relation to this subject:

What would the american church look like without church buildings? Would real ministry surface instead of programs? Would tangible unity come to the fore?

Then there's this:

What would happen if we were to stop concentrating most of our money in maintaining buildings (and the programs that come with them) that are mainly used for weekly *shows* anyway? What would ministry look like then?

While not the only factor in the deterioration of the american church, could it be that actual brick and mortar church buildings are more a hinderance than a help?

I often wonder why this aspect of ecclesiology is often overlooked. In my mind, we might just discover the *real* meaning of church if we examined this aspect as well...

I think Bryan raises some good points. My church is currently going through the book of Acts, and the key word that describes the meetings of the early believers is fellowship. In fact, Luke doesn't even use the word church until Chapter 5 after describing what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. Anyway, I think that by framing the question as "Who needs fellowship?" we may be able to be a bit more persuasive in our arguments. Whether or not most people understand what is meant by the "holy catholic church" as pertaining to the whole body of believers, I think that the prevailing view is that church is a place one goes to. That's why I would frame the question in terms of fellowship. Church is viewed as a place one goes, a destination; fellowship can be viewed as something in which we can partake together. This allows us to raise the question of service. In a consumer driven society, we go to destinations to receive and to be served. When we meet in fellowship, we serve and are in turn served.

When church is primarily a bible study with a whole bunch of people for an hour or so, what is wrong with the young person's comment about who needs the church? While clearly the Church is the bride of Christ, is what we many of us go to on Sunday morning (or Saturday evening) really Church? Is it not really just a big bible study?

The end of Acts chapter two tells us what the primordial church was like. How many churches really are balanced in the areas of teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, prayer, wonders and signs, and sharing things in common? How can big buildings where we come together for a couple of hours per week really compare?

This seems to be a trend with younger people (20-35) who really don't see the value in church and it's role in faith. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way people love their parents. It seems like people suffer their parents on today's society and the joy of love is far from them, which might be similar to attitudes toward the church.

We definitely need church to grow in faith, but the church has not done a good job of communicating that need.

The article makes some good points. However, we seem to lose our focus when we look at the Church as "that building on the corner."

The Church is NOT a building, a program, or an event designed to reach out, but the Church is the Body of Christ. And we need the Body of Christ to do and be what it is called to do and be.

So much of our vision has been to get people to "come to church." If we were truly honest about the reasons, I wonder if our true motivations have been to reach the lost and expand God's kingdom, or to accomplish some program-based goal?

The Church should get out of the church building and into the world that Jesus came to reach.

How can we attend something we are?

Is the Sunday assembly just a "big Bible study"? It certainly wasn't for early Christians, or for most Christians throughout what is still the vast majority of church history. The Sunday gathering, as described in Acts and I Corinthians and documented again and again in post-biblical literature has always normatively been about word and table-- with table being the real point and goal of the gathering, and word being that which prepares us to experience and be transformed by the encounter with Christ at table. The gathering isn't (and hasn't been) primarily about learning for learning's sake, but rather about learning what it takes for us to offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and ourselves-- both in worship and in the world-- in union with Christ's self-offering for us. Worship is fundamentally, for Christians throughout most of our history, sacrifice.

"Sacrifice" is a word we badly misunderstand in our culture. We associate it with giving things up, with self-destruction in a way, with blood and death. This is simply not the biblical view of sacrifice at all. The words behind our word (from Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) refer to the act of making things holy by lifting them up to God-- and specifically by burning them on an altar. The point of the sacrifice is not the point of the shedding of the blood-- nor are all sacrifices animal sacrifices in the biblical record. The point of the sacrifice is the point at which the smoke from the altar (which might be described as a large outdoor grill) reaches the nostrils of God with a pleasing aroma. In the religion of the people of YHWH, there was only one place on the planet where such sacrifices could be offered-- the temple in Jerusalem. So when that temple was destroyed, and the priesthood (with the middle and upper classes) removed to Babylon, a new form of worship was developed-- the synagogue-- to take its place. "Let our prayers be set forth in your sight as the incense, the lifting up of our hands as the evening sacrifice" was a real cry of hope that God would accept prayer and thanksgiving as the "new" form of sacrifice in a new ritual setting-- the synagogue (the assembly) which could meet anywhere to offer this new form of sacrifice.

Christian Lord's Day worship, from its beginnings in Judaism, has nearly always combined both word (synagogue service) and table (holy communion). This historic pattern was broken by town councils in Switzerland during the 16th and 17th centuries, and generally over the objection of church leaders, including John Calvin-- who himself continued to find ways to receive communion 4-5 times/week, and commended the practice to others. John Wesley's reforms in the Church of England were both evangelical AND especially sacramental-- he insisted that Methodists receive communion as often as possible-- preferably at least weekly-- and indeed, it was the need to make this possible for Methodists in what became the US that primarily drove him to ordain General Superintendents and Elders for Methodists here.

Christian ecclesiology is a reflection of the order of the life of the church-- and that life, in most places throughout Christian history, has been dependent not only on right teaching (head knowledge) but right practice, including right ritual. This is why ordination has been such an important marker in Christian ecclesiology-- and why in some communions it is regarded as sacramental by necessity. The ordination process ensures not only right teaching for the "Bible study" part of the church's commonlife, but right preparation and spiritual empowerment to offer the whole of Christian worship, word and table, as a sacrifice acceptable to the Lord-- a sacrifice in which we find ourselves transformed to be the body of Christ for the world, and live out of the power of the Risen Christ within, among, and coursing through us.

I think this is a very important question that speaks to the sustaining factor of the future and purpose of the church's mission, mission statments, and even existence. If we do not own our value as the kingdom of God and own the commision of Matthew 25:31-46, which gives us a clear purpose (individually and corporate), we lose relativity and this is when people loose hope and faith in the chruch. People identitify with need and purpose and we have to grasp the concept and develop clear ministry peogramming that socially relevant.

As well as relevant programming, church leadership must instill the truths that support the individual makes up the whole. We individually make up the church both local and worldwide. We are the temple of God, thus we are what we are asking to change. The question then becomes...Do we really need each other?

I'm a student and I have to stay that several times, I've also questioned the necessity of church. I find that I don't really know why I go to church besides hearing a nice message and mingling with others. I know the bible supports the churuch but I can't help but be suspicious of it. I do belong to a local church though I've temporarily stopped going. I"m just trying to figure out, is it wrong or sinful not to belong to a church? or is just a recommendation that aids in understanding what it means to be the body of Christ?

The author brings up many excellent points. This concept of needing church is one that comes up not just with young believers, but older believers as well. They have become disenchanted with a church that is increasingly leaving them out.

When a church follows one marketing scheme after another to attract the next generation, it often does so at the expense of older, and shall I say it, some times wiser believers. These older believers understand the power of silence and reverence before the God of the universe. They appreciate the unchanging nature of God and understand his awesome sovereighty.They have a generally higher regard for the actual words of God, than the latest worship video or the pastor's Powerpoint presentation.

But alas, similar to television marketing, they are marginalized, and thought of as obstacles to progress in the church. The lobby latte is quickly replacing the Nicene Creed, and we hide our increasing ignorance of the Bible with more Praise and Worship.

Does the church need a "sanctuary" when it becomes indistinguishable from the concert hall?
Bible studies and home groups are great for Christian community, but where is a place for us to give reverence and awe to the Creator of the universe? Didn't Jesus have a zeal for his house? Have we modern evangelical Americans abandoned the whole idea of God's House in favor of a sort of Christian Lecture and Community Center?

Good comments all, and I like Taylor's emphasis on Word and Table. However, I fail to see the connection of this New Testament pattern with ordination. We have often seen (and are seeing) that ordination is no guarantee of 'right teaching', and many indepenent or pastor-less churches have no difficulty breaking bread with right prepatation and spiritual awareness. This is not at all a rant against ordination - that I am sure has a particular place in the church. I am also sure that Word and Table are not constrained by church structure, but are what should be the focus of any and every 'church' - whenever believers gather.

RE: The young couple that was leaving a church for a "Bible study" - why is that not "church" just as much as going to a big building and listening to a sermon that may or may not be "Biblical." If the people in that Bible study are accountable to each other, don't forsake meeting with each other, pray for each other, etc. they ARE church. And whether they realize it or not they NEED each other. Now, I have been in a place spiritually, where I NEEDED the impersonality of a large congregation, where I could put on my smiley-face and pretend all was well. Today, I recognize that I need and WANT the intimacy of a group of people who know me and still love me and call me on the carpet when I'm slipping. Whether I'm congregating with 400 people or 3 or 4, it's not about what I NEED but what I need and WANT. I still attend a church on most Sunday mornings, mainly for the praise music. But I meet regularly with a small group of people and consider one of them my "pastor" or "spiritual leader." She (I'm female also) is not ordained but she has been following Jesus longer than I have and she doesn't have to have all my answers and sometimes I have answers for her and sometimes we both go to the "preacher" with questions and we read the same books and talk about them, we pray for each other, we listen to each other, etc. My faith in God is stronger and more real today than it ever was.

Excellent comments. The home Bible study groups I know of are the products of local churches. I wonder how many of these home study groups would exist if church members did not provide the original impetus and participants?

As a pastor of a growing country church, I love my church, because I love my people that God has given me responsibility for. It is not about Sunday or a weekday program or a youth group etc but it is about people who are saved into the body of Christ. However these things are important.
The church is not only universally 'The Body of Christ' but locally as well and in fact is part of the universal body. So I liken the local church to being fingers, hands, eyes, etc all different in look and some function but all with a common purpose - doing the will of the father (head)!
With that picture and understanding the church will meet, look, act, sound different. One thing is clear, the body cannot have lone cells being healthy if they are sepearted from the main body and the local body. Every hand, foot, eye, leg is made up of cells and if those cells are disconnected they die. It may cause pain to the body part but eventually the cell is replaced or regrown.
Its important that for the sake of the body and the cells we work at connection whereever possible.
If Jesus said the church is his body, that means we are the manifest presence of Jesus on earth. People look at the church and thru redeemed people they see Jesus. What do they see? They see our action and words. They see them corporately and individually. Guess what! Worship, service, giving, praise, care, programs, small groups etc are actions and words. Therefore dont be too quick to seperate them from the function of the church and therefore have an importance in defining church to people.
Great comments from all, lets appreciate the body in its many looks and love it.

Certainly, I am commited to follow Jesus Christ, and I need the church. However,the question for me is does the church need me or just my conformity and my money? I attend a church that just moved into a new $30 million structure. The design for the building and vision for the church was put forward with very, very little input from the people. We are now being asked (in very polite terms of course) to consider giving up a government rebate sent out to us this Christmas to meet the 1/2 million shortfall for the month of December. Perhaps its time to revisit the ancient Catholic ritual of selling indulgences to cover the costs? I jest.

What would happen if we were to stop concentrating most of our money in maintaining buildings (and the programs that come with them) that are mainly used for weekly *shows* anyway? What would ministry look like then?

b.p. best

Not to pick on this person, since there are many people who believe that church is a "show"... But our forefathers in the faith believed that there should be a place that is Holy, or set aside, for God to dwell with his people during the service. I believe like those who came before me, that in the service of the word and the eucharist, Christ dwells with his people. He's in the word that's preached, he is there in the bread and the wine. It's a communion of the saints where we believe and confess :

"Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnify Your Glorious Name, evermore praising You and saying, "Holy, Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of Your glory".

We are to prepare a place for our Lord as he commanded the Israelites to construct a tabernacle for God to dwell among his people.

My polemicism is showing here, but I have to say this: I hope that today's "evangelical churches" do cast off the physical buildings. Many of them aren't true churches anyway.

In light of this excellent discussion, I recommend you read Malcolm Gladwell's recent article on "The Cellular Church". Here's a salient quote:

As I see it, one of the most unfortunate misunderstandings of our time has been to think of small intentional communities as groups 'within' the church," the philosopher Dick Westley writes in one of the many books celebrating the rise of small-group power. "When are we going to have the courage to publicly proclaim what everyone with any experience with small groups has known all along: they are not organizations 'within' the church; they are church."

I am reminded of something I've heard small group consultant Brett Eastman say (quoting Rick Warren, probably), "God wants the church to grow larger and smaller at the same time."

If somebody fellowships with a small group, who says they're not going to church? It may not be the ecclesiology you or I would choose, but it just might be closer to the Primitive Church than much else going on in America.

Regards,

Rich Tatum

While many of Ward's statements contained significant merit, I specifically take issue with two. First, she ponders how much church leaders really love the Church, "Or are we so busy deconstructing the church that we forget it was established by Jesus himself, who promised that 'the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it' (Matt. 16:18, KJV)?" In my opinion, there are a lot of qualities of the man-made institution of church that need deconstruction: exclusivism, denominational hierarchies that forget they are in existence to serve their local churches and not the other way around, marketing approaches to church growth, 'cookie-cutter' methods of church planting, Holy-Huddle-ism, and rock star idealization of megachurch pastors, to name a few. Jesus did not construct or intend any of these. A greater love for the Church "established by Jesus" does not equate with a mindless tending to the status quo. Rather, a return to the realization that the first church was primarily concerned with evangelism and service should wake the American Church from its slumber of stagnation. Secondly, the author alludes to the fact that perhaps the evangelical focus of a personal relationship with Christ constricts the ability to sacrifice for the good of a faith community. Which raises the question, what is a community of believers? Is it not people being Jesus to each other? How else can one expect to help others become like Christ and serve their neighbor without simultaneously striving to become like Jesus themselves? We can't abound in the work of the Lord without abiding in Him. I'm really not sure if the article should have focused so much on what the Church is or should be, but rather, after reading the author's perspective as a church leader and pastor's wife, I believe the underlying issue to the observations she makes pertain to what local pastors teach and model. People looking from the outside-in assume we as church-goers and supposed Christians need the church. The real task of the Church isn't to make people need it; it's to make people see they need Christ. We haven't stopped needing the Church in this country; the Church has forgotten its identity. It's not a building, meeting times, or popular pastors. We dedicate far too many resources to building plans and other overhead. Our identity as members of the church of Jesus should be evident by our love. People have stopped going to and needing the American Church, not because the Gospel is no longer relevant or because they "don't need it," but simply because we, including pastors, have withdrawn our love. We can no longer rely on steady attendance due to our heritage as a "Christian" nation. America is now a mission field. How do missionaries share the Gospel in foreign lands? They translate it--with love.

For further insight into "unchurched Christians," read "Revolution," by George Barna. He identifies a growing segment of the population who are passionate about following Christ, but find (as I have) the institutional church (IC) to be largely irrelevant in that pursuit. Many of us are saddened by the priority given by the IC to self-preservation rather than the propogation of the gospel.

What passes for ecclesiology has become fixed on preserving the church (small c) as an institution rather than building a Church (capital C) of authentic Christ-following believers. Barna's research reveals the IC's utter evangelical ineffectiveness, and, tragically, it's general refusal to capitulate to the idea of ministry that isn't somehow tied to a local church, despite demonstrable success.

"Thinking outside the box" works sometimes, but many of us wonder why the box is there to begin with.

I feel sorry for those who seem to have such a miserable experience at their churches. I have been a church member for over 40 years and I just love it. Sure, I have seen my share of church fights, problems and lukewarmness and all those things, but invariably the benefits have far outweighed the negatives.
Much of the discussion seems very near-sighted to me. Surely the Christian life is more than what I can get out of it. There is much more to church than having my needs met. For instance, what about the passing on of pure doctrine? It is the church that has handed down this doctrine to us. In my experience, small Bible groups, if not vitally connected to a local church, are rife with half-truths, shallowness, old wives' tales, and the like.
Was it not the larger church in the New Testament who handled questions of doctrine, discipline, works of charity, the sending of missionaries, etc.?
We must be careful not to let personal feelings of frustration destroy something, which despite its imperfections, has had a great impact in this world. If we become a conglomeration of small groups who will do the larger works?

We all need the Church.
I am a Pastor who served in a large inner city Church.
Fed up with the politics, and Spiritual theatrics, I left, and my family moved to an isolated area of the Mojave Desert.
There I was so far from the Church that I believed had become useless to me.

Ten years in this location, I have prayed for my unsaved neighbors, and their families.
I have counseled marriages, visited their son's in jail.
In this age, many will not come into a Church building, yet they flock to our house like bees for encouragement in their pain, children visit our children,they come for a hearty meal, and tell our children how they wish they could stay with our family.
No steeple, no organ, or a VBS program,People are hurting, and God has proven that where there are two or three gathered in His name, Jesus is there.

If our focus has become cloudy about the Church, I truly believe that we are building Churches with a worldly veiw, The bigger, the better, the more we flash, the greater the cash.
We may impress the world with our Capital campaigns, We may even see our Pastors on the cover of Business Weekly, And for some this is a blessing I suppose, Yet for me, I believed that I did not need the Church, until God revealed how much I, and the world so deeply need the Church. The world does not get edified by our wealth,and our super domed edifices, but they yearn to be healed by seeing our wounds, and knowing the power of the Holy Spirit.