I'm not sure it's accurate to wrap up all "postchurch" thinking and say it's "primarily" based on Matthew 18. To take a few actual quotes and apply them to all is setting up stawmen. Creating mere argumentation is destracting from true one another dialogue. Is "where two or more are gathered" a church? It's part of it. If this text tells us "ekklesia is an organic entity where a group of committed believers in a locality", then there are some key seeds to the definition here. It is less far fetched than to suggest "preach the word..." means line up the saints in pews for a lecture by a hired expert.

I had a very good friend who used to be pretty sold out for Christ. We met in college. After about a year or two, he started think like these guys you described in your article. He pretty much thought that hanging out with another Christian would be just as good, if not better, than going to an organized church. Now I believe he has starved himself spiritually by not going to an organized Bible Studies, Worship, etc. Thank you for sharing.

The ekklesia is a community of worshipers. There is a reason why liturgy developed very rapidly in the history of the church... The church is more than a social gathering, a bible study, or a group of people with common interests. Rejecting the idea of visible, collective worship, with its symbolism, unity, and richness, is simply the logical end of the road that rejects the idea of sacraments.

You're on the right track in your exegesis.

Wow- never thought I'd say this, but... I agree Frank! :)

Stunned... reeling... finding myself in agreement with Frank Viola... :-)

Thanks for the post.

i hate it when people use the "two or three gathered line" for pretty much anything other than understanding that, in context, that statement is about Jesus' commitment that his presence is active and real in the midst of the process of restorative church discipline that seeks to widen the circle of knowledge about sin in a deliberate way to pastorally induce the wayward to repent and reconcile to the community of God, and to God.

ugh.

it's not about the promise of God's presence when christians happen to be around each other and do something "spiritual"...

C.S. Lewis quote:

"The devil always sends error into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them."

In discussions on the book Pagan Christianity? I've run into many people that have swung the pendulum way too far the other way in their thinking. When it is said that "Pastor is not an office, but a function," they say "Are you saying there shouldn't be pastors?" When it is said that "The church is a non-hierarchical organism," they say "Are you saying there shouldn't be leadership?"

Regrettably, this error is due to our reactionary nature. But, may God give us the wisdom and love to carefully nurture mindsets into the mindset of Christ.

Perhaps those in the noted post-church comments are simply re-booting their hard drive (ex. getting back to the centrality of Jesus), but just dont realize that post-church is not the end result. I would be surprised if growing people dont go through a questioning period about church. I believe that if ekklesia has trusted whole, yet human of course, facilitators people will be drawn in such a way that coffee will seem less important. Gods people need to know where to go when it is time to go home. Thanks Frank.

The folks i know who use the "two or three equals church" argument aren't really trying to make a theological statement. They're trying to evade the responsibility God put on us Christians to love one another. It's easy to love two or three highly select individuals; it's a lot harder to love 50 to 1,000 people, many of whom aren't all that loveable. It's easy to love the two or three in an informal (and unplanned!) setting of your own choosing; it's harder to love them when you have to rise early on the one day a week you have off.

People in college used to use the excuse that chapel counted as church; it contained "two or three" at least. They worshipped; they heard a sermon; that counted as church. "So if you were to meet someone outside the school," I pointed out to them, "could they join your 'church'? Can you get them discipled? Baptized?" If your mini-"church" can't (and doesn't, and won't) perform the practical functions of the church, it isn't one.

I think Dominique (and C.S. Lewis) are onto something. Newton's laws of motion come to mind - perhaps the reaction is wrong, but to be expected as equally opposite in direction...

I really appreciate that Frank is putting the Matt. 18 passage in context. As other comments have pointed out, the phrase "wherever two or three are gathered" is often thrown about as an ecclessiological "pat on the back."

However, my immediate reaction is to strongly disagree with Frank's concluding statement that the postchurch viewpoint "cannot stand up against the light of the New Testament." Several thoughts:

1) What source are you basing your quotes on? Blogs? Books? Noted speakers of the postchurch viewpoint? I need some more substance to this article -

2) It is not necessary to have cut-and-dry, plain-and-simply NT texts that state the postchurch view. Rather, IMO coming to grips with the core tenets of the gospel and then going to most American churches on Sunday morning makes me think, "What the hell happened?" American church is a business model, a consumer culture and a sales pitch resulting in little transformation, community or connection to 21st cent. global life. I wouldn't look to Matt. 18 to claim the postchurch viewpoint - I would read the whole NT.

3) "Postchurch" could possibly be better understood as "re-church" or a new and broader understanding of what church is/should be, and a critique of what it is commonly understood to be now. I don't think Frank would disagree with that goal.

Looking forward to the follow-up post!!

Sorry, one more thing:

I just read a bit of Frank's stuff around the web, and I really like this article "What is Organic Church?" on http://www.reimaginingchurch.net/

How can you say, "organic church life is the 'experience' of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, it's the fellowship of the Triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings" but declare "postchurch" is not NT?

As I said....really looking forward to the second post! - peace

I agree its time to repent, its time for me to submit and to repent.

I think Frank is going to put a nail in the coffin on "post church" folks with a verse that says church is "primarily" being lined up in pews in a special building facing a pulpit hearing a lecture, and doing rituals that symbolize something, with zero interaction involved. Another nail will be the verse that says God is not present when one believer is by himself worshiping Christ as he works in the market place. Those two nails would reassure many folks regarding their current sense of faith.

Jesse -- I think your opening remarks confirm the need for Frank's analysis of "post-church" ideas. There is a lot of confusion floating around and some clarity can emerge if people think through the perspectives Frank is presenting.
Further, if you read "Reimagining Church," you will see how Frank clearly brings out the differences between organic, institutional and post-church paradigms.
The next installment of Frank's look at post-church will explain in more detail some of the serious problems with this viewpoint.
We have met many people who are practicing the post-church notions. In many cases they are over-reacting to rigid institutional structures and swinging over to "no gatherings, no nothing, just occasions spontaneous fellowship.

So they're neo-Puritans? Maybe I'm confused.

It appears that your very own quasi-co-author George Barna is the champion of the concept of which you now complain, Frank Viola.

His book 'Revolution' (2005, Tyndale) is about the millions of super-Christians who "have moved beyond the established church... and chosen to BE the church instead" -- that's according to the dust jacket.

Barna illustrates "just BE the church" from the beginning of the book by two Sunday morning golfers who have happily advanced beyond sit-down church and are now as happy as... pigs in slop.

Why not take it up with George?

JP, First, George is not the founder of this viewpoint and many who hold to it today have never read his book. Second, George's "Revolution" came out in 2005. Our joint-work "Pagan Christianity?" came out in 2008, three years later.

"Pagan Christianity?" is mostly a deconstructive work, however, when we discusse the alternative to the institutional form of church, the postchurch perspective is not in view nor endorsed. Instead, we present the *organic expression of the church* as the alternative, and it is unfolded in detail in the contructive follow-up "Reimagining Church."

The organic expression of the church and the postchurch perspective are two very different things. And as I've pointed out in "Pagan" and in other places, organic church should not be confused with "simple church" or "house church" either. Just because a group of Christians may gather in a home and call themselves a "church" doesn't make them an organic expression of the body of Christ.

I call the postchurch perspective "the convenient substitute" to both the institutional form of church and the organic expression of the church. Authentic organic churches are very strong on close-knit community (in a locale), a shared-life in Christ, and regular meetings to express the glories and riches of the Lord Jesus corporately. Furthermore, organic church life is a railroad track to the cross ... it's hardly convenient. Hope that helps.

From my vantage point, so much of this issue seems like an overreaction to something. I remember feeling this way in my 20s. Somewhere through experience and growth, I matured out of it. I attend an urban multiethnic, multiclass church. I always have and they are hard to find. A good bit of the folks live locally to enhance our presence in the community. I live nearby as well.

I highlight this issue because, as I have said in other posts, there's seem to be a tendency to overspiritualized the Book of Acts to the point where the idea of physical community is non-existent...OR...there is a tendency to be too legalistic about the Book of Acts to the point where physical community is idolized. I believe this is the result of two things: the impact of technology (virtual church, etc) and the decline of community (decline of traditional institutions; increased physical mobility).

There are those who elevate their virtual interaction to be on par with physical interaction and there are those who simply want to be with 2-3 folks and call it church.

Ultimately, my questions are:

1. Isnt physical community a foundational principle in the New Testament church?

2. How does the American church recover the idea of physical community when so many of us Christians arent willing to sacrifice for it?

I see in the postchurch quotes above much of the same expression I find in radical German Pietism. The extreme distrust of leadership, distrust of organization and questions about the viability of the visible church. There may be more similarities if one is willing to spend the time comparing the two.

Kevin

Prphetik Soul,

You ask:"1. Isnt physical community a foundational principle in the New Testament church?

2. How does the American church recover the idea of physical community when so many of us Christians arent willing to sacrifice for it?"

I think the main question is, what is the Church? And what is it supposed to be?

A physical local community? Yes.

In most churches today do we have that?

Perhaps in rural communities. But in most metropolian areas, I find people driving across town or the county to "worship" in a church of their choice. Is that local? And does that really foster community?

I think Watchman Nee had it right in his insistance that the church be local, and that one not leave his local church to be part of another in another neighborhood.

Part of what we see is from the change of society from a static community where people are born, live and die in the same geographical area, and a dynamic one where people are moving every couple of years. This affects our church communities as well.

I'm not sure in the face of the dynamism of our society that we can find the ideal of the church community as a local entity, but it is still the one I uphold.

With this dymanic of social fluctuation, it will take a sacrifice to build authentic Christian community. A sacrifice to stay and live with others, and not move for any reason.

Thanks Frank for the clarification. The knee-jerk reaction against institutional church should never be a knee-jerk reaction against Christ or God's eternal purpose to gather us in Christ. When the pendulum swings from a tightly controlled organisation to total disorganisation, the second error is as bad as the first. Commitment, obedience, sacrifice, faithfulness are not dirty words of the IC, but NT values that are as necessary in organic church. The difference is the focus of our devotion shifts from an organisation and human hierarchy in the IC to the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ in the OC. To miss this distinction is to fall through the cracks.

The word church is a 300+_ ad word for the building used by the believers to meet in. It literally is the house of the Lord. It thereafter becomes the chosen word for the institutions of the christian religion. In the translation of the scriptures this word, which bears no relation whatsoeer to Ekklesis, was forced on the translaters by the authorities of church and state. Tyndale gave his life for translating Ekklesia as congregation. Why do our modern translations have an unbiblical word which clearly is not in the greek. Ekklesia is not simply a single congrsgation when used by Jesus in Matthew,it refers to the reappropriation of the OT idea of the people of God or the congregation of God. Jesus once again is re-tuning the narrative to embrace His presence. In Him the community exists. I will build my Ekklesia is a direct transfer of ownership from the old to the new, just like when Jesus says where two or three are gathered in His name-He is repossessing the temple, where the presence dwelt. Now it is in Him.

This is spiritual narcissism and self-centered Western post-modernism. Try selling this latte laid back Christianity to Christians in China who gather together as house churches in defiance of anti-religious oppressive regimes.

This generation of arrogant, emergent, self-worshipers is no better than the people of Capernaum in Christ's day. As He said it all too plainly, "even Sodom and Gomorrah will rise up and judge this generation."

Frank!

Very proud of you with this article! Very cool! And right. And biblical. And what Jesus meant. Jesus loves His church.

Dan

Hi Frank:

Thanks for voicing those things which the entire body of Christ needs to hear. I agree with you that there is no excuse for the assembly of the saints of God. In this day & age the local expression of believers must be re-defined due to modern age travel.

Frank, the problem seems to arise when one starts to label oneself as something. Whenever on says I AM this or that as in a church going Christian or a post church Christian or an organic Christian or whatever, one has put a label on oneself and created a box. This box then defines me as much as it defines others whom I determine are outside my box. These days I don't call myself anything at all. For some time now I have been contemplating the name of God, that name that is translated as I AM that I AM. How do I define that name? Can I fit it into a box? Can I label it as something versus another thing? Now, if this is the name above all names and it can't be reduced to a thing, an entity or an ism, then why would I want to do that to myself if indeed I AM created in the image of my creator the one who bears the name I AM that I AM?

Is it just me... are you a victim of the same kind of unhelpful Christian stuff I am... are you in a church that you'd prefer to be out of? I dislike some of the people I'm in church with... I dislike the discomfort of people getting to know me and knowing what I'm really like... I dislike the things people close to me say to me sometimes... I know I can behave stupidly sometimes but I don't like people telling em that or expecting that to change... I've always been like that...

I dislike this whole authentic Christianity gig... I'd rather play biblical roulette and pull a verse out at random (well choose the ones I reckon give me license and pretend it's a random thing!) that gives me an excuse to do what I do like... I'd rather just casually talk to believing people in the pub or on the phone, I don't want it to get too real...

I want to keep on doing the things I like to do because the things that I like to do will help me to remain the arrogant, bragging, sinful, lying, selfish brat that I am... that's what I'd like and this whole postchurch idea sounds like just the thing...

... but hey I'm the pastor... !@#$

Ekklesia means, literally, "called out ones" yet here we go in this article turning it again into a thing or something we do. Both the post modern people and this article are wrong. You can not "have the called out ones" and Jesus isn't talking about a "local called out ones", neither statement makes any sense. What Jesus is saying is "tell it to the called out ones". It's that simple. He doesn't say this because they are all part of a thing named "The Called Out Ones" but because He knew that His Life within us would draw us into relationship with one another. All who know Him are the Ekklesia, what we need is not to redefine the meaning of Ekklesia into a thing or something we do, but to learn to live as who we are.

I have one question for all including Frank!

Why do we look to all these men and their writings as final authority, or the end all be all of God and His Bride?

What happened to HIS Word, Or His Spirit that brings us into the knowledge of ALL truth? Why are we so afraid of bringing the Body of Christ back to the very beginnings, as in ACTS? We are prideful and selfish, that is why! We are not willing to give up that which we feel we have earned, learned, and acquired for ourselves, and very unwilling to share it with others! We have nothing in common, not one accord! And we wonder where is God, and if a goose bump means He is present! May I submit, that if the HOLY LIVING GOD is present, all would be on their face, just as they were at Mt. Sanai!

Let us read the words of Christ in Revelation and return to our first love and Passion, Yeshua of Nazareth!!!
it would behoove us and the world!!!

I just want to say thanks for tackling this hot and difficult topic, especially the oft misrepresented and misused understanding of "where two or three are gathered." Crazy things start happening when the Word of God is taken out of context and twisted to the devices of men.

If "telling it to the church" doesn't mean "tell it to the church," then why would "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them" really mean what it says?" Either the Bible is 100% true or it is false and we have no hope. If you can only believe parts of it, how do you determine what parts to believe? Frank's beliefs sound really scary and anyone believing this should reexamine it against what the bible really says. It's sad and scary that everyone is being swept into this.

Amber,

I believe that you have totally misunderstood Frank's article. I think he is clearly saying that he DOES believe that Jesus meant exactly what He said about "telling it to the church". That is the whole point. It doesn't make sense that the 2 or 3 are the church if they are the ones telling it to the church. Get it?

The condemnation in the tone of alot of the comments here helps to re-affirm my post-church experience.

Every person I know who is post-church wants to be in authentic Christian community they just find the current institutional churches more harming to their faith then enhancing.

I disagree that “tell it to the church” means going to the local denominational church.

One of the principles of exegisis is historical context. What did this passage mean to the original hearers? Did it mean go to the local denomination church? – no, because at that stage the church did not exist. The church began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

In Matthew 18 all you had was Jesus and the 12 disciples.

Jesus attempted to be involved in the local religious institution of the time – the synagogue but was thrown out (Luke 4). Then he spent most of his ministry in the market place or in peoples homes. Eg Samartian woman at the well (John 4), Rich young ruler (Luke 18), Eating at Zaccheus house (Luke 19).

Therefore people who share their faith, encourage, love one another at work, on public transport, at a restaurant is not necessarily unbiblical.

Remember the man in Mark 9 who was casting out demons but did not follow the twelve. Jesus said do not stop him.

When Paul was in prison was he not part of the church just because he didn’t attend a Sunday service and a mid week small group?

Salvation is by faith, not attendance or membership, and the Christian life consists on loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself.

I think Christians need a community, an ekklesia. For a while I was of the post-church mentality, and I think it was a reflex reaction after years of enduring spiritual abuse from my church. But I now realise that the period of churchlessness was beneficial for me. I needed to recover from the trauma, and for to rebuild my trust, to recentre my life on Christ instead of performance-oriented religion.

It also allowed me to restore myself - I have a lot of stuff in my personality and emotional life that is preventing me from being in a community - ESPECIALLY a community as flawed as the church's.

While although I do not advocate churchlessness for everyone, I think it's necessary for some.

WE shouldn't put God in a box when it comes to him dealing with his children. For me, being churchless was good. It saved my mind, literally.

But now I'm aware that I want to be in a community; and that I want to contribute to the community rather than lookat them askance and wonder what they can do for me.

This maturity and growth came from my years of being away from the church, believe it or not.

Michael said: "Now I believe he has starved himself spiritually by not going to an organized Bible Studies, Worship"

Being in church doesn't necessarily mean you'll be fed spiritually. I did all the right things once upon a time, and was still spiritually starved because the church was feeding me the kind of "food" that you'd call "junk food". Prosperity gospel stuff, some even outright cult-like nonsense.

On the other hand, when I was a much younger Christian, just starting out, the church was invaluable in feeding me what I needed to grow mature. However, after a time I needed more and it couldn't give me the nourishment anymore.

Of course the role of the pastor is to ensure that the Christian is taught so that he can mature. Unfortunately, most churches seem to KEEP the folks in there spiritually mature. The more spiritually mature folk are thus forced to listen to sermons catered to young Christians most of the time - what are these people to do then?

This is the third year I'm out of the church, and I would say that being without a church or community has been both a relief and also a frustrating thing.

Frustrating because I do love being with other Christians; a relief because I just can't stand another week in the pew listening to sermons I've heard a thousand times before and going through the motions, pretending that I'm part of the community when I'm not, really.

Part of the blame is at my feet though. There's a special skill one needs to navigate the 21st century church. And boy do you need lots of maturity and patience for that...

Unfortunately, most churches seem to KEEP the folks in there spiritually mature.

I mean "spiritually immature". Apologies.

the post-church paradigm is obviously less necessary or attractive to those content in a traditional church expression.

for those of us who have encountered dysfunctional church after dysfunctional church or have a lesser tolerance for all of the cultural baggage that tends to get fused to the american churchgoing experience, it is affirming to know that god is wireless and continues to meet us creatively--outside of "the four walls", which are seldom ever the safe zone those invested in it believe it to be.

the barna study reveals that home church is the way of future. ladies and gentlemen, the external institution is passing away and we are returning to the underground.

see some of you there sooner and some of you later.

I think Frank Viola means post Catholic version of Church . Protestantism is no different . Different traditions different sacraments but same old sacramental structure to receive grace just with pretense . Begin with grace but made perfect with the works of the law .

Since epistles were sent to churches then the internet opens up the definition of what church is . letters can be sent through the internet . works just fine .

the church is best described in Ephesians 2:22 this is the invisible church . This is the church Christ builds and the gates of hell will not prevail against it .

But the physical location church doesn't even measure up to the standard of "Worshipping in Spirit and in truth" (let alone the being prevailed against) We've gone back to the mentality, We worship on Mount Samaria but you worship in the Temple at Jerusalem . and denominationalism is so Paul and Apollos when Christ died for us all .

The central location form of Church is actually very old testament . you have a temple and a priest of varying labels but same old same old .

"Post Church" Christianity is really the end of Brand Name Christianity . and perhaps the end of tolerating false teachings that are bundled in like that . there is more dialogue than in the lecture hall format .

Though i attend a central location form of ecclesia . i see the harder to nail down version (Jesus minus the corporation) the future of the faith .

Frank Viola is dangerously (and likely self-interestedly) quoting Matthew 18:20 out of context.

Jesus was, in Matthew 18, engaging in a time-honored rabbinical tradition: the linking of thoughts one to another, in a stream of consciousness--a common Hebraic poetry format. Examples can be seen in other parts of the scriptures, e.g., Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, or in ancient rabbinical literature. Thus, there is not necessarily an overarching “context” involved; one can do great mischief to the meaning of Jesus' words if they try to insert one.

Jesus starts his discussion with children and the Kingdom of God, then, picking up the children theme, expresses another thought: the abuse of children by evil doers, and what those evil doers ought to do with themselves (i.e., better to commit suicide than lead children astray). He then, picking up on the evil doer theme, discusses what one ought to do with evil in their lives (cut it out at all costs), He then mentions children again in the passage (don't despise them) and how he looks after all of them and us, His lost sheep. Then, picking up the evil doer theme again, He discusses what to do with those who do so in a church body context, how one ought to have two or three witnesses to confront them, then picking up on the two or three theme, how whatever we ask in the Father’s name will be given if two or three are in agreement, then, finally, again picking up the two/three theme, God is with us when we’re gathered in groups of two or three.

These are free-flowing thoughts, linked by by theme or common words–-again, very much a Hebraic poetry format–-but not by overall context, to try to do so does violence to the truths Jesus was conveying.

These truths are not linked in a pedantic manner, such that the last “two or three” reference in verse 20 need be related to church discipline, shepherds, sheep, evil doers, children, or suicide by drowning!

We need to take the text for what it is, understanding that Jesus was an easterner speaking to easterners. His ministry was not to the gentiles, and He most certainly did not speak to them or their mindsets. For several sterling examples of transcendent truths put into linear and deductive western thought, see the Pauline epistles; don’t try to order Jesus’ thoughts around western logic, you will almost invariably come to the wrong conclusions.

The question is...what is the church? According to the word it is Jerusalem above which is the mother of us all...the olive tree in which we are engrafted into by faith. It's not a gathering together of any kind in the natural...it is established in the spiritual through faith by God. Note: tares cannot exist in the true church since we are members by faith (only believers can abide). Local churches and denominations can contain tares as well as wheat since you can join without faith.

Does that mean that there is no place for organized churches? No...but I would challenge anyone to find a local church or denomination that operates the way Paul instructed in the bible. Do the people come together with a revelation, a psalm, tongues, and interpretation? Does spirit-led,God given prophecy take place so that each may be edified? Do the people encourage one another all the more as they see the day approaching? No...most churches have a praise and worship service and sit and listen to a Pastor give his sermon. The members rarely participate. Most organized churches are about the building of that church and the pastors vision...not about building the kingdom of God or about exhorting the people to continue in the faith...and many of them have become nothing more than social gatherings. As one who does actually continue to attend an organized local church I don't see how you can point the finger at those who have left as not following the word of God when the churches themselves don't follow the word of God either.