Good observations Frank. Making the transition from a more institutional form of church toward simple/organic churches, I've been tempted early on to imagine that internet "fellowship" is a replacement, and I agree with your observations. It's a wonderful supplement but it's not the equivilent of actual presence and interaction with fellow believers.

Well said.

My own experience talking with people with a "postchurch" view would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really care. They've found great freedom in not really worrying too much about what Paul wrote. They have some mixture of old ideas from their institutional background and their new structure-less experience, but their own sense of freedom allows them to choose what they consider important and what is not. And Jesus just becomes a justification for whatever other cause they want to hold onto, including political and social issues.

Meanwhile, traditional Christians hold onto the institution and hierarchical leadership structures, regardless of what Paul wrote, too. But Frank has written plenty in that regard already. :)

Interested in more elaboration on your final comment - "Again, there's nothing wrong with fellowshipping with Christians on the Internet, over the phone, or meeting with friends at Starbucks. I personally love doing these things. But calling these activities "church" or substituting them for ekklesia is misguided."

If we regularly meet together at a specificied location for Christian fellowship, even at a Starbucks, how can that not be considered a local "church"?

This sounds similar to opponents of so-called "house churches" who would suggest that if you worship outside of religious building called a "church", you are not really meeting together for "church".

Also, your assessment is focused on local assemblies of the Ekklesia. What is your take on scriptures where ekklesia is used in a broader, more universal sense?

Justin, if a group of believers lives like an extended household (authentic community) in a locality during the week and they all gather together regularly to express the riches of Jesus Christ in His fullness together (which includes sharing, singing, etc.) at Starbucks (if that's even possible), then that community would NOT fit into the "postchurch" category. Please read the entire two-part article in context to see how I'm defining/describing postchurch. It's not about the meeting location.

On your other question, I agree with NT scholar Robert Banks (see "Paul's Idea of Community") that the NT doesn't envision a "universal" church scattered about all over the world. Rather, the NT sometimes uses the word "ekklesia" to describe the body of Christ *assembled together* in heavenly places. So in that larger, spiritual usage (a la, Ephesians 1), "ekklesia" is still describing an assembled community.

Most of the time, however, the NT uses the word "ekklesia" to refer to a local assembly/community of believers. With which, methinks the postchurch perspective doth not fit :-)

Hey Frank,

I read "Pagan Christianity?" and it really stirred up a desire to experience this organic church that you talk about. I have begun to read "Reimagining Church" and the letters in the beginning just added to that desire.
I saw the info that you are having the American Church Life Event in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make that. I don't want to just stumble upon a "house church". Is there any way that I can find an organic church in my area?

Thanks!

Frank,

Great post(s)! I agree fully. But I'd like to suggest that the argument needs to be completed by answering the question - what exactly is the ekklesia doing when it meets on a regular basis? There are a number of groups that meet tangibly, visibly, and regularly for "fellowship" and encouragement that are not doing church (lodges, rotary clubs, book clubs, etc). So what makes the regularly gathering community a church? I would suggest that it's worship in word and sacrament. Or Acts 2:42 - teaching, breaking of bread, koinonia, prayer. The gathering for worship of the trinitarian God is what makes the gathered community a Church. I would suggest that bit is needed to complete your argument.

It seems that the post-church viewpoint is a symptom of something else. It is easy to blame it on our culture that is centered on self, however, local churches must accept their share of the blame. Those who consider themselves post-church are seeking something that is missing from the typical church experience... relationship. it seems that churches should be in the relationship business but their ineffectiveness in that area is partly to blame for driving followers of Christ to seek each other out in coffee shops and on the internet.

Eric, I'd say it's the building together of living stones that makes a gathering group an ekklesia. Groups can meet, groups can worship, groups can hear teaching, and groups can partake in sacraments, all without being built together.

Derek - How else are the living stones built together then through worship (i.e. the gathering together around the Word and table)? Sure, it's also the working of the Holy Spirit, but I'd say it's the Holy Spirit working through the gathering together for worship that builds the living stones together. The primary thing that the church does is worship and everything else flows out of that encounter with God. Otherwise the church is just another self-focused support group.

Eric, when Jesus told his disciples to train others in "this way of life," he wasn't simply instructing them to sing songs, preach, lead Bible studies, or even baptize them and partake in communion together. Jesus showed them how to live centered on the kingdom of God - as Frank would say, by divine life - He spent years living life with them every day. It's far more than simply meeting for worship.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it is easy to focus on the elements of what a church does when gathering and lose sight of the purpose of what the church was designed to fulfill. The fact is, most churches that worship, preach, partake of sacraments, etc., are not all that distinguishable from the rotary club - and most non-Christians fully understand this and want nothing to do with Christ (or at least any church) as a result.

Having activities is not what makes a group of Christians an ekklesia. Having Christ in a position of full authority, and having a group reveal Him through divine life, by the building together of individuals into a corporate body, is.

I think Frank is probably right when he says that the post-church idea is sub-biblical and theologically problematic. Like so many issues, we need to go beneath the surface of the "post-church" crowd's comments and think about what the deeper issues here are. One particularly "post-church" person I know emphasizes that he does "church" at his work and in his relationships. I don't really buy that, but I don't really buy that different understandings of church are the real issue.

Back in Paul's day, I think it was safer to be in the church as a Christian than not. You were cut off from your neighbors, and the Christian community was all you had. Today, the situation is nearly reversed. Churches can be very dangerous places. There are theological police, moral police, traditional police, ect. And yet, the message we tell people is, "Don't put a mask on at church. Be your real self." Phooey. Church is often designed to be the kind of place where a mask (or even multiple masks) are a necessary part of business. Almost everyone I know that is "post-church" has a story about being deeply betrayed by the church, often at their point of greatest need, or greatest weakness.

Of course, the church has betrayed people from its inception, since it is composed of sinful people. But there is a significant amount of anxiety currently among evangelical churches about the state of our country and our churches. Check the comments on many of the articles on this very website. When an individual's moral or theological error is identified with "The Problem", and we all have our favorite targets, we have a tendency to offer significantly less grace and mercy to them. Then these people, whose need for belonging is fundamental, naturally begin to cultivate their own networks of people who will accept them, and they begin to call this church.

Therefore, if we want to understand the "post-church" crowd, I think we need to ask good questions about what makes them see church this way. We need to go more personal and pastoral. If we simply attempt to theologically attack their formulations, we may end up confirming their suspicions about churches, leading them to question our motives and turn a deaf ear towards us. We need to understand how profoundly frustrated these folks are with real Christian communities, and ask why they struggle to find a place in them. Then as we learn from them, and God challenges us to repent through their voice, we will have built the trust to be able to challenge them to take their place in the body of Christ, which is lacking without them.

Eric, true dat. We agree. The article is by no means a complete argument as your specific question is beyond the scope of the piece and the word limit prevents further discussion. On that score, I'm happy that the editors were willing to break the piece up into two parts as it would have been even more incomplete if only one part was published.

Your specific question opens up another universe, however, which I address extensively in my books. Suffice it to say that I believe the "ekklesia" exists for something far beyond worship, as an *individual* can worship anywhere at anytime ... and according to Paul in Romans 12:1, worship is to be the believer's lifestyle, not something restricted to a Christian gathering.

T.J., I so appreciate your sensitivity in taking a pastoral/personal approach to this issue. Your instincts are correct. I have friends who are in the postchurch camp. Some of them have deep-seated wounds that they incurred in institutional churches. Others in house churches. Thus postchurch is much safer for them. However, for many others, it's not an emotional reaction. It's rather a viewpoint rooted in a mesh between Western individualism (which is rampant in contemporary Christianity) and what I believe to be a flawed understanding of the ekklesia.

I'm a person who stands outside the world of what many call "institutional Christianity," so I agree with many of the critical observations that postchurch people make against that form of church. Where we disagree, however, is in the solution.

All told, at the heart of the postchurch perspective (I believe) is a desire for relationships and intimacy without commitment.

Our perception of the so-called "post-church" may change, after we read James Fowler's "Stages of Faith." Here's an excerpt:

"Stage 6 is exceedingly rare. The persons best described by it....are 'contagious' in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world...are experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance...die at the hands of those whom they hope to change...are often more honored and revered after death than during their lives...have a special grace that makes them seem more lucid, more simple, and yet somehow more fully human than the rest of us. Their community is universal in extent...ready for fellowship with persons...from any other faith tradition."

Here's another excerpt the essence of which is more familiar:

"Stage 2 Mythic-Literal faith...begins to take on for him- or herself the stories, beliefs and observances that symbolize belonging to his or her community. Beliefs are appropriated with literal interpretations, as are moral rules and attitudes. Symbols are taken as one-dimensional and literal in meaning...They can be affected deeply and powerfully by symbolic and dramatic materials and can describe in endlessly detailed narrative what has occurred. They do not, however, step back from the flow of stories to formulate reflective, conceptual meanings. For this stage the meaning is both carried and 'trapped' in the narrative."

The bone of contention: It is not so much about what is happening in the body of Christ today, but what is happening in the body and mind of the Christian in the course of his or her spiritual growth.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." John 3:8

I tend to agree with you here Frank. I found postchurch essential for surviving my darker chruch days, but its not church. That has implications for how we go about moving forward.

Ecclesiology of Scattered Relationships

Thankyou Frank for clearly outlining this dangerous "postchurch" ecclesiology.

We have seen it to be destructive in that it promotes a practice of church that is so "free" and without borders that the picture you get of such a church is not of a beautiful spiritual house with clear structure - a door, roof and windows, built up with living stones but rather a picture of a heap of loosely connected stones randomly scattered all over the show!

A heap of stones is not what He had in mind! A church that is built up of loose connections lacks the cement of love that binds the walls together in the house of God –and yes the church has walls! Not much one anothering can happen in such a mystical and free "church" … This is not the glorius church at all!

In my own desperation in trying to understand this doctrine that sounds so good and so "free" it is hard to refute it because it sounds so right. I found the best way I could describe (it in the version we have been confronted with) is an "ecclesiolgy of scattered relationships".

Because the doctrine focuses on your "freedom in Christ" and your individual relationships with believers it is very attractive but the divine plumbline (Zechariah 4:10) is once again forced away from dead centre since in eagerness to avoid institutional excesses of control you end up going too far with "freedom" and land up in error ...

Thanks Frank for showing this so clearly scripturally, it is very necessary and we should not allow this doctrine to gain popularity and be mute to its destructive influence. This teaching should be rebuffed because the consequences of those following it is spiritual undernourishment and ultimately a weak expression of the church to the world. Bless you.

This cafeteria style approach to church and Christianity is everywhere.

Im not really shocked anymore since I hear people leading others to Christ through the internet, TV church, virtual church, bible studies and the like.

Question: Frank, can you give some examples of this organic church you talk about? Where have you seen it? The most authentic expression I have seen is not in the West.

Interesting argument Frank. Unfortunately its application amounts to legalism. Legalism uses guilt and intimidation to force people to do something they don't believe is right or true. I cannot speak for others, but this is why my wife and I left the "church". It is not becuase we were hurt by people in the church (we were, but hurting and being hurt is part of relationships, my wife and I have even been known to hurt each other!) it is because our growth in Christ led us to question things the leadership did and taught. Our first pastor told us to check everything he said against the Bible, and this we took to heart. In our niatevety we thought that our questions would be met with respect and that good theological discussion would follow and things would change as we searched the TRUTH for truth. That's not what happened. Some leaders were more open to challenge than others, but all made it clear that maintaining the "church", and our submission to the "church" was more important than searching Christ for his truth.Your argument leads us to the same place: submission is more important than truth. I disagree. If you want people like me in your community then you are wasting your time trying to coerce us through theological arguments. Instead treat us with respect as fellow Christians who just might be right, and we might find ourselves in community together after all.

In Christ,

Michael

Prophetik Soul, only have a sec. In answer to your question, examples and stories are given in "Reimagining Church" and "The Church After God's Own Heart" (CD). You can also check our website and click on the "Organic Church Described" link. Parts I and II contain testimonies from members of such churches, sharing their experience briefly.

My coworkers and I are in touch with a number of authentic organic expressions of the church throughout the U.S. and in a number of other countries. If you are interested in knowing if one exists in your particular city, feel free to send an email to the website at the end of the article, the contact page, to inquire.

As you read those testimonies, one of the discoveries made is that a major hallmark of organic church life -- which is essentially when a group of people learn to live by Christ *together* -- is freedom. The liberty in Christ that comes from yielding to His Lordship. And liberty is very different from legalism on the one hand and libertinism (license) on the other. Many blessings.

Both of these articles are very interesting, and I appreciate your work very much Frank. I also downloaded "Reimagining Church" and am enjoying that read as well.

However, I want to try to be a positive voice for the postchurch position, both by offering a few "push-backs", and trying to explain a bit more my postchurch perspective.

First, one of your primary biblical arguments is that 1st cent. churches were specific locations, evidenced by the letters written to such churches. However, these letters were also distributed amongst many Christians, passed along, and even James writes to the tribes "scattered abroad." While it's true Paul's letters were written to specific churches, these are not the full extent of Christian community in the 1st cent.

Second, (and IMO this is a big problem), we should not be striving to reproduce *exactly* the 1st cent. church. I'm pretty sure you would agree, and for the most part you avoid that argument, but I feel like when you make these parallels and comparisons regarding location to a 1st cent. community when travel, communication, etc. was totally different, you are being silly. Community in the 21st cent. can look very different and still be community.

Third, if we are to take the 1st cent. church as our model, then we would need more authoritarian apostolic leaders functioning as Paul and Peter did. The basis of the NT epistles are Paul writing to correct what he saw as mistakes in the churches, and then Christians took these words as normative. Should we appoint similar leaders amongst organic churches and give them such authority?

Fourth, the "consistency" "one another" and "purpose" tests may apply to some church situations (post, institutional or organic), it is a broad and unfair claim to say all postchurch examples fail these tests.

To me, postchurch does not mean "against" or "no more" church, but rather moving "beyond" church, recognizing that church is not where the Christian primarily lives out his/her Christian walk. God's people are living and functioning as his body in many different ways throughout the week, and not only in a specific, local, gathered setting. That *may* be part of it, but isn't necessary and *certainly* is not the extent. This is my biggest complaint with any church model: It purports that this particular model (whatever is en vogue) is the highest example of God's life. Rather, all of life (break the sacred/secular divide) is the highest example of God. Following the incarnation, believing that God's presence is everywhere, and striving to exemplify Christ at all times in all places leads me to be postchurch - moving beyond church into the rest of my life.

Two final, specific points: One, I am astonished, Frank, that you would say you do not believe the NT teaches a universal church of believers. This is a core Christian teaching and for you to seemingly deny that is a big deal. Perhaps I misread your response to Justin above; if so please clarify.

Second, I have yet to see in your book or your blog posts specific examples of the "postchurch" perspective you are critiquing. More than anything, it seems to me you are talking about a select number of individuals you know personally, but without any source material how can you discredit the perspective? Please offer websites, books or individuals who are official proponents of the postchurch perspective.

Thanks again - and peace.

There are followers of Christ exemplifying a more authentic life of Christ in the Institutional church than the organic, and visa versa. That's not the point.

It's like the song says, "Home is where the heart is, it's where we started, it's where we belong."

It was the empowerment the early church had that was usurped by Rome, and foiled the power of the church by removing it from the home and placing it in impersonal environments where there is little transparency, relational development, or penetration and transformation of the culture.

The need today is to lead ALL to take HOLD of that which Christ took hold of us, to take ownership of the responsibility vessel through which He pours out His life.

They, those in the early church were "weak", mostly illiterate, without efficient means, and yet were transforming the culture in the midst of athe Roman Empire, who despised the Revolution taking place in their midst. Rome moved in, and took it over with legalism and unlimited financial resources.

God uses the "simple" to confound the "wise". Hmm...the "Simple Church", (the home church 'movement'), confusing the "wise", those from seminaries, the institutional structures built after Rome's invasion into the SIMPLICITY of the early church.

Wolfgang Simpson, a Home Church leader says, "As God is in the business of recapturing the homes, the church turns back to its roots, back to where it came from. It literally comes home, completing the circle of Church history at the end of world history."

This quote leads us to something deeper - the belief we are at the end of world history. We should look deep at the culture, the unrestrained corruption of sinful humanity as never before seen, and the church with little power or transformation.

Is there any doubt. God is leading the church back home. It's where the heart is. It's where we started. It's where we belong.

The IC will not be able to stand the pressure it is under for much longer. It is going to fall like a house of cards. It is built around performance. It is built around rhetorical oratory, pastor worship, and worse, it is grown from Roman, pagan roots.

We are at the end of world history, and Christ's return is closer at hand than any of us could ever imagine.

Jesse -- You raise some good points. I would like to respond briefly to some of them.

First, while it is true that the NT letters circulated beyond the original locale, the point remains that the NT letters assume believers will be in committed relationships in the area where they live. There were times when Christians were on the run, or forced to move, but the assumption is that such folks would settle down somewhere & be in fellowship with others. Aquilla & Priscilla are examples of people who moved several places as the Lord led, and then had "ekklesia in their home."

As to your observation about community looking very different in the 21st century, that is certainly true, but it is still the case that some NT contours will remain constant in all centuries. The DNA of the ekklesia blossoms in line with some basics in all eras of history. For example, the 58 'one-anothers' in the NT assume deepening relationships in the setting where you live. How can we bear one another's burdens without the context of ongoing relationships? How can an issue be "taken to the ekklesia" without the reality of a committed group? How much sense does my responsibility to be longsuffering with you make if I only see you 5 times a year?

Regarding your statements about the need for apostolic leadership -- all ekklesias have access to the apostles' teachings in the NT. There are mature gifts in the body today that can help ekklesias with concerns, but the reference point is still the original apostolic guidelines in the NT. There are no positions of authority in the ekklesia, only functions of servanthood at the bottom of the ladder (Matt.20:25-28).

Of course, any problem can occur in several contexts -- institutional or organic or whatever. But I think Frank's contention that the post-church practice fails these tests is nevertheless a valid observation. I think we all agree that "worship is all of life." But the NT assumes that the Christian life will be lived out among the brethren in a geographical setting. When Paul begins to talk about "the worthy walk" in Eph.4, he starts with life in the Body -- longsuffering & forbearing with one another, etc. Eph.3:10 teaches that "through the ekklesia" the manifold wisdom of God is to be revealed to a watching world and the watching heavenly powers. He apparently has ordained for this reality to come to expression through committed groups of believers that can model a new paradigm -- a dynamic context where issues can be resolved and disputes settled (Matt.18:15-18; 1 Cor.5 & 6).

Frank's main point about the word 'ekklesia' in the NT is that the bulk of the time it refers to a concrete manifestation of Christ's body connected to a geographical reference point. Christ builds his ekklesia in places all over the world, not in some generic, a-geographical manner. Again, Eph.3:10 assumes a living expression of God's wisdom through Christians functioning in places like Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Los Angeles, and New Orleans.

Examples of post-church thinking abound. Here is one I received the other day from an e-columnist -- "I love my computer because there is where my congregation assembles."

Frank,
These are two of the better posts on Ur in a long while. Thanks for the clear and compelling thoughts. Well done.

I appreciate all the great comments, challenges, and questions. Very thought-provoking. One of my favorite texts in the Bible is "we know in part." I think this is especially true as it relates to the church. We're all learning on this journey into God's heart for the church, putting our parts together to try and see the whole. So I'm very thankful for the dialogue and the push-back questions. I'm going to be out of pocket for a while so I won't be able to follow this conversation very closely here. Therefore, if you would like to dialogue with me further or have any specific questions you'd like me to answer, please feel free to email me at violabooks@aol.com. I'm quite accessible that way.

Yours in the Lamb,
Frank.

This article was very timely, helpfully giving me language for some checks I've felt in my heart as I engage in conversations with others about church. I'm grateful.

Frank,
I read this and agree with you on some levels, but on other levels I am nervous. I just visited an organic church, an intentional community, where the themes of commitment and community ran so high that it was actually oppressive. To be part of their church you had to take a vow (!?!?) to be part of that church and everything it does for the rest of your life. While I applaud these peoples' dedication to the eternal purpose and so forth, and overall the church was very alive and functional, it really was a bit frightening that there was little room for the Holy Spirit to lead anyone in any direction that didn't completely revolve around the activities of that church.
I very much dislike the word "commitment." Was it Wayne Jacobsen who years ago pointed out that it is missing from the NT? I myself would prefer the word "devotion" and "devoted" which is more represented in the book of Acts, yet seems to have a slightly different overtone than "commitment." When people talk about commitment they seem less heart-focused to me than if they talk about devotion.

And the fact is, even in the NT, while there were visible, tangible groups of believers meeting here and there, no one talked about being committed "to the group" as a whole, but rather being devoted, "to one another." Philip, being "devoted" to his brothers and sisters, could still easily be "led by the spirit into the wilderness..." and no one would question whether or not he was still part of the church.. (who sent him? did anyone sign off on it? did he make sure he was functioning in harmony with the rest of the believers first? no...but he could come and go as the Lord directed and still not be unattached to the body...)

There's a slightly different vibe then between our fears about loss of commitment and the altogether never mentioned Biblical call to devotion.....but the distinction there is one that I think makes a huge difference when it comes to describing the type of freedom and fervent love we are called to walk in relative to the rest of the church - both freedom and true knitting together elements expressed at the same time...

Just some thoughts...

Frank,
Great observations. My next question, however is: How many existing churches - traditional churches could pass a "church" test?

Many of the "one anothers" don't exist.

More importantly, we err when we use "Ecclesia" as the measuring stick towards church "success". Names do not equal purpose.

The church was not created to "Gather", It was, however, called to gather for a purpose... Many traditional churches need to revisit the reason they gather together from a Biblical perspective and find those areas that are missing.

If only one spiritual gift within a body of believers is being used, can it really be called a church - at least from a Biblical definition of what is supposed to be going on there?

Great thought provoking stuff!

Peace! ;)

http://missionalreformation.wordpress.com

Frank,
You seem to be missing the actual point, and that is that in every traditional/house/organic church people try to be apart of, they find the same mixed gospel message.

The problem is not the form, it's the mixed message of law and grace!

We need to stop arguing about what 'form' is correct and start talking about the actual problem. 'What is the gospel? Is it a mixed coveanant of law and grace, or is it a new covenant of grace founded on the perfect finished work of Christ upon the cross?

This is the very question that the early church Apostles, elders and leaders came together to discuss in the council of Jerusalem - we need another council of Jerusalem for today.

Frank,

This article makes good points but I am concerned it may be misleading. You start the article by stating, "Alongside of the missional church movement, the emerging church movement, and the house church movement, there is a mode of thinking that I call "postchurch Christianity."

You didn't mention "alongside megachurches or seeker-sensitive churches" so it gives the impression that you are closely associating post-church Christianity with missional, emerging or house church. That may not have been your intention, but it is the impression I got as I was reading it.

I was just having a conversation with someone who was very skeptical of house churches for the very reasons you give for post-church Christianity. The problem is I have been in both emerging churches and a house church and they are nothing like what you describe here for post-church Christianity. It gets tiring having to justify my involvement in a house church because of stereotypes that go around like this.

I have been part of a house church for the past three years. We have a leadership council structure, are very connected with other churches/pastors in the area, committed to one another--much more so than the megachurches I have spent my life in. There is more accountability and fellowship than I have ever had anywhere else.

We are not a disgruntled group of renegades running away from the Church. We simply found it easier to practice forgiving one another, bearing each others burdens etc when we actually were small and intimate enough to truly know each other. We also felt our money could be spent for better local causes than bills for a building. And we value intergenerational fellowship which is hard to find in segregated larger churches. We are a network of house churches so we continue to grow while also maintaining intimacy. And we are very involved in reaching out to our local community. Its more like 1st century church than anything else I have experienced.