"Expectation meets disappointment."

Skye, for whatever it's worth, let me advise you now on this topic…give it up.

Don't get me wrong, I would loves me some perfect form of Church, but I've been around the block a few dozen times with a variety of Churches, home and other, and this is what I've come to conclude…humans, you, me, and the others reading this, are prone to institutionalizing, codifying, Constitutionalizing, Parlimentarlizing, and even Oligarchilizing, and Despotilizing our Churches.

We loves us some organizationalizing to the point where Engineers would nod approvingly, not because we're on the right tract, but because we have the right idea…we're just going about it wrong. Which does beg the question of whether we understand what Church is about at all?

We have thought of the Church like a Hospital, a University, a Rescue Ship, etc, etc, etc and I get the feeling we're really good at describing through the use of likenesses, but really haven't spent any amount of time thinking what exactly is the purpose of the Church?

Which is what I think you need to include in your thinking.

You need to define the parameters of what you think the church is for.

What is it's purpose?

What is it's final goal?

What is it's action plan to fulfill it's purpose to achieve that final goal?

And, I suspect, once you think that through you'll find that any church has the same purpose, goal, and action plan…it just has different modes of executing them.

In short, I think you are looking for the perfect church…and I'm going to let you know, it's out there, it exists, and you'll find it…I know I did, and you will want to join it, become part of it, contribute your efforts to it; And then you will discover what I, and what everyone else discovers when they find the perfect church…they, themselves, me, you, are the snake in that garden of perfection.

Isn't the church the body of Christ? The family of God?

Let's see, let's decide, every year, if we want to be the body of Christ again. Really?

Let's sit the family down and ask "do we want to do this family thing for another year? If not, let's forget it."

I'm not sure real, honest-to-goodness relationships work that way. But it's a wonderfully provocative idea, Skye. But not exactly what the body of Christ is all about.

Are you really saying that you wouldn't serve in leadership in a church until you find one that measures up to your standards?

I'm so glad Jesus doesn't think that way.

Skye, you raise good points. I'll be interested to see your other four ingredients.

I think the assumed impermanence approach would work especially well for programs within the church. Time and again I've seen programs, small groups and the like launch with great fanfare and promise, and then flame out because they outlived their season, or the team makeup changed so the original motivation was lost or forgotten.

It would be helpful for someone to develop a model of "stress indicators" churches might use to know when it's time to re-evaluate a program, etc. In some cases, these things may go on well for multiple years; in others, they may run their course a few months into the process. So we need some other way to close or end well.

I'm under no illusions here. I know the perfect church doesn't exist. And I think Bonhoeffer was right in "Life Together." We can't hold out for the ideal church to love, but we are called to love the church that actually is.

And I'm not saying I won't serve in a place unless it meets these 'ingredients.' I'm simply brainstorming ideas for a different model. And many of these ideas are particular to my location. I'm by no means trying to say these ideas should apply to all churches everywhere.

Skye

As one who is currently tied to the institutional church as a Methodist pastor and love it, I still find your idea very interesting. Oh course their could be short falls like lack of commitment like you mentioned, but I think at it's best it would get people asking the question where is God's will in what we are doing, rather that just assuming that it's to keep going. It also would be a time of intentionally renewed commitment to the mission of the church. And the mission would have to be intentional and known as well.
I really wish this sort of thing could happen on a smaller scale within the church, that people would ask, "should we do VBS again this year, why or why not?" rather than "so VBS is coming up again who will lead it?"

I think this model actively undermines the witness of God's faithfulness. "Hey neighborhood, we're here to serve at least until January; then we'll ask if we feel like doing it again."

I don't believe institutional permanence is a bad thing, but institutional stagnation is. If the structure becomes an end, rather than a means, there's a problem.

But good robust, institutional structures help avoid another pitfall of the contemporary American church: the cult of personality. In Bob Goff's case, the law practice is his work; if he ceases to practice law, his firm ceases to exist. Isn't that what we want to avoid in a church? When the office, the institution, the body, the family, is more important than any one person, then you acknowledge that this is really God's work, not the pastor's.

I'm sorry to say, I think the model you propose, Skye, is terribly flawed. But what Churches should be anything but fickle. I wouldn't want to hire a lawyer who may not be willing to work on my case if it runs longer than the end of the year. And I certainly wouldn't want to deeply involve myself in a church community that can't commit to longer than that.

Skye,

Excellent start to your recipe! I first heard Brian Tome ask the question, "Who says a church is supposed to go on forever?" (a church not The Church). It was a liberating thought that has led to where we are in our local church today. Culturally it's still a challenge as people are desperate for those traditional markers that say our "new" church has finally arrived. This is one that's worth living for and it makes every year an adventure.

Nate,

your concerns are well taken. But again, this is not supposed to be a universal prescription, but an idea relevant to my location where there are numerous, large, stable, institutional churches. If something like Church-365 were launched and 5 years later dissolved, the people, money, energy, and resources would not disappear from the community--they would just be redistributed and re-allocated to other outlets (other churches, programs, etc.)

And if there were a vital community ministry (say, a homeless shelter) started by the church, it could be it's own non-profit organization so that if Church-365 did end, that particularly ministry could continue.

I think there may be ways to embrace the value of institutional impermanence AND create stability of mission and service where needed.

Skye

"I'm under no illusions here. I know the perfect church doesn't exist. And I think Bonhoeffer was right in "Life Together." We can't hold out for the ideal church to love, but we are called to love the church that actually is."

But that is the crux of our situation here on this planet in this life we are living, we are living in an illusion...one in which we walk, breath, and exist in; And yet all will be unmade, the veil torn, the fog cleared, our minds freed from the constant dual mindedness that we find ourselves chained too.

I agree, Bonhoeffer has some great ideas, and his best is that we make do with what we have. But it is Paul whom I appeal to your reason with.
Paul organized the structure of our faith, complete and total devotion to G-d, and yet still left the day to day operations of the individual churches to figure out themselves.
I think that is where we have screwed things up.

I think the institutionalize church is what we built...yeah it is not great, in fact, there's probably a little too much room for improvement, and imo certainly could use an epic house cleaning amongst the Pastorates who see it as a career path.

I would suggest that we go back to the basics...what is the purpose of the Church...what was Paul teaching and vision, what exactly did Y'shua want us to do, and finally, what is G-d's end game with us, not just us, but humanity in general?

When we answer those questions, we can then establish a metric that allows us to review current institutional structures, and dump those that do not conform to the basic principle of our being...our...raison de'etre.

So, if you'll pardon my arrogance with this assumption, giving voice to your unspoken thoughts...you, Skye, along with a lot of others, are looking for a modern day Reformation of the American Church...and perhaps...the church as a whole.

I think we need it. But instead of creating a whole new denomination, lets reform the ones we're in...in fact, lets re-conform them to what our original purpose for being which is...to be servants, not masters to be obeyed by the unsaved hoi polloi, but humble servants to, for, and from the Lord High G-d.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Skye, I've lived outside the US for many years. If you like impermanence, you'd love my adopted home country. Here's how it works: Foreign Christians move here. If they want to start a church or ministry, they start it. People back home are happy to shovel money in their direction. Then 2 years or 5 years or 10 years later--the foreigner leaves and the church or ministry closes. Impermanence! We do a poor job of persuading local believers that the church or ministry fills a need. Most of them do. We do an even poorer job of recruiting local leaders. Meanwhile, the foreigner is back home, telling Christians there about the wonderful work they did for God. Sometimes, permanence is a sign that the vision has been cast, the Word has been entrusted to faithful brothers and sisters, who are teaching and serving others, and the kingdom of God is expanding.

So who would make the decision if the Church would continue or not? I ask because looking at the church that way would create a lot of investment from those who were involved because of the decision being made at the end of the year.
I also believe it would have to be a very flat leadership structure because if one person held to much sway in the decision things would not work. For a leadership structure I think this would be a great model.
Love the conversation being created.

REMEMBER THE POINT EVERYONE THIS IS A DISCUSSION NOT A CRITIQUE.
Thanks Skye

Let me offer something in between complete annual dissolution and the current state of perpetuity. I can't claim to have invented this, and I know of at least one church that actually does this.

Most of my experience with church has been with well-established ("perpetual") mainstream protestant organizations. The way many of the long time members joined the church was by baptism, and then confirmation around age 13. The promises and commitment made to God and the body are sometimes distant memories.

I'd like to see everyone stand up and join the church every year. Every year you have to stand before the local Body and again promise to give your prayers, presence, gifts and service (at least that is what they promise in United Methodist churches).

Sheerk- there's no call to reform the whole Church here, just a way for a group of people to do something here and now. To choose a different way isn't a judgement on all the other ways.

Matt - in our situation we believe the decision to close will be obvious to all of us. However, because we travel light, anyone in the church who feels differently is welcome to begin another new thing and see where it goes.

"there's no call to reform the whole Church here, just a way for a group of people to do something here and now. To choose a different way isn't a judgement on all the other ways."

But isn't it a judgement?
You can't re-engineer a watch without affecting other parts of the mechanism, and isn't the church structure of permanence like a clock?
So when a fault is found in one part, are not all parts affected?

We cannot change one item of the Church without changing several other items as well...to think it is possible is foolish, and stupid...the Laws of Unintended Consequences go ignored far to often in discussions like these...I am the person who looks for those, and yes, in my own opinion, the American Church so desperately needs to be overhauled to the point of demolishing the structure and rebuilding from the groud up...it has gone astray that badly.

However, I'm reasonable, and so...compromise, a Reformation is needed, but that also means a lot of change in areas we didn't even considered needing change.

Starting with career pastors...yes, we need to all consider that...American Pastors have become our equivalent of the European Medieval Priesthood, sacrosanct, and elevated in social and political position that belies their initial purpose.
Why else do we murmur like a pack of gossips when one falls to sin...it's because they're on pedestals that we allowed to be constructed.
And oddly enough, this is the reason why I refuse to be a pastor...I'm human with all the excuses and condemnations that go with that title, and basically, I'm afraid of heights.

But yes, we do need a reformation, and epic one, else we're just pushing around a lot of electrons and hot air.

Sky
You think organic has no organization? Wrong. You're walking by sight not by faith.

Keep your pay job and serve God "free of charge". See the end of 1 Cor 9 for the freedom and reward that goes with that passion. If you prefer the chains that bind every hired sacerdotal pastor - go for it like so many others have. One link in those chains is perpetual dependancy rather than reproduction. Do you know ANY hired leader who has "fully trained" a student to "be like him"? Luke 6:40

What if we did this every year with our families? "Let's just cease to be a family and each go our separate ways and find others to be with." Seems a bit crazy to me. Formation in Christ requires long term commitment in community with people who know us and can speak into our lives (including church leaders). Our lives are already unstable enough as is.

Also, Bonhoeffer's quote from Life Together seems relevant to the 365 church idea: "He who loves his dream of a community more than Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter." We'll never have our perfect church.

I think some here need to cut Skye a little slack. No, we'll never have a perfect church, which Skye himself recognizes. But does that mean we can't think of ways in which we can be better? It'd be like me saying, "We'll, I'm never going to be a perfect Christian, so I'm just going to be happy with who I am and not worry about changing or becoming more like Christ."

By the way, organization is not wrong in itself. 1 Cor 14:40--"But all things should be done decently and in order." Our own human bodies, which Paul uses as an example of what the church should be like, are incredibly organized. It is when our focus becomes sustaining the organization, rather than fulfilling the mission for which we have organized, that we have a problem. Similar to if I do things that will fulfill the desires of my body, rather than using my body to give glory to God. Some other observations from the human body that I think are useful to know: Our bodies do not grow indefinitely, as some believe a local congregation should. Once we have reached maturity, the way we continue to "grow" is through reproduction. In fact, if we do continue to "grow" (i.e. getting fatter), it is actually unhealthy. And our bodies also eventually die. So even though I might not agree with the specific application of Skye's first "ingredient", I do think he's on to something there, which it would not be wise for us to dismiss completely. Perhaps we can develop applications that will be more appropriate in our own local contexts and our ecclesiology.

By the way, Tim, on a tangential point: I do agree with you that the Christian Church, in general, devotes too many resources to sustaining it's organization. And I also agree that the pastoral ministry, as commonly understood at least in North America, is not consistent with the Biblical view of how it should be practiced. But it seems to me that you misapply 1 Cor 9. Yes, Paul dedicated himself to preaching the gospel free of charge; and yes, there is a great freedom and reward in following that example. BUT, Paul DID defend the use of that right, even if he choose not to take advantage of it. You seem to have a very negative opinion of anyone who may happen to choose to exercise that right. I wonder if in your zeal to return to a more Biblical understanding of what it means to be the Church, you have perhaps gone farther than what the Bible teaches. After all, Paul also chose to refuse the right to have a wife. Should all those who lead God's churches be single, then?

Skye - your concern about the tail wagging the dog is a crucial concern. No where did Jesus intend for those who are His Church to serve "the organization," however simple or complex it might be. Any organization that takes place must help The Church (of which all Christians are a part) serve together in Christ's mission for them. Your impermanence idea might help avoid the temptation to institutionalize, and it might hurt more than it helps.
As a missionary with a group that serves small communities in the US and Canada, there are many places where there is only one Bible-teaching church within reasonable travel distance. In those communities, impermanence could risk asking questions like:
Should the church keep meeting together in a way that is visible to our community?
Should we offer publicly-accessible Bible teaching, worship and prayer? In most cases that requires some sort of building, and someone who is known to the community as a pastor.
I hear wisdom in taking steps to avoid investing all our resources in something that is primarily tied to earth at the expense of heaven. So good question, and as you seem to sense, there may not be only one solution. In fact that solution may be laced with as many problems....just different ones.
1 Peter 5:2-4 shepherd God's church, but never forget that the Good Shepherd is returning, it will always be His church, never our own.

Bill
Thanks for your thoughts. I don't believe I misapply 1 Cor. 9. When you consider that Paul ends / concludes his thoughts with refusing the right to be paid, states his passion with refusing his right to be paid, and backs up refusing the right to be paid with the example of his life, you end up with clear apostolic instruction on refusing it. There is far greater support for refusing. Tradition, and all our current Bible "scholars" pretend that nothing is said about refusing the right. It's a perfect example of teaching driven by tradition - like praying to Mary and ignoring all that is said about prayer to the Father through Jesus. Lots of "scholars" are still on this track.

Skye sees the consumerism of church 52 and many other corruptions, but is still tied to the need for a power pyramid of some sort and has low esteem for partnership intensive non-centralized organization where Jesus really is the only focal point. If all you have ever seen is hired leadership driven ministry, and will not allow faith to rule (rejecting sight) then the scriptures that speak of anything else must be ignored and explained away. We are left with merely tweaking our power pyramid systems, coining new words to describe the same old thing and masking old habit patterns with euphemism.

Church will never be 365 when saints devote 86% of their "giving" to by church 52.

John A, keep in mind that Skye has been quite clear to point out that he is referring to his own particular context. Obviously, in your context, the principle will need to be applied differently. Nevertheless, the principle itself is not without merit.

Tim, I appreciate your response. I agree that Paul is very passionate about refusing his right to be paid, and holds up his life as an example. And I'm even willing to say that it'd be well for more "career pastors", as sheerahkahn referred to them, to follow Paul's example.

Nevertheless, it still is just that--an example, not a law. As passionate as Paul is of his own refusal of the right to be paid, the fact that he DEFENDS the right earlier in the chapter tells me that, at the very least, it is not quite at the level of clear apostolic instruction.

Still, I do appreciate your conviction, and I agree with you that 86% of giving being dedicated to sustaining the organization is evidence that we have gotten significantly off-course (by the way, I would love to know where you got that statistic). Your posts are certainly challenging, but I think they are needed!

Bill
My 86% stat is from Leadership Journal, Summer, 2001, from an article called "Where the money goes" - "How normal is your church budget". A nice little chart was included.

This statistic leaves out the huge amounts brought in by capital campaigns where almost all of it is to benefit those who give. It's all "said" to be normal. In God's grace I got wise to that falderal. I need to pass on that grace. It ticks off a lot of folks who have no faith that 100% of what God asked for in His church can be done with without special buildings and hired staff, and it can be done with greater power and purity.

Look at your own church to see where the money goes. The church I used to go to sent 25% out the door. Fifteen years later it's down to 18%. They had an 11 Mil. campaign for a double sized gym and they allocated 1.8% of that to fund a church building in Latvia to make it "look" like their giving was going out the door in some way. This church is very smooth at church52.

Tim, thanks for the citation! I agree with your statement, that 100% of what God asked for in his church can be done (and has been done!) without special buildings and hired staff. My own concern is for us not to go further than what Scripture clearly teaches, but I believe your overall point is quite valid.

I appreciate you additional comment here, Skye. As someone who's done youth ministry for many years, I know about "impermanence."

Every four years, we have an entirely different population. We have to reinvent constantly.

At the same time, having some ongoing traditions (in our case, a two-day graduation retreat that celebrates this important rite-of-passage in each senior's life) has become something that even incoming freshmen look forward to.

Reinvention and continuity both are needed.

I agree with SallyB., some kind of balance between continuity and impermanence is needed. I would never want to be a part of a church that "decided" each year whether to continue, but I also feel that churches should regularly reevaluate what they are doing and if it is still fruitful.

I think that Skye's idea of church has some good qualities and some things that I have difficulty with. One of the good things I see in this type of a church is that it is relying on the Holy Spirit. Too many times we do what Skye said and we assume that we will be around year after year and we don't seek whether or not this is God's will. This approach will also allow the congregation and leaders to remember that the "church" is not an institution but rather the people of God. However, I think there needs to be a balance between seeking the Spirit's guidance and having a plan. I may have misunderstood but it seemed that the church would not have much of a plan and that they were just relying on the Holy Spirit. Relying on the Spirit is essential but if we do not have any type of plans or structure then we will not be prepared if God does want us to continue the ministry. Also, it is hard to have people commit to a ministry that they know may not be there next year. If they own the vision of seeking God just like their leaders than this concern isn't as big of an issue. The concern of pastors not wanting to be a church like this because of financial reason is not a concern that I think we should have because I have a friend that is about to launch a church plant and he doesn't get any paycheck from the church and he relies on God and other people to support him financially. I think this idea of church 365 is an interesting idea and I would like to see and hear more about this.

I appreciate the effort on rethinking church, but this comes across like a family that gets married and decides that every year they should consider, if things aren't working out, divorcing and sending their kids to live in Foster Care. Perhaps, a yearly review by an outside source would be best?

Tim-

I'm coming a little late to this conversation, but I wonder, as I read the two verses you quote (and having read your posts on this topic for quite some time), what do you make of 1 Cor. 9:3 and then later 1 Cor. 16:1? It seems Paul is being accused of exactly what you are accusing many in vocational ministry of. I think the reason your criticism hits a chord is because this is an age-old tension we feel in the church. Paul's writings here seem to reflect this tension.

Also, when referencing Luke 6:40, context is key. Again, a worthy challenge, but I'd challenge you to consider the context of the surrounding verses.

Somehow--by the grace of God--these broken, man-made institutions have been used by God to bring us to faith, and for that I give Him thanks and praise!

Following the Leader with you.

Bil_
1 Cor. 9:3
Paul's introduction for the whole chapter. It seems some think he and Barnabas should not get paid to preach. He follows with an open and shut case on why he has the right to be paid. He follows that with a better plan than just not getting paid. That plan is refusing the right to be paid even though you have the right. He states is passion of rather dying than being paid and the freedom and reward that comes from refusing the right. This is the section clergy folks ignore or sweep away with bogus eisegesis. It is consistent with Acts 20, and 2Thes. 3.

1 Cor. 16:1 is beautiful instruction for collecting giving for Paul to take to meet the needs of saints in another city, not to hire an expert to minister to themselves.

There is tension between the right to pay and refusing the right. When you put all the scriptures together and look at the work of God, you see the greater strategic value of refusing the right.

Luke 6:37, 38 are quick one liners on judging, condemning, forgiving and giving.
39, 40 is a quick two liner on leadership and teaching
40-42 helping a brother with sin without examining yourself.
In the whole chapter Jesus is hitting hard and fast on many different issues. I see know conflict from the context in recognizing that a true teacher reproduces himself into his students rather than creating perpetual dependency.

"Somehow-by the grace of God-these broken, man-made..."
Yes, this is totally true. Christ is being preached. However, we are not off the hook from examining the system to see if it's true with the scriptures. Acts 17:11 To go with the flow is not "noble character".

Tim and Bill,
Do we have any evidence of Jesus working a trade during His ministry as a Rabbi? Presumably he worked a trade ("the Carpenter's son") up until he was led by the Holy Spirit to begin His teaching and preaching ministry. We hear many accounts of him teaching and preaching and working himself to the bone performing all kinds of miracles (even on the Sabbath), but not working a secular trade. It's not as if he took a salary, granted ("the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head"), but did he not allow others to provide for his needs (see John 12:1-7, Matt. 21:1-3, Mark 15:40-47)? Seems we also shouldn't overlook the significance of Christ's instruction to the 70 in Luke 10:1-11, who it seems were instructed to operate pretty much as he himself did during his ministry. There is also God's instructions in the OT requiring the Priests and Levites to be totally dedicated to their sacred duties and not being allowed to own land, etc., but being instructed rather to get their living from the people's tithes. Not sure this issue is all as black and white in Scripture as Tim seems to see it. It seems to me there is a case to be made for providing the basic necessities for those called to preaching, teaching and presiding over the public worship of God in order to free them to be fully dedicated to those tasks.

To expand on Karen's comments (which is kinda silly when I think about it because Karen usually offers quality comments which need very little expansion!): I agree that the issue is not as black and white as Tim sees it. Tim, I agree that the system is abused and that our financial priorities are greatly skewed. I agree that there is a great strategic value in refusing the right to be paid. Nevertheless, the right is still there. Paul defends that right, as you yourself have pointed out. Scripture suggests that Jesus exercised that right and instructed the disciples to do so as well, as Karen pointed out.

As passionate as Paul was about refusing that right, it was still HIS passion, and his passion should not be held to the level of law. Those who choose to exercise the right should not be condemned for that choice alone. I'm sure it would do much good if more of us pastors followed Paul's example by refusing the right to be paid. But it should be our choice.

I also agree that many (if not most) of us pastors-teachers are doing a poor job of reproducing ourselves in the lives of our congregation, and instead we create congregations dependent on us. But I don't see anything inherent in being paid that necessarily leads to those results. It's not a matter of whether we get paid or not as much as it's simply a matter of us not doing what we're supposed to do.