Two questions
1. Can you have a church without having disciples (of Jesus)?
2. Can you have disciples (of Jesus) without having a church?
posted by dan at 8:32 AM
CGGC in an Emerging World
The world is changing rapidly. Postmodern thinking is increasing in the west and the East is becoming part of the Global community. Many in the Churches of God General Conference are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century. This blog has been encouraged by the CGGC but in no way reflects the official thinking of the denomination. It is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.
Monday, August 23, 2010
2. Can you have disciples (of Jesus) without having a church?
17 Comments:
1. yes, i think you can have a so-called "Christian" church without anyone who's really a follower of the Way. i think this is evident by the numerous places where Jesus and the apostles warn of false teachers leading many astray, by some being called in Scripture "synagogues of satan", etc.
2. no, i don't think you can have real disciples without a real church. now, this will take on different forms from what many in the west may think of as "church" (e.g. they might not own a building, or have a "lead pastor", etc.).
nevertheless, believers were not meant to live outside of Christian community, and the numerous "one another" commands in Scripture, as well as all the references to elders and church discipline, make no sense with some local semi-formal assembly of the saints.
the only exception i can think of is a frontier missionary, who may be the only Christian around, as He is trying to convert the unreached. however, in such a case, i think he should be tied to a local "sending" church (not just a denomination or organization), and they should support him not only in money, but in prayer and in communication, which in my understanding can be very precious to those who lack what we so often take for granted.
does that make sense? any other ideas?
This response may depend on one's interpretation of Rev. 2-3 but Christ addresses the letter of Laodicea to the church but Christ is outside the door. Apparently there are no followers but it is called a church.
As to the question about disciples without a church. I would say it is possible but not healthy. Meaning a Christian can disassociate him/herself from anything organized.
Maybe you have read that Anne Rice
just quit Church so she can save her faith.
Yeah... I kind of go back and forth. At first I was thinking you couldn't have the church (as the body of Christ) without having followers of Christ. But you two have both pointed out evidence to the contrary. I guess it is his body, and he can do with it what he wants. I like how Hirsch pointed out in 'The Forgotten Ways' the difference between seeing the church as Christ's body, rather than thinking it is the body (church) that makes it Christ.
I am equally torn on the second question too. I do think there are many who want to follow Jesus without being in a Christian community, but I'm just not sure that works (in the long run). Though I can see where it might for a time. Certainly there are elements of Anne Rice's story that I have resonated with. Don't you think sometimes our over-reaction to people stepping back for a time could actually be what pushes them out the door; more than the fact that they really want to leave?
I spoke with two former attendees of our church this week, who spoke of not fitting in, cliques, and just their simple need to pray and read the Bible at home.
In both cases, they are socially awkward people in the first place, but it calls us to analyze what it means for someone to be "part" of the church. They are right. They can pray and read at home.
dan,
on your first question, let me clarify. it is possible for a "church", a group of people who claim to be one and are organized a certain way and do things churches tend to do, to lack Christians. however, by the very definition of a church, it must be made up of Christians. the trouble is discerning and distinguishing the difference between what the reformers called the "visible" and "invisible" church: that is, the people who gathered together for worship, and those who were truly saved and following Christ.
so if you mean "can the visible church lack true disciples of Jesus?", the answer is yes, and it's sadly too common. but if you're asking "can a true Christ-exalting local church be devoid of Christians?", then i'd say by the very definition of church that can't be true.
brian,
i can understand where the two you spoke with are coming from. i know several more-introverted people like that, and i understand how the church can be and often is broken, in that there are cliques that form and such. we ought to constantly work to make our churches friendly and welcoming, especially to our brothers and sisters. i've had recommended by several of my friends the book introverts in the church, and i plan on reading it soon.
i completely agree with you that all believers should pray throughout their lives (at home, work, etc.), and that where possible they should read their Bibles at home and elsewhere. i say where possible, because in many places people either can't read, have no Bible in their language, or one is not available for them (and here my hat's off to wycliffe translators and their peers in bringing the Word to the nations).
however, i must strongly disagree with you that they are somehow excused from meeting with the assembly of believers. we see this as a descriptive precedent in acts 2 (meeting in each others' houses and in the temple), throughout the rest of acts in various worship services, and spoken of regularly in the epistles (e.g. 1 Cor. 11, 2 Cor. 9).
we also see this as being prescriptive. 1 Cor. 14 gives practical direction on how to hold an orderly gathering. Heb. 10 speaks of the importance of meeting together regularly. the plethora of "one-another" commands make it clear that we are to have frequent fellowship with other believers. and if there is no local body to which we as Christians belong, the texts on church leadership and discipline (e.g. Matt. 18, 1 Cor. 5, 1 Tim. 3) make no sense.
so no, my friend, it is not Biblical to "opt out" of the assembly of God's people.
Walt,
I miscommunicated. I did not mean that I agreed it was ok for them not to be a part of the church.
My point in analyzing our church was to say that they seem not see the value of the gathering and perhaps some of that is our fault. Perhaps we haven't made it clear enough.
brian,
interesting thought. i'm sorry if i misread your comment. i committed the most common internet sin: forgetting who is on the other side of the screen.
anyway, to some extent i think you're correct, that we muddle the goodness of gathering with fellow believers. perhaps part of that is that we see and can act like it is just some club, and not the corporate meeting of God and His people. we tend to forget the magnitude of that privilege and honor.
so how could we work against that tendency? how can we remind our people and display why our large-group gatherings are important, are valuable?
I would highly recommend 'Introverts In the Church' for any church leader. Maybe especially for extroverts. Even as an introvert myself I don't think most of us realize just how extroverted church culture is (especially in the evangelical world), and how that impacts those who are introverted (and, no, there is NOT something wrong with introverts). ;)
Gang,
In the past few months I have been struggling to move beyond the oppressive dominance of the Christendom myth.
I've come to realize how thoroughly it dominates even my thinking. In the ministry I lead in PA, we don't have preaching on in our gatherings. The sermon is not the focal point of worship, in fact, we don't have sermons at all. Recently, I abandoned my priestly role of mediator in prayer by performing a 'Pastoral Prayer.' We only ever take the Lord's Supper as a part of a meal. I very rarely lead the taking of the Lord's Supper.
Yet, I feel the oppression of the Christendom myth more powerfully than I ever have. I realize that almost everything I take for granted regarding the church is tainted by that myth and that almost nothing I take for granted comes directly from, to use Winebrenner's phrase, "the New Testament plan."
As far as I can tell, the ways we define the 'church' are all tainted by the Christendom myth.
I can see three definitions of the Greek word "ekklesia" in the New Testament. (There are probably more.)
1. The whole community of Jesus followers. This is how Jesus used the term in Matthew 16 when He said, "on this rock I will build my church."
2. The community of believers with a locality. Hence, Paul can talk about the "church of God in Corinth" or Rome or Colosse.
3. The group of believers who meet at a particular place. Hence, in Paul's letter to the whole church of God in Corinth, he can say, "The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house." Or, to the whole church of the Romans say, "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house." Or to the church at Colosse say, "Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house."
A problem we have is that the way we think of church is so christendomized that our starting point creates problems when we seek biblical answers.
On these questions, along with my friend Lew, I look to Revelation 2 and 3 for answers.
Apparently the entire communities of self-proclaimed Jesus followers in Ephesus and Laodicea were so corrupt that Jesus was about to finally reject them.
Reggie McNeal says somewhere in Missional Renaissance that any place Jesus followers are the church is there. Perhaps that's a good way to think about it. Can you disciples of Jesus without have "a" church? Yes. Can you have disciples of Jesus present without having "the" church? Probably no.
Dan,
You've been asking very good questions lately. I'm sorry that I've had so little time and energy to participate in the discussions you've begun. In The Shaping of Things to Come Frost and Hirsch define the prophet as the "Questioner." You are fulfilling your calling.
Thanks.
bill
I think the common ideas of the church universal and the local church are somewhat reflective of the Biblical usage Bill mentions (although I think we need to re-capture the connection of churches in one city / community)
Everyone who is a follower of Jesus is part of the church universal, right?
I think Lew is on the right track though - it's possible to be a follower of Jesus and not be a part of Christian community, but I don't think it's healthy.
I think the N.T. assumes that Christians will be a part of a community of believers (local church). As walt mentions one excmple, there may be other exceptions as well.
I believe that part of being a disciple of Jesus is community, so there is one component of discipleship that is missing being isolated. That's not to say that person is not a Christian by any means and in many other ways can be more faithful to following Jesus than someone who is involved.
I could point to some biblical examples of the necessity of community (church) but I'm not sure that / if people in this venue are really disagreeing at this point?
I guess what originally had me wondering about these two questions was reading this statement in an article by Neil Cole:
In organic church life the flow of fruitfulness is from the inside-out. In an institutional approach we try to form disciples from the outside-in by using conformity and behavior modification practices. This will not work. The goal should not be to plant a church, but to plant the seed of the gospel in good soil. Instead of seeing church as the agency of change, we must see it as the outcome of changed lives. Jesus is the Savior, not the church, and we must plant Jesus rather than churches.
He also made the comment that (1)we should "Make disciples, not organizations, and let Jesus build the church out of changed lives" and, (2) we need to "Lower the bar on how church is done and raise the bar on what it means to be a disciple."
I really like what he's getting at, but I admit to being a little hesitant to separate the church and the body of Christ quite that much. Interesting stuff though.
Dan H,
If you spend too much time reading Organic/Simple/House Church literature, you're going to ultimately face paradigm issues and you're going to have issues of conscience even walking into a 'bethel'...
...just like I do.
Read this stuff--and believe it--at your own peril
Lately Fran has been saying we need church planters who smell like Jesus. The latest church planter I've found (who we hope to get started in October) smells like Jesus.
He reeks of Jesus. He is much more of a shepherd than an apostle, though his wife has apostolic tendencies.
This guy will plant Jesus, not a church. I hope it becomes a trend for us.
Bill,
I was welcomed into the church with the Jesus People movement, so organic/simple/etc is not a foreign concept. "Bethel" on the other hand... does not compute. :)
I actually think this is some of my disconnect with certain discussions on this blog, because I simply don't have a real institutional frame of reference with which to measure things. However, I believe the kingdom itself is a paradox, and I don't feel comfortable going to either extreme. Maybe it's just idealistic logic, but my hope is that Christ can be found somewhere in the midst of any screwed up organization we find ourselves in.
By the way, has anyone read Introducing the Missional Church by Alan Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren? I'm not too far into it, but it seems to be a very down to earth (and excellent) introduction and explanation of all things missional.
I agree that we should make disciples, not organizations, and generally agree with the Cole stuff Dan quoted. The piece I was unsure of was this: "Instead of seeing church as the agency of change, we must see it as the outcome of changed lives."
Our church is 70% people who have come to the Lord in connection with our community, and our church community is BOTH the outcome of their changed lives and part of the agency by which the changes have occurred. So I'm not comfortable saying the church is only the outcome of change.
I also question whether only a "simple church" can cultivate discipleship that is from the inside-out. While I think Cole's assessment that most churches try to make disciples from the outside in is correct, I would argue that this is only partly the result of large-church, institutional approaches. The other culprit is the general orientation of evangelicalism toward externalistic discipleship.
Fran said, "The piece I was unsure of was this: 'Instead of seeing the church as the agency of change, we must see it as the outcome of changed lives."
That's the same thing I was unsure of. I 'think' what he's getting at is that we can make disciples outside of the church structure (it doesn't just have to happen Sunday morning, or in small groups, etc.). However, like you, I think it's a both/and situation. Again, I'm not comfortable separating Jesus and the church quite that much. But maybe I'm reading too much into it too.
I would be curious to read Cole's 'Church 3.0' book and see what he has to say about organization. Maybe.
Post a Comment
<< Home