Beyond the Church

by Rick Beckman on September 8, 02009

Last modified on September 8, 02009

Why did Jesus so often in His deal­ings with those who would come to Him sim­ply tell them to go, repent­ing of their sins? Why, with rare excep­tion, did He not invite peo­ple to fol­low Him, join­ing His assembly?

Why did the apos­tles, in their deal­ings with the peo­ple they encoun­tered, not spend time invit­ing peo­ple to par­tic­u­lar churches, even after they believe?

Why did Phillip, after bap­tiz­ing the Ethiopian, send the man on his way? Isn’t bap­tism sup­posed to be the entry rit­ual to orga­nized churches?

Why are today’s evan­ge­lis­tic tac­tics so often for­mu­lated in such a way as to not share Jesus Christ but to instead share an invi­ta­tion to an orga­nized church?

Why are we con­tent to let evan­ge­lism com­pletely miss the point? Why do we intro­duce our­selves as rep­re­sent­ing the First Bap­tist Mis­sion­ary Church of the Lutheran Assem­blies of the Church of God in Amer­ica rather than intro­duc­ing our­selves for what we are, ambas­sadors of Jesus Christ. Is it that we are more com­fort­able rep­re­sent­ing a brick and mor­tar orga­ni­za­tion that peo­ple can see, touch, and par­tic­i­pate in rather than rep­re­sent­ing Jesus, whom most con­sider either “the invis­i­ble man in the clouds” or sim­ply a long deceased Nazarene?

Why do we orga­nize gim­micky pro­mo­tions within orga­nized churches which reward putting butts in the pews rather than encour­ag­ing true evan­ge­lism and godly liv­ing so that trea­sures may be heaped up in Heaven?

Why do we expend so much time, effort, and money in orga­niz­ing, build­ing, and pro­mot­ing orga­ni­za­tions (churches, falsely so called) rather than liv­ing and expe­ri­enc­ing an organic, spon­ta­neous faith that results in com­mu­nion among saints wher­ever they may be? Remem­ber that it was some­thing like three cen­turies before Chris­tians started build­ing churches and the like; it was around that same time that the church ceased to be an organic, liv­ing organ­ism and became an insti­tu­tion, not all that dis­sim­i­lar from the world’s busi­nesses or gov­ern­ments. The Roman Catholic Church evolved out of that shift, and while the Ref­or­ma­tion saw the res­cue of many pre­cious teach­ings, our churches are still brick and mor­tar, and we still endow those build­ings with entirely too much rev­er­ence and respect. We treat them as “holy places.”

For all the empha­sis today’s Chris­tians place upon build­ings, atten­dance, and for­mal mem­ber­ship, not a jot of Scrip­ture is wasted on such things. Chris­t­ian com­mu­nity goes beyond to what it is usu­ally con­strained. It must go beyond it.

{ 5 voices in the conversation. Speak up! }

Zach September 8, 2009 at 13:24

Great thinking! It has taken me a while to get to a similar point in thought myself.

I moved from thinking I wanted to be a preacher, to wanting to lead and establish house churches, to figuring out that even house churches are another form of organization that is not needed…

Like you said, we are ambassadors of Christ. We also are “the Church” – kind of interesting that the idea of “going” to church is not inherent in the scripture – but rather that “the Church” existed in different places (i.e. the Church at Ephesus, the Church at so and so’s home, etc…)

I recently read a fantastic book about some of this thinking on what the Church is and isn’t. You can read it for free thanks to the goodwill of the authors. Here’s a link to the website of
“So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore”

Andrew September 8, 2009 at 15:48

I’m a little confused.

What do you mean by organised? Are you saying organised churches are unscriptural?

Rick Beckman September 8, 2009 at 18:04

There is a degree of organization within the church — not so much within “church buildings” — found in the Scriptures. When the church would meet, things would be done in order, and there would be elders and deacons of certain qualifications presiding over things.

But when we start having deacon boards, business meetings, church democracy governed by “Rules of Order,” trustee boards, membership rolls, lesson plans, Sunday school plans, offerings-just-to-pay-church-bills, building programs, and so on… Then yeah, I think organized churches are unscriptural — or at least superscriptural (read: beyond the Scriptures).

There’s two attitudes that can be taken:

1) The Scriptures give us the freedom to meet as we want, redefining church from the people to the premises.

2) The God of the Scriptures was wise enough to not only tell us how to be saved but also how to worship Him, and we would do wise to stick to it as closely as possible.

(Okay, I’m characterizing a bit in those attitudes, but I’m definitely stuck to number 2.)

Andrew September 12, 2009 at 06:53

I’m not sure if I am understanding you right so if I have misunderstood correct me.

“There is a degree of organization within the church — not so much within “church buildings” — found in the Scriptures. When the church would meet, things would be done in order, and there would be elders and deacons of certain qualifications presiding over things.

But when we start having deacon boards, business meetings, church democracy governed by “Rules of Order,” trustee boards, membership rolls, lesson plans, Sunday school plans, offerings-just-to-pay-church-bills, building programs, and so on… Then yeah, I think organized churches are unscriptural — or at least superscriptural (read: beyond the Scriptures).”

Do you believe that the church may only be organised insofar and to the same extent as it was organised in the New Testament? So to say, the New Testament is wholly descriptive and prescriptive of what a church ought to be.

You mentioned several examples, ‘Rules of Order’ was one. Do you think because the New Testament does not mention churches having Rules of Order or Books of Order, or whatever they may be called, that it is an inappropriate to have such in our churches today? We agree they are not necessary but this is not same thing as saying they should not be used. This same point applies to the other examples you gave.

Is the central issue for you one of formality and informality? The church has become a turgid organisation when it should be a fluid community. Are organisation and community contradictory?

“There’s two attitudes that can be taken:

1) The Scriptures give us the freedom to meet as we want, redefining church from the people to the premises.

2) The God of the Scriptures was wise enough to not only tell us how to be saved but also how to worship Him, and we would do wise to stick to it as closely as possible.”

I don’t understand how these two attitudes are opposing views. The first speaks of organisation and the second speaks of worship.

I also don’t understand how the clause ‘redefining church from the people to the premises.’ follows from ‘The Scriptures give us the freedom to meet as we want’. If someone believes the Bible gives freedom to meet how we want why does it follow that they are redefining church from people to premises?

-

To speak more generally, I agree that the church today is not without fault, and sometimes serious fault. But I don’t think this is reason enough to pan churches as organised institutions.

Mike September 29, 2009 at 13:31

Zach, thank you for the link to that fantastic book. It was absolutely eye opening–I couldn’t put it down! The author has also written a non-fiction book called He Loves Me which explains some of the concepts in much more detail. Thank you for pointing me to these resources. They are exactly what I’ve been waiting for!

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: