Reviewing the Exile Part 5: Winning the Turf War

This is the conclusion of my thoughtful review of my spiritual journey at the 5-year anniversary of my dismissal from the church.  (Scroll down to read Parts 1 through 4.)

______________

In the winter of 2009 the local congregation split over philosophical issues and 150 people left.  It was a nasty split because the arguments turned into personal attacks.  Dissidents were labelled as rebels by the leadership and were put in their place - and quite disrespectfully.  (Okay, I haven't said anything surprising yet, right?')

The remaining 75 were left with our heads spinning, and Kaye and I were wondering if there was any hope that our life-long church home would rise out of the ashes and once again become a viable force in the spiritual world and the local community.

Six months later, in September of that year, an interim pastor hosted a series of meetings in which the faithful were to re-establish the mission of the church.  His first presentation was a summary of a concept called the Life Cycle of a Church, and we were supposed to plot our location on the bell curve of church progression and see if we could establish a Sigmoid Curve that would be a platform for renewal.  From the visual chart we could easily see what had divided our church (although I was quite aware that we were really two churches under one roof and had been for a long time).

Vibrant and growing churches put a high value on People and Relationships and assume that sound doctrine will follow.  People feel they are loved and cared about, their needs are met, and the church grows.
On the other hand, stable and dying churches put a high value on Structure.  When in competition, sound doctrine, programs, and property win priority over relationships and the needs of the people.  Consequently, people feel they are undervalued and they go elsewhere, and the church stagnates or declines.

Over the previous 20 years our church had slowly polarized between these two camps of people that I call the Progressives and the Traditionalists.

  The Progressives placed a high value on people.  They were visionaries and outreach types.  They wanted to reach the neighbors and maintain an active presence in the community.  They were all about the “Go” factor in the Great Commission and were interested in what happens outside the four walls of the church building.  On a hot summer day you might find them passing out popsicles at the county fair.  Their vision was simple:  " We just want to love people."
To their downfall, they didn’t care much about rules and regulations.

  The Traditionalists were all about what happens inside the four walls.  I have often labeled them as the Fortress types.  On the marquee out front, you will see the word "Come" but never "Go."  They protected the facilities by putting up signs on the walls:  “Please do not take food and drink outside the fellowship hall”,  “No one under 18 may sit in the balcony without supervising parent”,  “Your mother does not work here; please wash your own dishes” in the kitchen, and so on.  They had regulations for every detail of how the place could be used, all the time unaware of how threatening they had made their church environment.  Visitors were afraid to do anything for fear of a reprimand.  Their vision was equally simple:  "We just want to protect this place."

Along with that, preserving the denominational doctrinal distinctives was given high value.

It came time to select the next Senior Pastor, and the masses wanted to promote the incumbent Associate Pastor to the position.  He had been there for over 20 years and he was the young visionary, a people person who cared much more about loving people than he did about following rules.  This man was seen as a champion of the Progressive movement and he was very popular.  But his disregard for the status quo had made him the pariah of the Traditionalists.

The governing board of the church was under the control of the Traditionalists who represented at best a fourth of the constituency, mainly their own families.  They would not allow the congregation to vote on this man for their senior pastor though he was popular with most of the people.

“He’s not a good fit for this church”,  they said when announcing their decision to the congregation, and everybody knew what they meant:  “He is not traditional enough for us.” and furthermore, "We don’t like him (partly because we can't control him)."

And the people, by association, felt that the judgment was being made about them as well.  They did not “fit” at this church anymore and the message was clear:  They were not welcome anymore.   Reluctantly, 150 good people left.

Most of those visionaries joined or started house churches and five years later, only a few have returned to an institutional church.   They invited that popular pastor to be a sort of traveling elder for their house church network, and they support him financially.  Now everybody is happy. 

__________________

Well, back to that September membership meeting where we were learning about the life cycle of a church and that the sign of a dying church is that it puts a high value on Structure rather than People.  Kaye and I looked around the room and saw 40 people whose priority for their church was Structure.  They were intent on protecting their doctrine, their programs, their property, and their sanctuary for the saints.  They were all about the fortress and said so.  “We want this place to be the same familiar place for our kids and grandkids that it was for us.”

No mention of people and relationships; it was all about the institution.

Hope died for Kaye and me that day.  We could see the handwriting on the wall... and on the dry erase board.  We drove home in defeat.  Then we set up a meeting with the interim pastor letting him know that we were not going the direction that the church was apparently going.  As visionaries ourselves, Kaye and I had better ways to spend our remaining time on the planet than doing regular maintenance on a religious machine that was obsolete and no longer viable in the culture except as a safe haven for the saints.  We told him that we would probably only return for special occasions, family events, and such.

He suggested we not come at all.  Seriously.

Well, okay then.  He spoke the honest truth that we had guessed was the case: “You are no longer welcome here.”

So opposing philosophical camps fought over our church, and the Traditionalists won.

Thank God.  They are welcome to it.

I am not a Traditionalist.  I’m not a legalist.  I like to think for myself and ask questions, and I don’t like to be handed pat answers or cliches.  I don’t think God and Christianity can be reduced to pat answers and cliches and rigid doctrines that abruptly end every attempt at intelligent conversation.  And I don't believe that the mission of the church can be carried out by fortifying the traditions that are perpetuated within its four walls.

So, I really do not fit there.

Again, Thank God!

At the last board meeting that I attended subsequent to my resignation as an elder, I was pointing out the realities of the direction they had chosen for the church, when one of my counterparts interrupted me, “Bob, when are you going to give it up?  You guys lost!”

To which I replied, “We all lost; there are no winners here.”

But, five years later, I have made a turnabout and hold the exact opposite view and believe that we were all winners:

• The Traditionals who placed a high value on Structure won their church back and were able to control the direction she would go.  To them the struggle was all about protecting their fortress, and now they had their familiar buildings, property, programs, and doctrinal platform back under control.  And really, it was appropriate that they would be the ones to win that 10-acre corner property, because they were the ones who valued that kind of stuff.

• The Progressive exiles were also the winners, because they didn't put a high value on the buildings and property and traditions.  They were now free to pursue their vision of an incarnate Church that is truly the salt of the earth.  Meeting in their house churches, they do not own church buildings (and the responsibilities that come with that), they do not have a budget, they do not hire staff, they do not sign their names on any denominational statement of faith, and they are not subordinate to any designated leader who assumes authority over them.  Wow, they really do enjoy a lot of freedom!

• I was a Winner too, but not in the way I had hoped.  I had wanted to stay there and spend the rest of my life trying to change the institution from within, and that’s what I would have done if I could have.  That thought just scares the crap out of me now.  If I had not been banished, I probably would still be there.  And I would live out my days in never-ending frustration and disillusionment while fighting the traditional powers that be.  Forever and ever, amen.

I am so happy to be outside now.  I am not sure how I am viewed by those who are still inside, but I feel like an escapee.   As I exited, the door slammed shut behind me and smacked me in the virtual rear end.

It stung for awhile.

But not anymore.

After all, this September I am celebrating five years of liberation!

Footnote:  With a more objective viewpoint now - having been outside the institution for five years, I believe that the growing exodus from the church nationwide is to some extent a departure from exclusivism, and I think it is a healthy movement.  There needs to be a blurring of the lines between the 30,000-plus Christian denominations that have an unavoidable tendency to divide the Body of Christ.

Structure be damned, the church needs to get back to loving people...  at the expense of doctrinal distinctives which must take a back seat to compassion and good will.

When you hear people yearning for the good old days in their particular denomination, know that you are listening to someone who is part of an aging institution that will continue to become less and less relevant to the needy world outside their walls.

Read Reviewing the Exile Part 4 here.

Read Reviewing the Exile Part 3 here.

Read Reviewing the Exile Part 2 here.

Read Reviewing the Exile Part 1 here.

Thank you for reading!

Jesus was a Liberal

  Liberal means generous.  Jesus was generous.  His prevailing first reaction to a sinner is forgiveness.  Not judgement.  His response to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery was, "I don't condemn you," (John 8:11)  even though the Old Testament law ordered an execution by stoning.  Mercy prevailed over judgement.  Always.  This should give us a clue that, though it never came up during his ministry on earth, it's likely his reaction to gays would have been the same.  And to evolutionists, and abortionists - and politicians for that matter.

  As followers of Christ our prevailing approach to sinners should be the same.  "I don't condemn you."  And then pour on the love and the respect - and leave any follow-up admonition to the Lord through the Holy Spirit ("Now go and stop sinning").

  I have wondered what church or denomination Jesus would be the most likely to join if he lived on the earth again today.  Would he be a Presbyterian or a Baptist, a Wesleyan or a Catholic?  Would it be a group that we consider conservative?  Or liberal?

  I have concluded that he would be none of the above.  He wouldn't likely be part of a denomination of any kind.  He disdained the religious organization while on earth and reserved his most pointed criticisms for the religious leaders of the day, calling them sons of their father, the devil (John 8:44).  He might do the same if he were here now.  He would not be part of your church.  The institution of the church was not his idea (It was the emperor Constantine's idea).

  Jesus complained that the priests and Pharisees were using the scriptures to keep people out of heaven. (Matt 23:13)  Today's evangelists are no different: they use the scriptures to keep people out of heaven.

  He clearly banned the hierarchical structure for his disciples , telling them that they must not lord it over their people (Mark 10:42) but rather lead from behind (Matt 23:11, Mark 9:35).  And what do church leaders do today?  They lead from the front, lording it over their people through their hierarchical structure, claiming that a chain of command in the church is "God-ordained".  Nonsense, the only hierarchy ordained by God is that every member of the Body is answerable directly to the Head, which is Christ.

  Jesus clearly said we should not call any leader "pastor" or "father."(Matt 23:8-10)  Yet that's the accepted practice every time we address one of our clergy, feeding this idea that they are above us in some way.

  He said that his kingdom would be comprised of "living stones being built up into a spiritual house,"(I Peter 2:5)  but instead, we think God still dwells in temples made of brick and mortar and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on grand church buildings and meeting halls in every local parish, and then we hire "pastors" and "fathers" to lead us in style while we pay them salaries and provide them free housing and benefits.  I guess we are pretty liberal (generous) after all, since this scenario is entirely unbiblical.

  Jesus was  not interested in politics and rarely said anything about the government, and when he did, he showed respect toward civil authority.  (Wish some of your Facebook friends could be more like Christ in this way?)

  

  Well, maybe our contemporary Jesus, if not a denominational man, would be part of an independent house church.  After all, they have no hierarchy and no central leader - no pope or general superintendent.  They have no affiliations with any religious organization and don't even try to write up doctrinal statements and ordinances or bylaws.  Hmm, that sounds a lot like the New Testament house churches.  But Jesus was a predecessor to all that.

  Jesus was out and about all day every day, visiting from house to house and from town to town.  Of course there is no modern day counterpart, but if there were, I think he would be doing the same things as the original Jesus.

  His ministry would be characterized by humility, love and compassion.  He would help the poor and the hurting and pray for the sick wherever he found them.  He would provide food for the hungry - perhaps thousands at a time - out of concern for their welfare.  Yes, welfare.

  Yes, Jesus would be a liberal if he walked the earth today.  And he is walking the earth today, within you and me.  We are his dwelling place.

  So I want to be like Jesus:  I will be generous; I will be a liberal.  I will not judge, but only love people.  And I will help my needy neighbors when possible, and keep the main thing the main thing.  Love is the main thing.  Not righteousness or morality or conservative values.  Love.

  Oh, and since I really do seek to be like Jesus, I will criticize the religious institution and expose religious pride and the anti-Christ of legalism and oppression whenever and wherever I see it.  (I've been doing it for almost 3 years on this blog.)

  Thank you for reading.

  

  Have you ever thought about whether Jesus would want to be part of your church or denomination if he were here today?  What are some more reasons he would  or would not?

  

Backyard Baptism - The House Church Way

  My friends baptized their kids in a backyard swimming pool this afternoon and in my mind I couldn't help seeing visions of ancient New Testament believers being dunked in fountains and reflecting pools and rivers all across the middle eastern world as the gospel quickly spread across the region two thousand years ago... minus the cell phones and pocket cameras snatching their digital images instantly uploaded to the Cloud (gives new definition to the "cloud of witnesses").

A circuit-riding house pastor oversees the baptism of 2 kids by their parents in a backyard pool.

  But my visions were not only reminiscent of the past, for I also saw into the future as I was struck by the durability of the house church movement, the modern version being around since the 1800's but exploding with growth over the last ten years as the institutional church continues its God-ordained decline.

  My own exodus from the church is only four years old, but I am already aware of some of the long term benefits that the backyard festivities today brought to mind:

Freedom Reigns

  By far the most dominant characteristic of the movement outside the walls of the church is the freedom that dawns so brightly as the sun comes up the morning after another church refugee leaves the empire.

• Freedom from denominational dogma.  Liberated believers are free to shed the traditions and ordinations of the church.  There's no licensed legalist to tell them not to practice communion and baptism without an ordained minister on hand (although many house churches are attended by an abundance of former pastors).  I've even seen Mountain Dew and Ding Dongs used as communion sacraments and I don't think Jesus was the least bit upset about it.  Denominational doctrines are up for discussion in the home group.   It's just us, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit... and the internet.  No credentialed big shots telling us what we must believe.  If we want exegesis we go on line and read the latest blog from the scholars at Asbury or Moody or Wheaton.  In an instant we can learn and evaluate doctrines from the great theologians... if we care to know what any high-minded stuffed shirt thinks (because many of them don't seem to know much about grace).
• Freedom from condemnation.  Although it can take many years to purge the legalism and guilt out of one's soul, most freedom exiles start to loosen up as soon as they realize that there is nobody looking over their shoulders with a pointing finger or a disapproving  look (that is, after the fallout from the initial explosion has subsided a bit.  There is an inevitable sifting of friends and family members that follows an exodus, but it subsides with time).  Grace is the pervading attitude in the home group.  Non-condemning, nonjudgmental, let-me-be grace.
• Freedom from liturgy and protocol.  Would you like to have church at the ice cream shop?  Our group has done it several times.  We have also met at the park where we went for a one-hour run/walk before sitting down and dialoguing.  We don't meet on Sunday mornings, and we don't have worship time if we don't feel like it, and we don't have prayer before or after the offering... because there's no offering.  People get up and leave the discussion for more coffee or pizza and then come back a few minutes later... if they're not in the back yard leaning over the fence talking to the neighbor.  The institutions of the church vanish into the distance over time.  And the altar call?  What is that?
• Freedom from rhetoric.  Pious platitudes are a thing of the past.  The talking head (the sermon) is long gone.  Seminars and conferences don't exist.  We are all about conversation.  When's the last time you tried to interrupt your pastor's sermon with a question from the floor?  How did that work out for you?  It happens all the time in the home group.  Oh, the freedom of it all!

  A few years ago I heard a critic of the emerging church predict that the movement would be dead inside ten years.  The only problem with his statement was blind ignorance of the facts.  Recent studies indicate that it is the institutional church which in fact is declining and at faster rates every year.  Last month I heard a researcher report that the number of believers outside the church now outnumbers those still attending.

  Demonizing the movement won't stop the trend.  God will stop it when he wants to.  For the time being, it looks as though he wants to keep it going, perhaps until enough of us have been dumped outside the salt shaker and into the world where we he can finally do some good with us.

  

And the Band Played On...

  While the Titanic was sinking the band kept playing, even though there were people needing assistance getting into the lifeboats.  So it is today in the institutional church.

  My suggestion to my friends still playing in the band is to leave your post and help somebody escape.  Do it in small increments at first if you need to.  Miss church on one Sunday per month and hang out with a neighbor.  Go boating or fishing with a fellow employee at work.  Take your family on a Sunday adventure at the arcade or the movie theater.  Take a sabbatical from daily devotions for a month.  Give yourself a break from the fixtures of the institution.  Baptize your kids in the swimming pool.  Serve Mountain Dew and Ding Dongs (are they back on the market yet?) for communion at your next home Bible study.  Do something unconventional.  

  And just see if you feel a bit freer.  If not, go back to what you were doing if you want.  No problem.  No worries.  No condemnation.

  The work of Christ is freedom (Gal 5:1).  I love you, and I want you to be free.

Quit Planting Churches!

(This is Part 2 in a pair of posts: See Part 1, "The Church is a Com-bus".)
  
Sorry to be so negative.  I'm not really a dissenter most of the time, and I wonder about the irony of my continuing to be the troublesome elbow in the ribs of the church when I am not even a part of that world anymore.  I guess this unwelcome prophetic gift is my thorn in the flesh for now, and I feel sorry for Jeremiah, who was probably a really nice guy but was called upon by God to confront wrongdoing in the leadership and 2-1/2 millennia later is still known as the Weeping Prophet.  Poor fellow.

Church Planting is a Waste

  Anyway, today I feel called upon to state that church planting is a waste of time and valuable resources in a culture that is slowly abandoning the institution of the church.  In our local town of 1,200 people there are ten churches within a 2-mile radius, and they are all slowly shrinking except for one.  That one is the new one which was just started less than two years ago and which immediately filled up with all of the already-believers who were bored with their old churches.  Or maybe they were just excited to be a part of the next new thing and came over to help get it off to a good start.  Nonetheless, there are now more empty seats in the other nine churches, most of which are not even half full now.

  And the "new" church is nothing new at all.  It has already banned the misfits from the worship band and reprimanded the wannabe youth volunteers, and effectively ex-communicated some of its participants who asked too many questions about the nature of God in the Old Testament.  So this new church is a clone of every other conservative church in the neighborhood and perpetuates the popular views of the church as judgmental, critical, and exclusive.  It only makes sense, as the contributors to this new work all came from old works and brought their baggage with them.

  It must really piss off the visionary young men who are the most likely ones to want to plant a new church.  They are full of energy and excitement and aspire to win the lost and reach the world for Christ.  And then they see their new sanctuary fill up with the already-found religious vagrants who used to attend the church down the block.

  And in a year or two they take a critical look at what they have created and discover that there are no new believers and they have not made any difference in the world except to cannibalize* the other churches nearby, and they realize their "new" work is not new at all.  Although it probably has the best worship team in town, and there is something to be said for that.  And if numbers are a measure of success, then they are more successful than the other churches in town.

  I have a young friend who tried to be on the worship team of that new church. Rick has an idea now that we should reverse the trend and start consolidating.  We should close most of the churches in town and all meet at the high school gym on Sundays.  I mean, we all have a common belief in Jesus, right?  We could save a lot of resources that are spread out all over town in so many disintegrating buildings and properties, and we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars on pastoral salaries.

  Of course, the pastors would all have to quit their jobs and buy into this thing to make it happen.  Of course.  And the denominations that own those properties would have to relinquish  their properties and abandon their unique sectarian doctrines.  Right, that'll happen.  And the holiness camp will get along with the Calvinist camp and charismatic camp.  Uh-huh.

  Okay, look.  I'm not so naive as to think that anything like that will ever happen (and neither is Rick).  Here's what is naive:  The retiring president of my former denomination just posted his last editorial in the denominational newsletter saying, "I believe... it will take 100,000 new congregations to re-evangelize America...  Every church was once a church plant, and every church - in its life time - needs to plant multiple churches."**

  This man has not been paying attention.  Every denomination in America is declining.  And it wasn't churches that evangelized America in the first place, it was traveling evangelists.  Sinners who need evangelizing don't come inside churches, so there is little correlation between church planting and evangelizing.

  The only movement that is growing is the house church movement and the exodus out of the religious institutions.  America will not be re-evangelized until God initiates the next revival, and the signs are all contraindicative at the present time.

What to do:

  So that leaves only a few options for the would-be church planter:

1. Change your goals:  If you must plant a church, realize you will not be evangelizing or winning new believers but working with old ones.  And they will bring their old ways with them.  You will be like every other church in town, and you will make enemies in those other churches from which will come your constituents.  A new church plant simply starts the music for the next round of musical chairs where the believers all get up and march around to the next "new" chair.  You have to be okay with that, because your church plant will be no exception to this rule.
2. Change your mind:  Don't plant a church.  Stay where you are and keep pouring into the old wineskin.  Of course, you will still be serving the Body, not the Lost.  You'll keep feeding the already full, and you'll have little or no impact in the community.  You'll have to be okay with that.
3. Change hemispheres:  Become a missionary.  While there is no movement going on in America right now, there are thousands coming to faith in Christ every day in China and Africa.  You could win souls to your heart's content.  This will require radical changes in your life, and only a few rare souls are up to the challenge.
4. Change your direction:  Start a house church.  Again, you'll be working with believers but in a more organic way and without the stigmas attached to church, and you'll have a better chance of impacting your neighborhood.  To do this best maybe you should go cold turkey and quit going to regular church.  If so, study what's happening in the world by reading some of the books I've listed in the right sidebar of this blog, especially, unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the head of the Barna Group.  It's a real eye-opener.
5. Change your life:  Be like Bob; quit going to church and enter a whole new lifestyle of Being the Church.  Read and study the Bible from a new vantage point that precludes organizations and includes only Jesus.  Hang out with non-believers with no agenda but to love them and make friends of them.  This requires the most foundational changes in your faith and your approach to life as a follower of Christ, and you will probably have to start by entering an extended sabbatical - a time alone or with a few like-hearted pilgrims when you must first de-construct your former institutionalized life.  I predict you'll never go back.

    Okay, then.  I may have discouraged some potential church planters, but at least I've listed some alternatives which may save you a lifetime of frustration and disillusionment in a post-church culture where church planting doesn't work and is the wrong thing for you to do with your life.

  Love me for it.

* My brother, Gerald Sims, gets credit for the concept of the cannibal church and is writing a book about it.
** The Missionary Church Today magazine, spring 2013, Vol.46, No 1, page 3, Dr. Bill Hossler, President.  For their general conference this summer The Missionary Church has scheduled Alan Hirsch, co-author of The Shaping of Things to Come, which blows up the conventional ways of doing things.  I think they could have a tiger by the tail, but they're sure to ignore everything Mr. Hirsch says and keep holding on to their irrelevant traditions.  Sorry, but they won't let go the old wineskins.
  
  
  

Alone in the Middle, Part 2 - Religion

  This is the second entry in my series, "Alone in the Middle", in which I am describing a few settings where I am a misfit.  Part 1 was on Politics and can be viewed by scrolling down to the next post below.

  

Robert on the Road.  Alone.

  When it comes to religion, again I am on the outside, and not to my regret but rather to my delight.  I believe that the institutions of the church are not what God had in mind and are man-made entities.  This doesn't make them inherently evil as some of my friends maintain, it just predisposes them to be infected by the sinful inclinations of man, starting with the early churches and increasing exponentially with Constantine in the fourth century when he first established Christianity as the state religion.

  In practice and orthodoxy, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, religiously speaking, since I am not a participant in any church or denomination.  The Church Universal that is all believers, or the Body of Christ, exists and functions both within and without the religious institutions.  There are wonderful Christians in every church, and there are wonderful Christians who never go to church.

  I am a part of a growing movement in the western world that is a modern exodus from organized church.  In fact, the only church group that is growing in America is the house church movement, and it defies categorizing.  Many have tried to describe it, but with varying success, since there is no central leader or spokesman other than Christ, it is virtually void of hierarchy, and the doctrines and practices vary from one house to the next.  There are characteristics which seem to be common to most house churches, starting with the tenets of the Apostles' Creed but then diverging from there to a refreshing diversity that encompasses a plethora of ideas.

  There is also a plethora of critics who have sought to demonize the movement, and this is not surprising, as humans just normally resist change, and especially religious humans.  Some critics say it is heretical, but the same was said of Christ when he departed from the established religion of his day.  Many of the exiles who are part of this migration maintain that it is the next great movement that God has initiated, since the institutional church has largely lost its way.  In their thinking - and some of them have said this:  Jesus has left the building - and we're following Him.

  The church has become something of a political party with its own unique platform characterized by hypocrisy, bigotry, criticism, and legalism.  It is infected with a general oppressive air that demeans women, the underprivileged, and gays.  And all in the name of Christ who was a friend of women, the poor, and was often called the Friend of sinners.  No wonder so many have left with a bad taste in their mouths.  I think Jesus wants to gag as well, and so he has staged a modern day exodus to rival the original exodus of his people from their slavery in Egypt.

  One of the endemic tyrannies of the organized church is its powerful addiction to the doctrine of hierarchy, an oppressive orthodoxy specifically banned by Christ himself (Matt 20:25-28).   To many it is the cardinal sin of the church that victimizes millions every day.  I would say that at least it is the leaven of the Pharisees that has worked its way through the whole batch.  Jesus said the leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, which makes me ask the obvious question: How is it not hypocrisy for any Protestant to preach submission to authority in the church when the entire Protestant tradition was born out of protest against church hierarchy?  The word Protestant means, "One who protests".  By teaching submission to authority, you deny your Protestant roots.  Yet millions cower under this dogma every Sunday having never realized the hypocrisy of it.

  In his book, Was Church God's Idea?, Marc Winter says, "So much of the devil's subversion, of those assemblies who are called by the name of Christ, has been through the useful tool of titles. When Jesus said, call no man "Teacher, or Father", I think He meant do not give positional headship to any man, that position belongs to Christ alone. When Jesus said it is finished, we no longer needed ANY human intermediary. Now we ALL are a kingdom of priest. Do not let a human usurping Christ's headship, via their title, interfere with you hearing God's voice."

  Watchman Nee is another scholar and writer who asserts that whenever we designate a leader in the church, we displace the headship of Christ.*

  

  But my own philosophy on the displacement of Christ by the organized church points to legalism as the ultimate culprit, a salvation earned by man's own self-righteousness.  The work of Christ is freedom (Gal.5:1), but the work of the church is slavery to a new kind of law that replaces the Old Testament law but that is just as oppressive and bypasses the cross of Christ.  Most Christians just don't get it: we are living in the age of grace and are free in Christ.  "By grace we are saved, not of works, lest any one boast (Eph. 2:8)."   There is no list of rules to live by, no law but the law of love.  "The entire law is summed up in a single command, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14)  We are at liberty to  experience Christ more fully every day, and it's not done through human effort.  The church cannot save.  In fact, all too often it does the opposite: it condemns us to an alternate hell of human effort, the same as every other religion in the world.

  To some who are reading, my position sounds really liberal, doesn't it?  And by definition it is, since the word means "marked by generosity: openhanded, free from bigotry".  In that case, I don't mind being identified as a liberal, as I'm thinking that  Jesus was the original liberal.  He came to free us from the law, from legalism, from an obligation to obey the rules.  He became our righteousness so we are accepted by God.  Unconditionally.

  If not, then the cross of Christ is good for nothing.  And if the cross is good for nothing, than the church is also good for nothing more than a social gathering, so either way we are in for a good time.  Rejoice!  And be free!

  So this kind of talk is rejected by religious conservatives... and liberals as well but for different reasons.  Either way that makes me a reject.  A reject from all religious institutions.  But I'm not really Alone in the Middle like the Monkey in the Middle, 'cause I'm not even in the game.  Thankfully.

  I reject Christendom.  I embrace true Christianity:  Jesus Only.

* Watchman Nee in his book, The Normal Christian Church.

God Isn't There Anymore

   "A godly man suggested we stop going to church," she told me, "He said God isn't there anymore."  This young wife and mother of two young daughters must have seen the surprise on my face and took it as encouragement to tell me the rest of the story.  It was an interesting story.
  Their local church had recently split down the middle, but Rona Lessfoot and her husband, Nate (not their real names) were determined to take the high road and not take sides, even though they had dear friends on both sides of the controversy.  They continued attending with their friends who were still at the church, but they also were meeting every week in a home group with friends from the other side.  Though there was a measure of awkwardness to this, everyone seemed okay with the arrangement for several weeks, until this couple had an arbitrary encounter with a man they hardly knew but who seemed to have an unusual spirit of discernment and wisdom.  Perhaps because he was from the outside, they felt they could share their recent experience with the demise of their home church and the estrangement among some of their friends.
  After listening intently to their story and asking a few questions, this would-be prophet seemed to have a word from the Lord for them.  "I think you should stop attending that church for awhile; God is not there anymore."  He suggested they withdraw for one month and then see how they felt about it.
  Though they were surprised by the idea, after discussing and praying about it, this young couple decided to try it; they quit attending for a month but continued with the small group in their home.
  That was more than two years ago, and they haven't been back to their old church since. Today, the Lessfoots and their daughters are meeting in the home of some friends who also have kids, and there are two other couples who attend-- and that is an interesting sidebar in itself.
  It seems that their friends with kids have recently experienced a similar situation about one year ago, having been expelled from a new church plant that went sour after a three-man pastoral team broke up when one of the men became overbearing and abusive in a grab for power.
  Not only that, but the two other couples in the group consist of a former church elder and leader, and a former pastor who was ousted by his denomination for obeying clear direction from God that ran contrary to directives from district leadership.  Go figure.
  It seems there is no shortage of church refugees in this neighborhood, but they maintain that their relationships with God and fellowman have never been better.  There seems to be a depth to their discussions and Bible studies that was seldom achieved when they were in the institutional church, and having been through similar tribulations, there is a deep bond that glues them together.  It's really more like family than ever before.
  Nate and Rona and their family are part of a growing movement in the western church world, a widening exodus that is moving from organized church to organic church.  And they say it's a good thing.  In fact, none of the good folks in this house church ever mention anything that they miss about their former life in the institutional church.
  How about that?
  Do you know anyone else who left the church because they felt God told them to?
  

Beyond Radical- a brief book review

  "THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL GROUND FOR ANYTHING WE PROTESTANTS PRACTICE."

This is how Gene Edwards begins his book, Beyond Radical (1999), after first stating the mission of the book: "THIS IS A CALL TO BREAK WITH THE PRESENT PRACTICE OF CHRISTIANITY IN A WAY MORE RADICAL THAN WAS KNOWN DURING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION" (Yes, it really is printed in all caps;  I think he's trying to get someone's attention!)  He then lists more than twenty practices that we do that are not scriptural, stating that "We distort history when we try to teach that these practices are all New Testament, existed in the first century, and are 'right out of the Word of God!'"  Here's a partial list:

THE CHURCH BUILDING

PASTORS

THE ORDER OF WORSHIP

THE SERMON

THE PULPIT

THE PEW

THE CHOIR

CHAPTER AND VERSE

SUNDAY SCHOOL

THE SEMINARY

THE BIBLE SCHOOL

INTERDENOMINATIONAL AND PARA-CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS

ALL PROTESTANTS GOING TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING

THE ALTAR CALL

  Edwards' book pre-dates the similar but more comprehensive and well-known volume by Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity.   Edwards is more famous for his other works, A Tale of Three Kings, and The Divine Romance, among others.  He and Viola have been part of the house church movement for several decades.  By the way, the modern house church movement dates back to the early 1800's, and only lately has experienced an acceleration in growth, I believe, in response to the fast-growing exodus of about one million believers in North America who are leaving the institutional church every year, and also in response to emerging changes in Western culture.  One of those major changes is the growing quest for authenticity.  The list above should explain the need for that.

Harmful Hierarchy Part 2

Okay, I know where the confusion comes from about this submission to authority doctrine.  Most believers-- and in fact most teachers and pastors-- are thinking of the organization of the institutional church, and the organism of the universal Church, as the same thing, and then trying to apply spiritual truth to a man-made entity.  So let's clarify:
I'm going to define the church (with a small "c") as the man-made denominations, local congregations and structures that have been instituted in order to organize the (capital "C") Church, which is the Body of Believers, the Bride of Christ, that is all believers everywhere.  There are believers both inside and outside this institution, so this organism, the Body of Christ, or the Church, also exists both inside and outside the institution-- the church.
Now, organizations need organization, so some kind of hierarchical structure must be maintained or you'll end with... well, disorganization.  Whether it's a business, an institution, the military, or whatever, there must be hierarchy, and the larger the organization, the more complex the hierarchy.  Denominations and parishes and local congregations are organizations, so they must have an organizational structure-- a man-made hierarchy.  I'm talking about the small "c" church, the institution here.
But the capital "C" Church, the Body of Christ, was not created with a pyramidal hierarchy, it was meant to be an Organism unlike anything else.  It cannot be compared to the military and it should not be run like a business.  There is only one level of hierarchy that exists between the parts of the Body and the Head, which is Christ.  Every part of the Body is answerable directly to the Head.  There are no levels or ranks among the believers, as all are on the same plane and are obliged to respect or submit to one another while submitting to Christ.
All right, I'm not sure that I have cleared up any confusion, but I'll move ahead.  The problem of harmful hierarchies in the church comes when we take a human action such as Paul's appointing of elders in the New Testament churches-- his attempt to organize the local assembles-- and we spiritualize that and build an entire doctrine upon it, calling it a God-ordained clear Biblical principle that should be applied to the church today and without question.
Because this has happened, millions of believers, in their various denominations, are living under an ungodly religious oppression that was never intended by God and is, in fact, anti-Christ, as it perpetuates religious hierarchical empires that stand against the servanthood that Christ taught and exemplified.  The fact is that all believers-- including all leaders in the church-- should "have the same attitude as that of Christ, who...made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant." (Phil. 2: 5-7).  Now where's the hierarchy in that?


Frank Viola speaks for me when he says, "Command-style relationships, hierarchy, passive spectatorship, oneupmanship, religious programs, etc. were created by fallen humans.  And they run contrary to the DNA of the triune God as well as the DNA of the church.  Sadly, however, after the death of the apostles, these practices were adopted, baptized, and brought into the Christian family.  Today, they have become the central features of the institutional church."    ---Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Cook Press, 2008, p. 37


Viola also says, "The Bible never teaches that believers are given authority over other believers.... The notion that Christians have authority over other Christians is an example of forced exegisis.  As such, it's Biblically indefensible."  --Reimagining Church, p.214, 215


By the way, there is much less confusion about the submission to authority doctrine among believers who are worshipping outside the institutional church in house groups, coffee shops or Boiler rooms*.  Many of those movements are patterned more closely after the New Testament church which had virtually no hierarchy for the first three centuries.  The church in China is an example of one of the largest contemporary house church movements in the world-- where congregations and denominations are outlawed.


* See Punk Monk, New Monasticism and the Art of Breathing, by Andy Freeman & Pete Greig, for more on Boiler Rooms.