The Western Church has failed. She has moved so very far from her birth as the New Testament Church, the two would hardly recognize each other. Can we recover what has been so long lost?
Why? Why must churches continually craft programs and advertising to provoke and cajole their members just to show up half-way regularly? Why must it take weeks of pumping them up, planning all the details in advance, and handing them on a silver platter some one-day-per-year mission activity?
Thus the congregation is spoon-fed for years and never learns to feed itself. The fact is that we are delivering babies who never intend to grow, enrolling students who never intend to graduate, enlisting soldiers who never intend to fight, and registering racers who never intend to run. Our motto has become "There he is Lord, send him!" The Ship of Zion is no longer manned by a volunteer crew working for sheer love of the Captain, but is steered by a pilot and an assistant pilot, while the remainder are paying passengers who are going along for the ride and complaining as they go. Many congregations are made up of half-converted individuals who think that when Jesus said we were to be childlike, he meant "childish" and they have to be petted and pampered to even keep them coming, much less to minister to others. [from "The Priesthood of All Believers" by Karl Ketcherside]
The system draws them in, but from the start primes them to take the path of passivity. There are plenty there who don't belong, not really. To keep that bunch moving, we use lots of worldly means. In so doing, we cripple the real believers, those who would really move on their own if we let them. Unfortunately, they tend to move in ways which don't fit in the program, and certainly not in the budget. God forbid it should break their dependency on the clergy!
We seek a church filled with movers, self-propelled by the Holy Spirit living in them. By grace they come into the Kingdom, a miracle of God's hand. By grace they continue in His calling, for it remains a miracle of God's hand. We don't promote, provoke, cajole, etc. We inform and build up that which exists, because no man can create it. We allow complete freedom to decide, "I will serve Him." We seek the house church type of congregation.
Nothing in the preceding pages should signal a proposal we reject everything about mainstream churches. Much good takes place there. Organizations can work, and do so with far better results than we now see. The problem is we tend to consider poorly how to prevent the organization becoming the central concern, as if faithful to Jesus was defined solely as faithful to the organization. Was there not a Reformation over just such a false idea?
It is widely acknowledged the current typical structure is too deeply wedded to a passing cultural-political ecology. What we normally think of as Evangelical Protestant churches and denominations today have passed their heyday. Nor should we suppose the Emergent movement is anything more than a temporary fix. It may well extend her life for awhile, but she is a terminal patient. Western civilization itself is about to suffer a major shock, and it's become painfully apparent "church" is entirely too dependent on it.
Yet, we would be foolish to expect the witness of Christ to fade with it. The Body of Christ has lived through worse trials. What comes next we cannot guess, but we can be sure the Kingdom will have a witness. What "church" means, what it looks like and how it tends to operate, will certainly be different. We should never mistake the method for the mission. Any ministry which clasps to that truth, embraces and weds to it now, should expect to pass through the fire nicely.
Let us dream just a moment, and pretend some current organization wakes up. Perhaps the realization sinks in that all the trappings are just that, trappings and nothing more. What would you expect to see in a church awakened? Unlike others who have embraced the house church model, this writer will not dismiss having professionally trained called servants, but would demand they realize they are servants. Nor do we here reject ownership of real estate or facilities, but demand a flexibility not now practiced anywhere. Perhaps better would be leasing or renting. Certainly there must be a rejection of any contract with any government, if at all possible. Naturally, this envisions an end to the monster churches, but those have never been a good idea.
Saying more on these lines would only further alienate those deeply committed to the status quo. The point is made. Easier by far it would be to start a wholly new work, and let God make of it what He will, but that may be neither possible nor desirable in all cases. Let us examine some of the possibilities. Should it all come to naught, the exercise would hardly be a waste of time. To think on these things puts us far ahead of those whose faith may well die when the Hand of God moves in judgment over the West.
It would be easy to write whole volumes on what I alone see as theological failures in Southern Baptist churches. Many of my arguments aren't original. A primary example is the failure to remain close enough to the Reformed roots of theological identity. Without apology, I decry Arminian theology in all it's manifestations. Further, I have often pointed to a massive wave of Synergist teaching, regardless whether it is a conscious rejection of Monergism.
Those who teach synergism believe that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man.... Most people, based on their own perceptions, assume synergism to be true. They assume that though God made it possible for people to be saved, it was something in them, apart from any special work of grace, that caused them to "accept Christ" as they say. That's what it seems like. We must gain our theology from the Bible, not from our interpretations of our own experience. The Bible does not teach synergism, but that salvation is an act of God. [from "Rejecting Synergism and Returning to Monergism" by Bob DeWaay]
Most of the membership have been trained to think Synergist. It's tied to Dispensationalism, which has already been addressed. The point is, the list of errors is long, with many souls sharing much of it.
Rather, the greatest theological mistake was made long ago, long before English was used to discuss Christ. At the very base of most errors was the adoption of Western philosophical structure. Surely many would recognize the old debate about inductive versus deductive thinking. It's not a matter of superiority, but application. In things temporal, inductive reasoning helps greatly. It serves well making sense of the material world. Computers, anyone? Not possible without inductive reasoning. The greatest disaster was using it to enhance theological understanding. The human mind is fully adaptable, capable of shifting between Eastern and Western logical constructs. For things eternal in nature, deduction is the only approach. All one need and can know about things of the Spirit are revealed, coming down from above, an assumption many have forgotten. Actually, this mistake began before Jesus was born.
Jesus fought often against a view of Moses drawn from the Western mindset adopted by the Jewish establishment. If you examine many of His public debates from that awareness, you see it forms a major part of most conflicts. This adoption of Western logic by the Jews, rooted in their commercial dealings in Alexandria, Egypt, particularly in rabbinical colleges there, was the primary source of the Talmud and all its errors. Scholars have found ample references to the Pharisaical notion the Talmud was more authoritative than the Torah (Matthew 15:1-9). The bigger problem was the rejection of the emphasis on spiritual truth as viewed from the Eastern mindset. It is this latter viewpoint which undergirds the whole Old Testament, and is the one best route to understanding Jesus Himself.
It's not as if to say God thinks in Hebrew. Rather, Hebrew culture tends to reflect how God thinks. Seeing we can't even trust most modern Jewish scholars to properly promote this, it calls us to work a little harder digging up the bones of ancient Semitic thought. Here's an odd thing: modern Arabs come closer to an Old Testament mindset than modern Jews. If we understand either one of the two - Arabs or Semitic thought - the other makes much more sense. Not in the sense we need to act more like modern Arabs, but we need to recognize the fundamental assumptions about the world are rather similar. To have the mind of Christ includes very much being more Ancient Hebraic. To read Scripture with a Western-Analytical mind means often missing the point. (See the Appendix for more on this topic.)
Virtually everything else we could say about the failure of the modern Western church begins here.
With a fresh foundation of Semitic understanding, we are in a much better place to build up a church on the New Testament model. This takes planning, not planting. Nowhere in the Word do we see mention of the concept of intentionally planting a new work in the modern sense. Indeed, that may be the very worst way to go about it. Keeping an eye on the Eastern viewpoint, we must examine how the Early Church did it.
During the First Century and shortly after, churches arose simply because Christians went somewhere and made converts. Very few went out on a mission journey; most went because persecution drove them out of Jerusalem, or because they were seeking a new market for their regular work or business, or some other reason. When they went, they took the gospel message with them. Generally, they started with fellow Jews first, but quickly included Gentiles. A church arose because these believers met together according to the Old Testament norm of synagogue. Even when missionaries went abroad to start churches, we note the method was not to begin by constructing a facility, but to make converts from among Jews first. Whether that worked or not, they eventually did make converts of local Gentiles, then went about finding either a local sponsor or engaging in some trade to fund the work of establishment and pay their way. Eventually they would accept funds from previously grown churches, but never demanded it. They allowed God to select the funding mechanism.
There are, of course, some parts of the ancient methods which will not work today. In the West, it's almost certain standing in the central plaza and preaching is just about pointless. The reason should be obvious: The public square is no longer "the public square." That is, people do not typically gather or pass through the main city square because that's not where news and goods are exchanged any more. In the New Testament, when that was not an option for whatever reason, converts were made simply by ordinary daily contact while going about the business of living. That was always the bottom line in spreading the gospel message. In the process of doing whatever you do to earn an income, or whatever means you have to occupy your time, share the gospel, first by living it. Just the normal routine human activity, based on an eternal perspective, will cause you to stand out in the world. People are going to ask, and you will have to explain that weirdness. This is the method which hasn't changed throughout history.
Thus, we don't plant churches, especially not using the tools of modern market analysis and demographics studies. That leads to a narrow selection of prosperous and growing communities, which leads in turn to prosperous growing churches filled with one small segment of the population, folks who never leave their comfort zone because they assume it's right and proper to demand the church bend to their cultural bias. Simply go where you go, in full faith God is in charge of the strategy. Live by the other-worldly focus of the Kingdom of Heaven, and He will surely draw to that those He has elected to salvation among the people you encounter. Every time you and one other believer meet, you are the church. If you then intentionally meet for fellowship in the Spirit, you have a congregational worship service. If you add teaching, it's just a regular church meeting, regardless of the hour or day of the week. Add more to the meeting in someone's home, and you have house church.
There is nothing in Scripture keeping anyone from baptizing new believers, nor serving communion. No clergy required. If you get enough families together and can afford it, you can set aside one member to become your full time elder. There is plenty of Scripture describing the qualifications. You can even send him out to get advanced professional training, as long as you realize a degree no longer means much - if it ever did - in terms of spiritual qualifications to serve and lead. Academic rigor is not limited to certified, high-priced institutions of higher learning. Indeed, seminaries are fast becoming the place where denominational hierarchy instill their own peculiar brand of corruption in the process of weeding out people who march to a different drummer. The proper biblical model is established scholars of the Word taking on disciples, who then take their learning and disciple others. We note in passing: seniority in the Bible, in the sense of who has served longest and most faithfully, was at a premium. Energetic innovators were generally expected to gain some proper discipline -- be a disciple -- before leading. Meanwhile, there's nothing in the Bible forcing you to hire a professional. A church is led by the Holy Spirit, working through whomever He pleases, and with the agreement of the members.
Membership in any body is nothing more than a mark of acceptance from the others. This is more about adoption of a family member than it is some fair and objective procedure. You can't take a glimpse into the Lamb's Book of Life to see if they are listed; you can only work to discern if their fruit qualifies them for inclusion. That fruit is best manifested not in holiness so much as growth. That is, regardless how mighty your spiritual gifts, there's always room for improvement. That's the same for evangelism: Our greatest power to show His glory is the change in us over time. It should be obvious there are ways to convey conditional inclusion until such time as the new family member has proven too valuable to lose, not because of some measurable performance, but because they show the miracle power of love and devotion of Christ regardless of ability to actually perform. The basis for inclusion is the evidence of that miracle of regeneration, the spiritual DNA you can't deny.
We thus return to the very root of the whole thing: It's a miracle of God. Any other basis and you don't have church. It's a miracle of God's grace we are included in His Kingdom, a miracle of His Spirit to lead us to any new location, a miracle of His power to live the gospel and draw whomever He elects, a miracle of loving fellowship between His children wherever they are, and a miracle bonding of service in faith which creates a church. No need for marketing plans, demographic surveys, and economic factoring. Go where you go in your daily life for Him. There's no need for heavy investment in real estate or facilities. Just meet where you can as He provides. There's no use for membership procedures, lists, budgets, staffing and committees. It's just a family, growing by heavenly adoption.
Now that's a real New Testament church!
The wise old preacher told me, "In every congregation, you've got a lot of people who don't do much of anything. They are members, but it doesn't seem they are actually born-again. There are a bunch more who do stuff, but try to avoid decision making. They are faithful, but want no part of keeping discipline. They'll try to go with the flow on voting and such. You have pastor them, too." This is wrong. Not that they should not be pastored, but we should not settle for that. It's wrong on several levels.
First, we have here a reflection of the false model of church structure. This situation assumes a business model, not the proper biblical concept of the family. Too often a pastor refers to his "church family" when it means nothing more than a CEO referring to his "corporate family" -- words to justify requiring an organizational devotion. A church has business aspects, but its basic identity is not as a business. Membership guidelines should reflect courtship and marriage, not contract negotiations. It is scripturally impossible to treat each new member the same regarding entrance, because each carries their own baggage, needs, and gifts. We have in our churches too hastily drawn in each candidate in the drive for numbers.
Second, he assumes it rests on human power to run a church. A proper biblical church is saved by grace, and must continue in grace. While we acknowledge the factors of psychology and group dynamics, we defy them to have the last word. Those behavioral sciences are tools to diagnose spiritual problems, to which the real solution is the Spirit, which may or may not include using standard behavioral remedies. We do not accept the human norms for a divine operation. We do not sit down and calculate an acceptable level of loss, of carrying a certain amount of dead weight, and focusing on simple "smooth operation." If all you want is organizational tranquility, try a graveyard. People living and growing in Christ is messy, all the way to the top.
Third, this all puts the organization in the center, rather than the individual believer. While we might say good words about individual needs, we don't act on them. We've been conditioned to think quite backwards, because seeking the health of the group should take us through the lives of every individual. The group is not, and should not be, some homogeneous thing, but a collection of unique individuals. Adding or removing any one person changes the character of the group. If we follow the concept of courtship and family, no one can possibly be left to their own devices with some unspoken requirement to fit themselves into the group. We don't sell our faith as a standard package offered to all candidates. Evangelism is enticing new members by the greatness of our love for them; discipleship is continuing that courtship by pulling them ever closer, and more deeply involved in the family.
Fourth, we assume too much a tightly limited involvement, as if church was just one more thing people do. It's not about scheduling a few hours of each week for something added to a busy life. The Kingdom of God is central to a person's being, or they have no part at all in it. Faith in Christ is not a selection of minor adjustments to your normal routine, born on a sales pitch offering a better way to do those routine activities. It is a complete disruption of the routine, consuming it and subsuming it wholly under a new and all-encompassing regime. We offer the one thing in life these people really need, regardless whether they are conscious of that need when we encounter them. It may require shedding everything they felt mattered up to that point.
Everyone can do evangelism, because everyone knows how to fall in love. Winning souls is more about winning hearts. Perhaps some would say it's too easy for sinners to mistake what we are offering. Yes, it's more dangerous than the standard soul-winning approach, but "danger" is one of the primary adjectives of a life following Jesus. Part of this risk is due to the Western twisted cultural view of love, and we are all about redeeming human misunderstandings. Everyone has an almost instinctive grasp of proper boundaries. Our primary struggle is not against lack of intellectual knowledge about evangelism, nor against the inertia overcome by behavioral conditioning. Even lunatics could be successful with that standard. Our primary struggle is getting people to understand the very nature of sacrificial love, of healing their emotional injuries so they can reach out from their very inner nature. We depend too much on the imagery of soldiers, but have forgotten the chief weapon is the Word of God, a phrase referring to a Divine Person, who personifies love.
When should you consider a commitment to the gospel Ministry? When you can't do anything else.
We are talking about living a life of faith. That's commanded for everyone in Christ, but for those whose calling and vocation is the Word itself, they must lead in exemplifying that faith life. They must have already placed themselves in a vulnerable position, failed plenty, stumbled through the dazed understanding and misunderstanding of God's will in a life and calling He reserves for those who must serve Him in ways few know.
The highly competent, always-got-it-right successful "ministers" are mere hucksters. You don't see the Apostle Paul claiming that sort of life. He spoke openly of his "thorn in the flesh" which today would keep him from that upper rung of Professional Christian success. Instead, he spoke of having all the bad experiences of stonings, shipwrecks, diseases, etc. This man, the pinnacle of faith and obedience after Jesus, the one human representative God chose to bridge the gap between a small, Jewish sect, to a world-wide faith of Gentiles, too - he never forgot he was fallen and failing. All he did was the work of God's grace in spite of his humanity. Worldly success, TV shows and custom tailored suits all mean you've compromised, and you don't follow Jesus very closely.
This is not a profession, with a guild structure conferring privileges, or a union guaranteeing wages and a minimal level of comfort and public respect. The true saints of God hardly pay attention to such things. They don't ask the crowds to come to them for a serving of Gospel Truth, in a comfortable setting where everyone can show off their new "do." They are taking the gospel to people who probably wouldn't show up at such places, but instead are found in places where sin is rampant. They take the gospel to Hell armed with a water pistol, backed up by a legion of angels, because that's how God works.
The rest is just man doing what man does for worldly things. Just let me carry Paul's spare pair of sandals to the next stoning, so I can be blessed by a few cuts and bruises in pursuit of the Kingdom. Mortification is the one forgotten doctrine in our world.
By Ed Hurst
revised 27 February 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)