Frank Viola and Re-Imagining
I attended Frank Viola’s “Re-Imagining the Church” conference held just outside Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in my hometown of Newmarket, last weekend. I took advantage of it being there and had the opportunity to visit my family. I want to thank Frank for personally inviting me. Even though I am not directly involved with the house-church movement which he espouses, he still thought it would be worth my while to attend. And it was. I’m glad I went. I want to try to articulate a few observations I made about the conference. Please forgive the fact that this is not a professionally written essay, but a quickly jotted observation I wish to share with you.
It was sold out with 200 registered. It took place in a very comfortable, plush sanctuary with state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment. We were seated at large round tables with approximately 10 people per table. I didn’t know anyone. It was a little awkward for me, but I sat at a table and introduced myself as best I could. I made an effort to say hi to Frank since he was so kind as to invite me. We’d never met except online. I’ve received some free copies of his books and reviewed one or two on this blog. He is very friendly, kind and has a warm sense of humor. Viola is obviously passionate about Jesus and his body, the church. There were a couple of times I felt like I was at a good ol’ Pentecostal revival meeting. I admired his passion and his zeal for the church. I also admired… and I told him this… his team of several men who showed incredible comraderie with Frank. I told him it must be wonderful to have such a group of strong supporters with him at all times. He agreed. I think that shows wisdom. It also shows that he is a team player, and that is often a good thing.
Something happened to me that was both uncomfortable and humorous. At one point we were to go around the table and introduce ourselves and talk about our own story with house-church. They started to my right and went around the table, so I was the last one. They talked about their negative experiences while in the institutional church and how they were either trying to find a house fellowship to be a part of, or trying to start a house fellowship, or being involved in one already. They talked of the benefits of not having authority figures, hierarchical leadership, brick and mortar buildings, paid staff, set meeting times, impersonal services, and all the rest. They had success stories of how things were going in their house-churches. Then it got to me. I said, “Well, I feel very much like a fish out of water here, but not only do I go to an institutional church… I pastor one!” “Oh!” some said, “They’re okay. They’re fine! In fact, I got saved in one!” Etc., etc. It was both cute and funny. (Just on a side note, I think I detected in the voice of many people the need for legitimization. That’s one problem with the house-church movement. It is still in its early stages, and because of the lingering entrenchment of institutional Christianity, most house-churchers seem to struggle with feeling illegitimate, disconnected from the “real” church. Just a thought.)
The truth is, I’ve been a part of house churches or house fellowships or whatever you want to call them, as well as the institutional church. In my opinion, you just need to pick which pan you want to fry in. The house-churches have their own peculiar problems just like institutional churches do. But, more importantly, I think both struggle with much of the same issues: power struggles, the prevalence of the principalities and powers, locale, time, relational conflict, authenticity, realness, commitment, money, etc., etc.. In fact, one gentleman gave a presentation of his desire to start a network of house-churches because there is strength, security and safety in numbers, which is just another word for movement or denomination or fellowship. He’s right but, whether he likes it or not, he’s talking denominationalism in its earliest stages.
You see, the moment you have any expectations at all on others as a group, especially in the interest of that group, you have the inception of institutionalism. If you want no institution, then you can have no expectation at all on others. None at all!: not monetary, moral, missional, or anything. No expectations or desires whatsoever. And almost all of us find that impossible because of the style religion has morphed into today and which we have wholeheartedly adopted. I think true freelancing is excellent, but it is extremely rare. Extremely! I think institutions can be good. But the effort it takes to fight for an institution’s continued liberation from the principalities and powers is so arduous that very, very few are willing to acquire it.
Viola says that he has been outside of the institutional church for over 20 years. But the problems that he admits so beset the house-church movement sound remarkably similar to what, say, my denomination, the Vineyard movement, presently struggles with. The issues of theology, purity, passion, mission, power and authority, money, commitment, isolation versus networking and clustering, are identical. We are all talking about the same old solutions to the same old problems. So, if I were Frank Viola, this is what I would be struggling with:
First of all, decide what you want to be: institution or not. Like there is no kinda pregnant, there is no kinda church. You either are or you aren’t an institution. I’m married. Marriage is an institution. It can’t be helped. Lisa’s and my struggle is how to be in loving commitment without falling prey to horrid dangers of institutionalism. So, if they decide not to be institutional, then forget trying to organize, inspire, or motivate groups of people according to a particular vision or goal. I realize that all of Viola’s fears would come rushing in: heresy or just plain theological silliness, power-struggles and abuses, drifting away from the biblical Jesus and faith, lone-rangering and maverick leadership, cultism, and a complete lack of control over what’s going on in people’s homes. However, if he’s willing to become institutional (which I think he does if he wants his passions to bear fruit), then I would say this:
I think Frank Viola and company just need to admit that they are a church-planting movement and get on with it. Now, from my observation, all of the people at my table were people who have left the institutional church with unsavory memories of it. I totally understand that and don’t judge that at all. I believe them. Been there, got the scars! Given some too! But Viola should realize that his primary mission field is people who have left the institutional church and are looking for a way to fellowship with other believers in a safer, more authentic, and more biblical way. There was talk about saving the lost too, but this is obviously secondary because it is the found who finds them. I know many, many people who’ve left the institutional church, so the mission field is huge and the harvest is ripe! Some are ex-pastors too, so there are teachers out there looking for an audience. I suspect this will focus their efforts to accomplish their dreams and also give the people joining a feeling of legitimacy, that they are still somehow connected to the historic, holy, catholic church and not on some cosmic cult ride. Of course, having said this, it creates the problems Viola is trying to avoid, like structure, organization, hierarchy, trained and educated leadership, control, financial need, etc.
These are just some of the things I would say. I like Frank and think he’s on to something. I admire his zeal. Frank works hard to inspire others to find their original passion for Jesus again, their first love, or else it is all just a game. But many times I had the impression that they were fighting hard against being something that they already are… the church. They are just the church like it has always been since its birth. They are just the church in apparently new (some would say “biblical”) clothes. No. They’ve just rearranged the furniture, but the house is the same. It’s just a matter of style. My church works hard to be “organic”, “authentic” and “biblical”, and yet we are very institutional. Can’t be helped. Like Frank said, “There is just one church!” Exactly! We may look different, but we are brothers from the same mother.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
I like what you said about avoiding the pitfalls of institutionalism in marriage…I never really looked at marriage that way.
Interesting reading NP. My hope was that “live” it would be different than how it reads in Frank’s books.
how fascinating, sounds a really interesting time.
i wonder if when we are hurt by something or someone, (the ‘institutional church’) maybe our first layer of response is to develop an identity that is defined in the negative – the thing we are against. hopefully we are able to be healed and let go of those hurts and so our next development is to create a new thing out of the shell of the first, so maybe in time those folks will do that.
Two links I found very helpful lately whilst trying to deal with my hang ups about church – Brad Ruggles on ‘the 10 things the Church isn’t', and Anne JAckson’s book ‘Mad Church Disease’.
http://www.bradruggles.com/2009/06/25/what-church-isnt/
http://www.bradruggles.com/2009/01/14/public-health-warning-mad-church-disease/
That’s a great assessment, np.
David,
I’ve been waiting for your observations! Thanks for taking the time to share them with us.
I’ve been drifting around the edges of the Organic Church movement for several years and appreciate Viola’s work a great deal. I haven’t jumped in with both feet yet and may never take the plunge completely…I just don’t know yet.
We were involved in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and ultimately determined that I could no longer swim upstream against the traditional mindsets that governed the expectations of the people I tried to lead. I have tried, however, not to “throw the baby out with the bath water” and still find myself connected with a traditional church. The key issue for me is not the form or structure but rather the “Presence of God”, or the absence there of. Form had nothing to do with God’s Presence in our lives or fellowships. It doesn’t matter if your church is institutional or organic as long as that group of people are on a journey of discovering Him in reality and are willing to allow His Life to impact them individually and as a community.
At least that is one Graybeard’s opinion.
I really appreciate your thoughts on this subject.
Godspeed…
You’ve said some great things in that. HC’ers should read it (like myself). Having a movement is an inch from becoming a denomination. There are a number of different flavors or streams of coming-out-of-institution folks out there. Once in a while some guys, maybe local, maybe not, will have a grand idea of people coming under an umbrella. Some people use a kind of end-times motivation. Some couch it in phrases about unity. Some have fears about doctrinal purity. Some have fears about not being “covered” by the authority of some kind of officers. And there is a guru to cater to each one of these visions/fears. Plenty of self-styled apostles under the nomenclature of church planter. Plenty of ordinary folks looking for spiritual rock stars in the Body. But it boils down to this: there are a lot of things that we do, and ways that we gather, that do not require a real live Jesus to be part of. Not alive and involved. Maybe as an idea. Maybe in a galaxy far far away. The machine runs by itself with a little fuel and oil. If it can run without Him, why be a part of it? Why not instead, constitute ourselves in such a way that if Jesus does not intervene, it will fail in a spectacular fashion? That’s the big step of faith, to determine to not use coercion or psychology or vision or conformity to hold it all together. I see the seeds of all those things in these books and seminars and such from guys calling for a first century magic bullet.
I’m wondering how you were able to contain the “Z” theory?
Great write-up David. I was hoping you’d summarize the conference, since you mentioned in passing so tantalizingly the other day
I loved Pagan Christianity, and it set me on a path of love and discovery that I’ve not ever followed in my Christian walk. Also great reading if you’re interested is “So You Don’t Want to go to Church Anymore”, by Jake Colson (Wayne Jacobson) and “Becoming a True Spiritual Community”, by Larry Crabb.
Anyway… here’s my response. I absolutely agree with your observations on the house church movement. I feel God challening me to pursue non-institutional Christianity, so I can’t commit in my heart to house churches. What I have committed to, is removing the separation between the secular and non-secular. I want my spirituality, my Christianity, fully integrated with every part of my life… so that’s what my wife and I are working towards. Out of that I believe comes the freedom to visit church meetings, do engage in a house meeting, to sing worship songs… all without institutionalism because it’s coming from a place of true integration. My heart overflows with love for Jesus… so everything comes as a natural outpouring of that. There’s no religion about it, solely relationship with Christ, and that relationship influencing me and my family whereever He may lead. A visiting preacher… a drunk on the street… adopting an orphan… whatever.
At least that’s the theory that I’m trying to pursue. I do honestly believe that we can live with God without institution, and that talk of human nature desiring institution (while accurate) can be a crutch that we hold on to, for fear of actually diving into the completely unpredictable and unsafe nature of dynamic relationship.
I recognize the ‘feeling illegitimate’ issue. The biblestudy group I’ve been with for 5 years used to feel like that. Until a guy who came to speak pointed out that you don’t have to do everything that other churches do to be a ‘legitimate’ church. Since then everyone seems okay with calling it church.
I have personally left the institution part of the curch behind. But though I’m happy about being in a house church I realize full well that as long as churches are made up out of people all the usual problems will come into play.
But I’m really happy to have left the institution, the system, behind, because I think it makes everything worse by blowing it up out of proportion.
In a small, not so organized house church, problems can cause unrest but there isn’t much structure to carry things further. You just have to deal with everything in your little huddle. I like the simplicity of that!
I hear people in the Emerging Church movement here in the Netherlands going on about networking and ways of having church and to me it sounds like they’re throwing the old church away to start one just like it. So I hear you on that as well. And I’m sure for some people the temptation to network and connect to gain more influence and power is huge. But I’d advise people wo are seeking that to stay within the institutionalized churches. They’ve proven to be the best sort of organizations to support power games.
For me; I am a member of Christ’s church, which means I can walk into your church meeting and know that I’m one with you, and that goes for all the other ‘departments’ of the church. There will be people in various denminations I have many disagreements with, but being one doens’t necessarily mean we have the same opinions about everything. That’s not where my security lies.
So I am part of the church, I am the church, with all of you. The fact that some of you like to meet in an institutionalized form doesn’t change that.
So no safety in numbers, no expectations, no big vision, no institution for me. As for spreading the good news, we welcome others and some of us work with homeless, hungry or in any way needy people in the red light district. We sort of try to do what we can.
I think your assessment is right on the money.
One church. If you want to meet in Joe’s garage or a beautiful sanctuary that looks like it was set apart for something special.
The focus ought remain on the Word (and not us) (we are where the problems start). You can be a bid church, a little church…that does not matter.
Focus on the Word and the sacraments (also Word…visable Word) and Christ will take care of His Church. And remember that wherever the Lord builds a church…the devil will build a chapel right next door. The battle rages on.
Thanks, David.
‘build’ ….not “bid a church”.
Maybe you can ‘bid’ a church, too.
When you get up too early on the 4th of July, you can be an idiot (not that I need a special day for it)
‘big’…not “bid”
Hmmm. In all sincerity brother, it makes me wonder if we were at the same conference. I organized this event. I am the one who invited Frank to come. You state that you have read Frank’s books, and to be fair to you and Frank and your readers, your definition of “institutional church” comes nowhere near how Frank defines “institution” in Reimagining Church.
I was a pastor in the Vineyard myself. I hear what you are saying, but to say that the people who embrace house church are embracing another form of institutionalism is not correct. I will agree that there are many that essentially bring the cathedral into the bungalow, and as you say have just changed geography and rearranged the furniture, but they are only one stream of what is house church. Frank addressed that issue as well. It comes down to what is organic corporate leadership versus the CEO crap we have endured in both the business world and what is now seen so entrenched in the institutional church. That to me is the KEY issue of our time in the current expression of house church.
Once you realize what envelopes what we call leadership, and how the Early Church modeled corporate leadership, you realize how far removed the institutional church is from it. I also believe people keep doing what they do when it comes to leadership simply because they know nothing else, or believe that unless they do it, it won’t get done. Wrap all that up, with our culture’s need and demand for ‘titles’ and you compound an already chaotic problem.
I know many who exhibit leadership in my work environment, but they have no titles and no office of their own, but they get the job done. They are visionary initiators, and they can train and motivate, and can rally people around a cause. They lead by example by helping others. But they are not “leaders” in the company’s leadership chart and structure. This is because like the world, the institutional church produces “managers” and not leaders, and that also reduces “church” activities and practices to little more than a “sin management system”. I know, I was in it my whole life. I was born and raised in a missionary’s home and church planter’s family.
Frank addressed many issues, which like he said scratched the surface, especially when it comes to leadership and church planting. He really defined the whole issue of organic life and corporate leadership. I found his first session on the current status of the house church as a movement to be both sobering, and a corrective. I know that personally, IF the house church movement becomes so “organized” that it becomes an “organization” and gets a “registration” number and all that jazz, I am out of here!
Starfish Network is a group of people and house churches that share a common vision that is relational and missional, who realize that we need each other and can share our lives with each other in equipping and releasing the body of Christ to be more healthy, vibrant and effective in our society. Call it whatever you like, but that is no where close to “institutional”!
We have a “max flex” form of “leadership” where we “organize” around a particular task that must be accomplished. For instance, I was the lead guy in organizing Frank’s trip to Canada. I set up the schedule with Frank and our Starfish Team. I built the web site and set it up for online registrations. I arranged for the airline tickets with Frank directly. I coordinated with him and communicated with him on a regular basis, as well as with the lead pastor of Newmarket Alliance, Ian Knight. Ian’s wife Lesley assisted us in coordinating the food, snacks, breaks and lunch. The church set up team, set up the facility for us.
Working with me on some of the hands on tasks were Rad Zdero, who communicated with me by phone and email and face to face. Jerry Steingard arranged for the worship team. Marc Wright arranged for the video crew to record the event. Al Remley helped coordinate pick up and drop off of Frank, and Milt, and even had them stay at his home. My wife Lori helped with set up and administration. We all come from different faith traditions and work well together. We all live in different cities, from Ottawa, Mississauga, Barrie, Guelph, Kitchener, and Waterloo. We make time to meet face to face every couple of months and share our lives together.
Our team met to pray and to “plan” this event, and to debrief the day after. This was and is fluid. As soon as the event is over, so is the “organization”. It is done. Toast. Finished. When we start over, for the next training event, or conference, it is with praying and asking the Lord for direction, and then asking the Lord who should take care of what. This is ALL relational, and the organizing is fluid and flexible and task oriented with no one having titles, an office or a salary. This is all intentional.
We believe that we can be more effective together than apart from each other. We have nothing that will tie us down and hold us back. When we need money for something, we share the need and get the task accomplished. We are accountable to one another without the trappings of institutionalism. We come alongside each other, and as people who travel to other house churches, we share our lives together in Christ, and we ask the Lord to assist us in helping people grow and mature in Christ, and develop their spiritual gifts or whatever the Lord instructs us to do. This is all part of spiritual transformation and discipleship, in a relational and organic way. This is what happens when people share their lives and their journey in Christ together.
As a former institutional church pastor, I understand where you are coming from, and we each have our filters and our experiences as our grids for processing and understanding what God has done, is doing, and where God is leading us. All I know is that Frank called the body of Christ back to Christ, and asked Christians to embrace Christ in a form of church body life that is more biblical, more authentic, and more organic and real, without the forms that have been part of institutional church for 1700 years. I cannot disagree with that.
I gave up my ordination, my salary, my living off the church, simply because the church I see as the institutional church, I cannot find it in the New Testament. And that for me is “case closed”! And brother, if the house church “movement” I am a part of becomes obsessed with methods and principles rather than focused on Christ alone, I will walk away form it all, and start again seeking only Him and those who desire Him, and desire to partake of Him.
One need only to read the epistles to the early churches (in the Bible) to see how wonderful the early church was.
They were no different than we are. The repristiantion movements looking for some perfect, or more “real” church, are just kidding themselves.
Where the gospel is proclaimed in it’s purity, and where the Sacraments are offered in accordance with that gospel (and the people believe it)…there is the church.
Hi:
Words have a way of locating where our individual hearts are, and often we really “hear” what is in our own souls rather than the actual thoughts and intents of the speaker. Words locate us. They will tell where we really live — our “address” so to speak. Jesus many times aptly repeated, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” He was saying, “Hear what the Father is saying, not what your own soul is suggesting”
Conservatively speaking, we probably spent approximately nine hours in the weekend conference. Most of the words spoken throughout were recorded for posterity and review. By a simple count and based on the frequency of mention, what would you say was the overarching theme of the weekend?
Let me humbly offer my own opinion. While there were many minor themes with varying amounts of airtime given, I heard the following words and terms spoken quite fluently and in volumes from most who spoke and from several whom I had the pleasure of meeting:
? The Father God
? The Godhead
? The Love of the Father and the Son
? The Spirit of God
? Jesus
? Supremacy of Jesus
? Love
? Lord
? Family
? Church Life
? Death to self
? The crucified life
? The Cross
? Organic Church Life
? Biblical
? Authentic Church Expression
Permit me this opportunity to focus on what I believe the key tone of the weekend was about: I offer that we heard (and shared about) the eternal love between Father God and His Son Jesus. A love so strong, He had to seek and find another to participate. That invited participant was and is Man. Created in the image of the Father. Created to be one family with God! This Holy Family is called the Church, the Body of Christ. (not Institutional Church not House Church etc…)
If this vibrant, authentic life in Jesus Christ (with The Father, The Spirit and others in the Family of God here on earth) is the honest, normative experience in my local church family and your local church family then, praise Jesus!
God’s intention has never been to author a movement or new fancy descriptive terms for what He is accomplishing in the earth. He is calling you and I into a love affair with Him. One so all-consuming as to erase and supersede any other experiences and relationships and Jesus is the one who is even today still authoring this invitation to come…
This weekend I heard: My beloved is mine, and I am His! (Song of Songs 2:16)
Marc
I went to a housechurch for a while and they were very authoritarian. You had to do what the two guys who ran it said and consult them about things in your life, like if you wanted to go to university or get married. It felt like a cult. They were very controlling and had a specified chain of hierarchy. They were linked to one of the best known housechurch chains in England.
The guy who ran it was a bastard. He was a customs official and very arrogant and aggressive in a quietish way. He threatened me once. The two guys accused me of fancying them both – what a joke! They bullied me a lot and I was only 18.
What do you mean it ‘felt’ like a cult?
The way they intruded into every aspect of your lives and the way they had this absolute chain of authority so that if Andy said it, then God was saying it.
Oh, I see what you mean! Yeah, well I had to decide whether to leave or not and bear in mind I was extremely vulnerable at the time and they were my only friends in the area. I went out to Israel on holiday and at the ‘Garden Tomb’ I got talking to a vicar and he was a friend of Andy’s father and he’d heard about this particular housechurch and that they were in a mess and told me to get out of it. So that was a fairly amazing answer to prayer.
So I found the housechurch ethos to be far more authoritarian than anyone else. And that seems to be true of all of them, not just the one I went to because I’ve met people from other ones. My current church, which is independent, has kind of allied itself with the housechurch movement and the leader there said that if we were making any important decisions they’d like it if we shared it with them and asked their advice because we were a family and children go to their parents for advice. I really think that analogy doesn’t work because adult children don’t on the whole and I certainly wouldn’t go to my parents for advice on most things. So I reckon he got that bit from the housechurches as normally the attitude at my church is very laid back and you could tell he felt uncomfortable about saying it and was trying to soften how it sounded. Thankfully they are partnered with an Anglican church as well. All the churches seem to be partnered with different churches of other denominations where I live – it’s very confusing, but at least it gives you some leverage.
I’ve not read Frank’s book, but I’ve read other books on house church. I’ve also been involved with both house churches and institutional churches. I’ll be honest, I love the heart of the house church movement. I love what Sam and Marc said about wanting the simplicity of things being about Jesus and returning to the First Love.
If I could make an observation, though, stemming from what Sam said and from my own experience. It seems like a lot of the issues that get raised – like CEO leadership, lack relationship with Jesus and others, and wanting things to be organic – are not church-structure issues, but they somehow get blamed on structure. I also understand that some structures encourage certain issues and also that if you’ve been in that kind of structure sometimes you just have to get out to get healed. Also, some structures just need to get knocked down. But that doesn’t make structure evil. It’s a tool.
I just have to believe that it’s possible to lead an organization in a healthy, relational, organic, Spirit-led, Jesus-centered way. I feel like if we could get that down, we could make a larger impact without damaging people or getting sidetracked. Maybe that’s just the naive youthful zeal talking though.
Certainly no disrespect towards Frank or any of the house church folks. I honor you guys for your passion, for speaking the truth, and for going for it and loving people.
@Tiggy
My home church is not part of any network. It’s just a little group of people who want Jesus to lead. This authoritarean nonsense you had to put up with and the rubbish about the parent-children analogy sounds like more power games. All you can do is leave.
Maybe they’re different in Canada, but here there are major housechurch chains and they all seem to have that ethos.
I’m still shopping round a bit with churches as I’m new to the area. I’m trying out an Anglican one as that’s what I’d normally go to and it feels kind of safe after my bad experiences. I really like the worship at Bath City Church though and the music which is very passionate and beautiful – like me.
Just said that to cheer myself up as feeling a bit low today. Prob just tiredness.
Churches are made of people. People have issues. Full stop.
(Translation for those of you to the west of the Great Pond: “period”).
You can have a wonderfully enlightened and liberating atmosphere in a traditional institution with hundreds of years of history. Just down the road, with the same label on the door, you may find a church that feels like a concentration camp.
Similarly, a house church or a church in a denomination with a relatively short history (e.g. Vineyard) may be liberating and joyful, or it may be heavy-handed and manipulating.
It all comes down to the people involved. They are people like you and me. Therein lies the problem – and also the enormous potential.
Yep. It’s people.
Hey Tiggy, there are probabably 1000’s of housechurch expressioins….you happened to be in a bad one. I wouldn’t be quick to judge the whole movement with that one experience.
On the whole house church movement, my experience has been one of ” We’re right the institution church is wrong.” I believe when ever we bring humans in to be expressive and transparent, – there will be problems. Until we learn what it means to be a Kingdom citizen, putting love first and our emotions second…there will be confilict and envy, “where envy is found, every evil thing is at work there.”
I have never met a person who can make it past the 1st Commandment unscathed….whether he/she be in a house church in the back of Joe’s garage, or in the 75th pew at St. Peter’s.
With people, come problems. We ought gather around Him and His grace and forgiveness and put that first.
Other than that, churches are like families. You come from a perfect family do you?
I like the fact that I can be at peace with the fact that conflict is part of (home)church and life itself.
I can let go of unrealistic expectancy and perfectionism. I expect things to be imperfect because that is the state the world and we are in. Took me long enough to learn it but it’s good that I have.
To me, this makes an important difference.
Our host never likes it when I try to form a committee to change his carpet. Church would be easy without other people.
That’s what scares me if they’re like my family! I’ve had enough abuse from one aggressive bully without placing myself under the power of another. I was very young – it was abusive.
I’m not saying all house churches are like that one, but the chains I know of do have this absolute authority hiearchy. And some of them move into the same street and spend all their time together without mixing with other people.
Conflict is fine, as long as people are on a level and not made to feel they are bad and going against God if they disagree with ‘the management’.
Tiggy, your tale of HC fascinates me. One of my favorite writers/speakers is Maurice Smith. I was trying to look up something about his background, and found a history of the housechurch movement in England. It recounted how eventually the most gifted guys, called the London Brothers, became leaders and the whole thing devolved into the shepherding movement. Smith eventually suffered a clinical breakdown and came way from all that arena and began to write and speak about tremendous grace and love. One of the other reasons it fascinates me is that the HC movement over there were fans of Watchman Nee and T Austin Sparks and used very similar language to some of the guys I meet with here who were “freelancing” as David put it. It was a whole different vocabulary I had to get used to. I use the London Brothers thing as a cautionary tale to folks.
Blimey David, how long ago was that? It sounds like it was before my time. I’m only familiar with Bryn Jones and Gerald Coates and the Romford Fellowship.
oops sorry, Mark.
this david? of which do you speak tigg?
oh, and ps tigg, get out now (sounds very controlling)!!
Tigg, I don’t know your age, but as I think about it, it was probably before your time, and certainly before mine.The 70’s I think. I just find it fascinating to read about spiritual happenings that begin with joy and freedom and eventually solidify into movements and then denominations. One of the things that fascinate me is that they produce a high class of reject. That is, folks I know who have been through the wringer of something like that are really outstanding people to gather with. Most of the rejects that I hang with were out of Witness Lee’s Local Church movement. It must have been like boot camp. But the result is that they are sweet people who are very sensitive to any spirit of control or conformity.
I’m not in a housechurch now David – don’t worry. No one controls this feisty bitch!
The church I go to meets in an old 1930s cinema which they own and have done up authentically. It’s called The Forum because Bath was a Roman city. I dont’ think the guy who leads it is really into controlling people and t hey have strong links with an Anglican church nearby. All the churches here seem to have links with other churches of different denominations. It’s really good how they all work together. Even the MCC church is a part of ‘Churches Together In Bath’. I’m trying to build bridges between the MCC church I go to in the evenings and the Charismatic church I go to in the morings, which aren’t really as different as they probably think.
To: Sam Buick
Hey Sam, a few thoughts/questions from one former Vineyard Pastor to another.
Do you think you wrote in a defensive posture and if so, could this come from a place of insecurity and the need to legitimize your conference and/or house church? Or possibly NP’s analysis just pissed you off and you felt the need to vent a bit? Maybe a need to right a wrong?
You wrote, “We are accountable to one another without the trappings of institutionalism.” Is it not enough to be accountable to God and the guy we see each morning in the mirror?
Do you think you could consider dialouge vs. preach mode…maybe some relative truth vs. “this is the way it is” thinking?
Stay real
>#ak said, on July 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
>
>To: Sam Buick
>
>Hey Sam, a few thoughts/questions from one former Vineyard Pastor to another.
>
>Do you think you wrote in a defensive posture and if so, could this come from a place of >insecurity and the need to legitimize your conference and/or house church? Or possibly >NP’s analysis just pissed you off and you felt the need to vent a bit? Maybe a need to >right a wrong?
>
>You wrote, “We are accountable to one another without the trappings of >institutionalism.” Is it not enough to be accountable to God and the guy we see each >morning in the mirror?
>
>Do you think you could consider dialouge vs. preach mode…maybe some relative truth >vs. “this is the way it is” thinking?
>
>Stay real
- – -
Dear AK/Stay Real:
You said:
>Do you think you wrote in a defensive posture and if so, could this come from a place of >insecurity and the need to legitimize your conference and/or house church? Or possibly >NP’s analysis just pissed you off and you felt the need to vent a bit? Maybe a need to >right a wrong?
SAM:
To be blunt in answering your question, “I couldn’t give a crap” about either the perceived posture or your alluding to issues of insecurity, and even more so about what may be perceived as a need to legitimize the conference or housechurch.
I wondered, why, if a man has read Frank’s books, why he would write what he wrote unless he had made some pre-determinations, and just wanted his conclusions justified, by coming and hearing it for himself, or to give him the benefit of the doubt, did NP really come in humility looking to learn, to discuss to explore what organic life in Christ is all about?
You had this blog entry from a Vineyardite, NP, who posted what he perceived. He wrote about his insights and comments, but they seemed to be aimed at a preconceived view, rather than exploring a new paradigm. Interestingly the people at his table had interesting comments to make, and I quote from their email to me:
“Hi all,
Kathy, Pat and Jess, Ginny and I were at this pastor’s
table. Funny but we don’t remember the conversations quite like he’s saying
it. Out of context for sure and definitely did not sense anyone needing to
legitimize their obedience to God calling them to organic church life.
We wanted to talk with him more but he left the table quickly without saying
good-bye and we never found him after that.
Best to you all,
Ed”
So, like the email states and NP’s blog post, our own orientation and place in life and in God affects how we perceive things and understand things.
If anything, I was irritated at the use of the term “institutional” and the ideas projected about how NP views institutionalism. If I ever come close to what he describes, I will walk away from whatever it is, be it called organic church, house church, or whatever. I find that I have friends in the IC (institutional church) who are dear and precious to me, but it has nothing at all with their church life, but the relationship I have with them, and they are very few. The IC by its very nature is not conducive to relationship building or community. This is the institutionalism that I do not like, and the worst problem of all is that all the forms of leadership within it are reflective of the CEO model found in companies within our society, and bear little resemblance to what Christ gave us as the church.
I did not feel the need to vent, as much as to challenge the use of the term “institutional” as well as issues such as “leadership” and I used examples from our own way of organizing the conference to illustrate the point of maximum flexibility and corporate leadership to organize the conference.
>You wrote, “We are accountable to one another without the trappings of >institutionalism.” Is it not enough to be accountable to God and the guy we see each >morning in the mirror?
SAM:
The bible states that Jesus is the head, and we accountable to Him, but that we are in mutual to submission to one another in the body of Christ, and in particular to those with whom we are sharing life together in community. We are not called to walk and live in isolation but in community, and “the guy in the mirror” and “God” is not enough, and it has never been enough, and the bible is quite clear on that issue.
>Do you think you could consider dialouge vs. preach mode…maybe some relative truth >vs. “this is the way it is” thinking?
SAM:
I presume here you referring to my initial post, my response to the blog entry of July 4. If you think that is preaching, you should have been in the IC when I was a pastor! LOL! Dialog is taking place, and I guess it puts me in the long winded category.
As far as relative truth as you put it, I don’t see anything I originally posted as being relative. To be relative, it has to be compared to some form of absolute. The last thing that can claim any form of absolutism in this discussion is the validity of institutional Christianity. Organic life in Christ, individually and corporately on the other hand is an absolute. The issue of relativism lies in how people are going to implement and walk out this intimacy and community missionally in our world and society at large, and institutionalism gets in the way of doing that biblically as well as experientially. But you are welcome to keep trying the institutional thing. But remember, the definition of insanity, is keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result. Eventually you have to try something different. The institutional church is so far off the mark of what is biblical, that it will never fully manifest what Jesus intended to be without disrobing itself and divesting itself of its institutionalism, including its various leadership models and paradigms. But the love of power and money get in the way, and so the cycle continues.
Cheers,
Sam
Sam:
Greetings brother.
We were at the same conference. And you did a great job of putting it together. Thanks for the invite. I had to leave early. I told Frank that myself. He understood and we agreed to make contact in the future.
Of course I came with preconceived ideas. Who doesn’t?
I also came open to new ideas.
But I also came, like you, with a lot of experience both inside and outside the institutional church.
Allow me to make some things clear: I like Frank and appreciate what he is trying to do. You too. He is passionate about Jesus and his body. That is obvious. It is needed. We both know that. Frank is outside the institutional church by choice and is trying to be a passionate voice for the renewal of the church.
I am also passionate about the church. I am inside the institutional church by choice. I hope I am a passionate voice for the church also. It is obvious we have different approaches. But our concern and passion is the same. I have no doubt of that.
When I spoke of my experience at the conference, I mean no harm or unkindness. My observations, I hope, are sincere and harmless, and I hope in the end, helpful. Here’s why:
I really do think that we are naive about the principalities and the powers and their consummate skill at interfering in authenticity, realness, honesty, relationship, and community. I have become convinced, through experience, that the same problems and potential for issues exist in any community, from marriage, family, right through to church, government, education, medicine, etc. I am not convinced that leaving the institution is the answer. Revolution leads only to more revolution, ad nauseum. This is obvious. I am not against leaving the institution. Not at all. But leaving it and forming another group is not going to rescue one from the problems one is fleeing from. Where people gather, the same issues lie in wait at the door. Both Frank, with his house-church, and I, with my institutional one, have to be diligent gate-keepers, protecting the community from the problems community inherently brings. Add the demonic, whatever that means, and we both have a war on our hands.
About legitimacy: wouldn’t you agree that this is an issue? I personally believe that when people gather, two or three, that He is in their midst. But we are so entrenched in the institutional ethos that feeling legitimate outside of its venue is strenuous. I think house-church people need to deal with that very real issue. I think legitimacy is one of the reasons some house-churches struggle… because some people, deep down, don’t think it is “real church”. Somehow, don’t you agree Sam?, the feeling of legitimacy would alleviate a lot of problems. Isn’t much of your time in house-church spent convincing people that this is real church? Maybe not, but that’s been my experience.
The people at my table were kind. I liked them all. Including Ed. Bless them. But all the stories, problems and dilemmas they were sharing sound all too familiar to me from within the institution. Those stories are not singularly characteristic of their house-churches. I share those stories! Sam: there’s no difference! We are the same. Like Frank said, “There’s just one church!” I might be crippled with a building, a budget, a denomination, and so on, but honestly, I could feel no difference in the issues raised. Stage props… that’s all the differences are. Sure, we look different in many ways. But that’s just cosmetics. I’ve come to believe that the deepest underlying issues are exactly the same between your movement and mine.
You see, when it gets right down to it, I suppose I sensed a feeling of illegitimacy for being inside the institutional church. I’m trying to encourage house-churches to feel legitimate. Institutional churches deserve the same, don’t they? There are pastors and members within institutional churches who are passionate for him. There are some who aren’t. Same in the house-church movement. Again, we are no different.
I am in an institutional church that endeavors strenuously to be organic, relational, authentic, non-authoritative, unstructured, etc. We wrestle with the very same problems you do.
What I am trying to say, I guess, in conclusion, Sam, is: I’m trying to help here. You are a voice crying in the wilderness. I am a voice crying in the marketplace. Because people in both places need to find real community centered on something real and everlasting.
Out. Standing.
So, Sam, how do you decide who to submit to in a Housechurch? I guess someone else decides and you just have to go along with it. That’s very scary. Except for people who are clergy, I don’t really get a sense of people having to submit in the institutional church – at least not in the Anglican one.
I was told I had to accept the claims of two housechurch leaders that I was sexually attracted to them. I knew very well I wasn’t, but was forced to leave because I wouldn’t accept their view. In the housechurch I went to, women were expected to be very submissive too.
I don’t hold with your view that ‘The IC by its very nature is not conducive to relationship building or community.’ as I have experienced both within institutional churches and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Well, I haven’t attended a house church. I grew up in an institutional church and attended a weekly home-based Bible study comprised of families from many different institutional churches for a couple of years. I have hopscotched among institutional churches during my adult life and experienced manipulation and control and mind games at every single one of them–culminating in what I now see to be spiritual abuse at the last institutional church in which I served faithfully as a “layperson” for several years.
For 2+ years now I have not regularly attended church services, have not been a member of any institutional church, and have found myself questioning all things church. I do attend a weekly Bible study group which is under the umbrella of a very fundamental instituional church. At times, I have questioned my ability to remain within that group because of how the institution creeps into the friendship-based, authentic community and threatens to make the point of meeting about recruitment for the church rather than continued spiritual transformation of the people involved.
I read “Pagan Christianity” with great interest. The ideas presented shocked me and left me hungry for some kind of answer to the question “If church shouldn’t be what it is, what should it be?” I wrestled with that for a few months before I read “Reimagining Church.” I enjoyed the book and at times thought “Yes, exactly. This IS how people (the church) ought to live together.” However, by the time I finished the book I was left with some nagging thoughts such as “These ideas and ideas for semi-structured structure indicating how things SHOULD BE or how Christians OUGHT TO function in a group is just as vulnerable to becoming a manipulative system as the systems I have been part of.”
I put the book away for awhile. I decided to just not think about the definition of church for awhile. Now, I will probably go back and read the book again just to see what kind of feelings and thoughts and insights pop up this time around.
I am almost afraid to discover them…
TO: Sam Buick
Hey again Sam,
It seems that you were addressing NP in much your post, but I sifted through to get the answers to my questions – thx.
Like you, I was in the IC box for years…I jumped out some years ago. My observation is that the problem lies in the delusion that we (you, me, NP and all X-ians I would think) have landed in an open space when in reality we have landed in yet another box.
Each box is different, so it feels new and free, but it is still a box. We all think we have the best damn thing (box) in town and either market it if it is working or defend it if it not working.
Peace as you journey bro.
*** My Response starts with my name in CAPS like this “SAM:”
nakedpastor said, on July 7th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Sam:
Greetings brother.
SAM: Greetings to you too! Thank you for taking the initiative first to write your peice and secondly to interact with the comments and discussion. Kudos my friend. I am sure all here appreciate it, even filtering through our paradigms, grids of understanding, our pains, wounds, and opinions, and all combinations thereof!
nakedpastor said:
“We were at the same conference. And you did a great job of putting it together. Thanks for the invite. I had to leave early. I told Frank that myself. He understood and we agreed to make contact in the future.
“Of course I came with preconceived ideas. Who doesn’t?
“I also came open to new ideas.
SAM:
Thanks for your comments and the affirmation of all who helped put this together. No man is an island is putting something like this together, and God certainly has blessed us in that, with the team of people He has relationally and missionally connected together, both in the institutional setting (Newmarket Alliance, pastor and staff) and those from various house churches that partnered together.
I am glad that Frank and yourself will be connecting in the future. Dialog is a good thing.
It is a good thing for all of us to admit to preconceived ideas and notions and experiences, as they all affect our understanding of the current discussion. I readily admit to mine as do you. Language and meaning of words and their context are important in any discussion and conversation.
To come with a mind open to new ideas is an attitude we all need to embrace, myself included. It is necessary to walk this out in humility, gentleness, and grace. Not easy, but no less necessary.
nakedpastor said:
“But I also came, like you, with a lot of experience both inside and outside the institutional church.
“Allow me to make some things clear: I like Frank and appreciate what he is trying to do. You too. He is passionate about Jesus and his body. That is obvious. It is needed. We both know that. Frank is outside the institutional church by choice and is trying to be a passionate voice for the renewal of the church.
SAM:
I concur with all your comments here.
nakedpastor said:
“I am also passionate about the church. I am inside the institutional church by choice. I hope I am a passionate voice for the church also. It is obvious we have different approaches. But our concern and passion is the same. I have no doubt of that.
“When I spoke of my experience at the conference, I mean no harm or unkindness. My observations, I hope, are sincere and harmless, and I hope in the end, helpful. Here’s why:
“I really do think that we are naive about the principalities and the powers and their consummate skill at interfering in authenticity, realness, honesty, relationship, and community. I have become convinced, through experience, that the same problems and potential for issues exist in any community, from marriage, family, right through to church, government, education, medicine, etc. I am not convinced that leaving the institution is the answer. Revolution leads only to more revolution, ad nauseum. This is obvious. I am not against leaving the institution. Not at all. But leaving it and forming another group is not going to rescue one from the problems one is fleeing from. Where people gather, the same issues lie in wait at the door. Both Frank, with his house-church, and I, with my institutional one, have to be diligent gate-keepers, protecting the community from the problems community inherently brings. Add the demonic, whatever that means, and we both have a war on our hands.
SAM:
Wherever you have people, you have messes to clean up and issues of the heart to come to grips with, your own and everyone elses. Hurt people hurt people as the saying goes, be in your living room, or in a religious building. There is one problem though that the institutional does not deal with on an ongoing basis. the principalitities and powers you speak of, display themselves more intensely and in your face, in your family life, your work, your play, more readily than in an institutional setting. The only time people within the institutional congregation get to deal hands on, is when these people interact in smaller groups of people, such as in a ministry time after a service or during a service where specific prayer ministry happens to take place, but it is rarely happening in a general Sunday morning gathering. There is NO opportunity for heart to heart sharing and interaction, and very minimum participation.
This is where my “bone to pick” so to speak with the institutional form of church expression comes to the fore. People on my couch cannot hide. Rather than multiple rows of people, there is only the “one row”, all the people facing and interacting with each other, where people interact and share and participate in the leading of the Spirit, and minister to the Lord Jesus and each other, through various things that transpire. It is more in your face and no one has a place to hide.
I think most of the issues we are addressing here are all dealing with people, and my issue with institutionalism, is that it can manifest anywhere people meet, be it in a home or a religious building. Institutionalism includes the method and the principles, and the leadership structures and the ministry focus that we have come to know as the traditional church system. It is that system that hinders true community, and when true community occurs it is not because of the system, but in spite of it. This does not mean in any way that “community” doesn’t happen within a traditional congregation, for it does.
I was pastor of small groups and I always encouraged people to not only meet in small groups, as well as couples, families, and outings, as often as possible, which made real shared life more possible. Sadly this kind of shared life is not as readily embraced as it should be. Even more sad, this is also a very real and lacking thing in many Canadian house churches, where they have in many cases become a glorified bible study or social group that meets for fellowship and potlucks rather than share Christ together, one on one, family with family, or men with men and women with women.
True shared life is the exception in the Canadian house church movement, and not the norm. This deeply saddens and reinforces again, what we are talking about, that you can take people out of the institutional system, but you really have a hard time taking the system out of the people! Like ancient Israel, rather than cultivating an intimate life with God, most (not all) people in the system want their “king” just like Israel wanted and got Saul! This is equally true with the “leader fixation” that I have found in many house churches. These sadden me as well. BUT I have home that in all cases, people will seek a deeper walk with God, intimate life in him, and shared life with others, where Christ is pre-eminent, regardless of your wineskin. I just like my wine in the organic simple life I find in house churches.
nakedpastor said:
“About legitimacy: wouldn’t you agree that this is an issue? I personally believe that when people gather, two or three, that He is in their midst. But we are so entrenched in the institutional ethos that feeling legitimate outside of its venue is strenuous. I think house-church people need to deal with that very real issue. I think legitimacy is one of the reasons some house-churches struggle… because some people, deep down, don’t think it is “real church”. Somehow, don’t you agree Sam?, the feeling of legitimacy would alleviate a lot of problems. Isn’t much of your time in house-church spent convincing people that this is real church? Maybe not, but that’s been my experience.
SAM:
I agree that with the whole demonic, principalities stuff you addressed, that there is the who deprogramming a person has to go through about this very institutionalism that really manifests itself in all kinds of leadership, structure, and what is the church kind of issues, including “ligitimacy” as you put it. Quite frankly, over the last three years I have gone to about 20 traditional churches, ranging from Anabaptist/Mennonite, Brethren in Christ, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, independent (does that mean they get along with no one???), cell based, no cells, Vineyard, and in ALL of them, I wondered how people could pull themselves out of bed, to engage (if that were even possible) for that hour and a half on a Sunday morning and call that “church” or “body life”. I just knew that I had wasted my time.
Even worse for me, and I was searching my heart, was the problem with me, or was it that I knew that there was something more organic, and in my own sense of understanding “church”, more biblical and engaging, and these people were not even using the cells the way that could max out that sense of shared life. So, I withdrew from that pursuit and realized like Bono, “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for…” I know what it looks like and tastes like, and it is really rare to find, especially in N. America. Religion here is spectacle, TV, glitz, the “show” and all that jazzed up spiritualized entertainment, and so much so, that true discipleship gets missed and misapplied to life. Suffering and taking up the cross are reduced to an impotent myth devoid of life application and power.
I don’t disagree with your sense of wording here. I think the real ligitimacy issues for most house church people I know is their sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. To see the bigger picture, a sense of wonder of the Kingdom of God and their part in it. I think that my own sense of that, even when I pastored was in the shared ventures, missional activities I engaged and participated in, whether it was city wide worship events (March for Jesus, monthly worship nights, switching pulpits with another church) and mission outreaches (the poor, soup kitchens, youth and social justice, mission projects out of country).
I think house churches are starting to address “legitimacy” issues by arranging for conferences like this one, as well as regionally networking, where we can have joint gatherings, shared meals, worship events, and even shared mission projects in and out of Canada. This is STARTING to happen, and the fruit of it addresses the issues of the feelings of isolation and the feelings that we are somehow “not real church.” So, yes in that sense there are legiitiimacy issues, but they are being addressed in unique ways, and most of them are through worship gatherings, shared training and equipping and mission events, where we get to participate in things that are bigger than ourselves.
nakedpastor said:
“The people at my table were kind. I liked them all. Including Ed. Bless them. But all the stories, problems and dilemmas they were sharing sound all too familiar to me from within the institution. Those stories are not singularly characteristic of their house-churches. I share those stories! Sam: there’s no difference! We are the same. Like Frank said, “There’s just one church!” I might be crippled with a building, a budget, a denomination, and so on, but honestly, I could feel no difference in the issues raised. Stage props… that’s all the differences are. Sure, we look different in many ways. But that’s just cosmetics. I’ve come to believe that the deepest underlying issues are exactly the same between your movement and mine.
SAM:
I actually stated that there is only one church, and all the problems with the church are our problems, for the church is the body of Christ, and not where we meet and gather. Frank echoed those things in his presentations.
There are no differences in the issues raised, because those are people related issues. The bone of contention here, if there is one, or perspective may be the better turn of phrase, is that I am saying I would rather have the blood and guts relational issues exposed in a living room, rather than masked in an institutional setting. The issues here are absolutely the same, that is the people problems.
But larger than this, is the whole issue of organic life in Christ and mission. I still think it is more effective when people pursue Christ outside the institutional system, apart from the forms of traditional leadership, and apart from a progam and meeting based form of “church”. I think that “system” hinders true lshared organic life, and hinders spiritual growth and discipleship and spiritual formation.
Thanks for writing. I can feel your passion. You just gaine a friend!
nakedpastor said:
“You see, when it gets right down to it, I suppose I sensed a feeling of illegitimacy for being inside the institutional church. I’m trying to encourage house-churches to feel legitimate. Institutional churches deserve the same, don’t they? There are pastors and members within institutional churches who are passionate for him. There are some who aren’t. Same in the house-church movement. Again, we are no different.
I am in an institutional church that endeavors strenuously to be organic, relational, authentic, non-authoritative, unstructured, etc. We wrestle with the very same problems you do.
What I am trying to say, I guess, in conclusion, Sam, is: I’m trying to help here. You are a voice crying in the wilderness. I am a voice crying in the marketplace. Because people in both places need to find real community centered on something real and everlasting.
SAM:
You said it, people in both places need to find real community, organic community. I just happen to believe it is easier and more biblical outside the “system”.
Your new friend,
Sam
Ah Sam, such a long post and no word for me? Well I found as a woman I was ignored in housechurch’s too. When I spoke to a visiting leader he made a point of ignoring me as if I shouldn’t have spoken or was not worth speaking to.
What was that about ‘deprogramming’? I remember the technique of the housechurch I was in was to completely break you down so that you were totally vulnerable and at their mercy so that they could rebuild you in their image. They used to have something they called ‘a back room job’, which meant two men alone in a room with you, cross-questioning you and bullying until you broke down. The guy running it was a high up immigration official at Heathrow and was used to such techniques. I think in my case there was racism involved as well.
TIGGY SAID:
Tiggy said, on July 8th, 2009 at 2:49 am
So, Sam, how do you decide who to submit to in a Housechurch? I guess someone else decides and you just have to go along with it. That’s very scary. Except for people who are clergy, I don’t really get a sense of people having to submit in the institutional church – at least not in the Anglican one.
I was told I had to accept the claims of two housechurch leaders that I was sexually attracted to them. I knew very well I wasn’t, but was forced to leave because I wouldn’t accept their view. In the housechurch I went to, women were expected to be very submissive too.
I don’t hold with your view that ‘The IC by its very nature is not conducive to relationship building or community.’ as I have experienced both within institutional churches and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
—-
To my way of understanding submission is mutual as stated in the epistles. The head is Jesus in each gathering and each engagement with a brother or sister in Christ. We mutually submit to one another and we honour and prefer the other. We take the servant position and the posture willingly to serve the best interests of the other. That takes a lot of love and grace and the empowerment of the Spirit in our hearts and lives to live this kind of shared and edifying lifestyle. It is true servanthood. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT WORKS.
Heart issues raise their heads on an ongoing basis, and this is all good. It can get ugly, simply because relational dynamics involve our hearts, our motives, our our journey, the successes, the crap, the glory and the gory parts of our lives. We can only see maturity as individuals and community as we take the position of servanthood, and humility, and the mindset of honoring and prefering others adhead of ourselves. It is by taking the posture that “I have no rights” that we truly find Christ in a deeper more powerful expression in our thought life, and the actually living out of grace and peace and community.
This to me is the best way to embody “mutual submission”. It is so easy to over spiritualize it, but when it comes down to the brass tacks of it, it means sacrificing your own desires for those of others. When each person in this kind of relationship and community does that, and they are guided by the rule of love, you do not take advantage of others, but rather go out of your way to serve and protect them.’
I am sorry, truly sorry for the spiritual and emotional abuse you suffered in the house church you were a part of. I would have told you at the time to leave as quickly and quietly as you can, and to run in the opposite direction. This is common in all kinds of church settings, be it housechurch or traditional. It is very sad when people use a “positional” theology of leadership to intimidate and use power and control to “lord it over others” all in the name of “spiritual authority” which is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. The New Testament teaches servant leadership, and what you suffered at their hands was the very opposite. I am so sorry that you were abused like this. I pray God’s healing grace may be poured out upon your life and all those who were injured. May God have mercy on all of us who think we are spiritual, when we relate to people and the result is such harm, and may He grant us the insight and wisdom to repent and to restore those whom we have injured.
If you look at my post, recent one to NakedPastor, you will see how I have qualified my statement about the lack of community and intimacy in the institutional church. I won’t regurgitate it here. Thanks for listening.
God bless,
Sam
Thank you Sam.
‘It is by taking the posture that “I have no rights” that we truly find Christ in a deeper more powerful expression in our thought life, and the actually living out of grace and peace and community. ‘
But hasn’t it been proved time and time again that it’s only by having clear rights that we can be protected? If I had said in the face of those two men, ‘Oh, I have no rights – I must submit to what they say even though I know it not to be true’ then I would have been utterly crushed. You can’t trust that other people in any community will not stamp all over you.
Looking historically, it’s so clear that women have needed rights to protect them and to educate people about treating others as human beings. Likewise black people and those in oppressed and colonised nations. Now we’re beginning to realise how much children need rights if they are not to be abused. You talk about sin so you can’t be so naive as to imagine people don’t need some kind of legal protection or clear statement of their worth so that others can’t abuse them.
TIGGY SAID:
Tiggy said, on July 8th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Thank you Sam.
‘It is by taking the posture that “I have no rights” that we truly find Christ in a deeper more powerful expression in our thought life, and the actually living out of grace and peace and community. ‘
But hasn’t it been proved time and time again that it’s only by having clear rights that we can be protected? If I had said in the face of those two men, ‘Oh, I have no rights – I must submit to what they say even though I know it not to be true’ then I would have been utterly crushed. You can’t trust that other people in any community will not stamp all over you.
Looking historically, it’s so clear that women have needed rights to protect them and to educate people about treating others as human beings. Likewise black people and those in oppressed and colonised nations. Now we’re beginning to realise how much children need rights if they are not to be abused. You talk about sin so you can’t be so naive as to imagine people don’t need some kind of legal protection or clear statement of their worth so that others can’t abuse them.
– - – -
SAM:
Believe I understand where you are coming from. Where there is abuse of any kind, there ends up being some kind of secular law that is introduce to control, restrict, punish, or try to bring a corrective behaviour than needs to be changed. That is the case of legal history, which used to be based in the West, largely on the Bible. But a lot of that has changed, and that is due to the fact that there is both a decline in ethics and morality.
When you look at the 58 “one anothers” in the New Testament, especially the epistles, you are really looking at the “ethical moral life” that we ought to be living.
What you are describing is the abuses that continue to be revealed in our society and culture, and even in the Christian sub-culture, no matter what form of church you are speaking about.
I believe that we need to support your national and regional secular governments when the pass laws that protect people from harm, and especially when they protect those who cannot defend themselves and who are essentially denied their “voice” in our society.
One case in point in Canada, and I have worked in insurance claims since I resigned from pastoring in 1999, is the rise of a law called PIPETA, which is a law that protects the privacy of persona information in Canada. People have to sign an authorization form, for any of their personal information to be collected and used, be it in any kind of business transaction, be it in a hospital, or anything that requires that you give information. The law states that the sharing of information is punishable, depending on the industry, to a financial penalty that insurance with NOT cover (it will come out of your pocket) between $50,000 and $200,000! This is done to correct immoral and unethical conduct hat has gotten out of control. Twenty five years ago this would have been unheard off, but this is the result of the decline of moral and ethics in life.
Cheers,
Sam
Hello, had a fascinating read of all above posts – and skimmed a few too, so sorry if this point has already been made.
I think there may be a little bit of ‘lost in translation’ going on with the term ‘house church’ (re Tiggy’s posts).
I think that from the description of ‘house church’ on this site, we in the UK would refer to ‘emerging church’ (tho apparently that term is out of date now!). House churches over here date back to around the 70s and include established ‘denominations’.
I too was part of one as a farily vulnerable 22 yr old. Looking back now, it was pretty authoritarian, women were allowed to ’share’, not preach/teach etc. Thankfully, there was also a lot of care and no ‘back room jobs’ that I can recall!
Emerging church (for want of a better term), seems to be more about exploring how to ‘be church’ in different ways – with a desire to see authentic community, discipleship and worship. I think it really depends on who you start to meet with tho’!
It’s a fascinating discussion and I agree, where there is people, there is potentially the start of your problems! Tho Jesus was fully aware of that (I believe) and yet, he called us to be part of his body
Sam I still don’t understand why you say ‘‘It is by taking the posture that “I have no rights” that we truly find Christ in a deeper more powerful expression.’ and that we must ’submit to one another’.
I don’t know how different the housechurches are in Canada, but the ones here seem to attract men who like to be big fish in small ponds. I suppose there’s just something safe about the Anglican church with its mild-mannered lack of extremism and (in practice) loose structure. Small ‘rogue’ groups run along one person’s lines seem scary in comparison.
My wife and I as teens, newly married, were brought up in a small conservative church. For a dozen years, every relationship (marriage, family, church etc.) was couched in terms of authority or submission. But for the last 10 years we’ve been freelancing (as David puts it) and one night in the car we came to a new realization. My wife asked, “do you think I’m properly submissive?” I was speechless. I said after a few moments, “I don’t know. I don’t think about you in that way any more.” We were stunned by that observation. It was the same kind of relationship we grew with our HC folks. We just don’t think of one another or relate to one another in that way. Authority/submission does not enter the equation. Of course, I do have stories about visitors who viewed themsleves as Somebody with a capital “S”. But notice I said visitors, they don’t get much traction with folks who won’t buy into the paradigm.
Oh you missed t he point there, Mark. By asking that, what she really wanted you to do was tie her to the steering wheel and spank her!
D’oh! I’ll be ready for next time.
Just to be a bit of a geek and history buff the house/simple/organinc church movement in america is really a late/slow growing offshoot of the UK house church movement
{Itself part of the charismatic movements and somewhat influences but he plymouth bretheran (where you get the the heavy legalism and authoritarianishipness)} Tony and Felicity Dale who are pretty influencial in the house church lark were around in the 70’s when it was all kicking off over here and had moved to texas before the movement got centered around the magnificent seven and subsequent Fabulous Fourteen. The main differences from what I can tell is that the house church in the UK was very much born out of the charimatic stuff going on in 70’s for some it was the only place they were allowed to teach or practice the gifits of the holy spirit, for some it was a belief that his new experience needed new structures/forms and for some they believed it was part of restoring a corect (implicilty implied pure) form of christianity/church along with restoring the gifts of the holy spirit. The relationship to the charismatic renewal is really important in understanding it’s birth and growth into the new church movement in the UK for allot of folks coming into house churches in the 70’s in the UK their experience at bible studie gourps/prayer mettings early house churches and their steping into the charismatic experience were very interwieved. Whereas in the US it seems that the house church’s tend to simply reflect he theologies/practices of the churches they came out of, some HC will be charismatic or penticostal but their IC’s were also, some will be more classically evangelical in theology and practice much like the IC that the participants will have once be a part of. For the main in the UK the main thing was what the holy spirit was doing or the important emerging charismatic theology adn house churches were mearly the space that this was happening in where as in the current crop of house churches the non IC small/organic formuala is much more important focused on.
Thanks for that. But why was it influenced by the Plymouth Brethren?
Note also the danger of claims to ‘knowing’ by virtue of the Holy Spirit and subsequent authoritarianism.
Many early house churches had come out of the plymouth bretheran movement or were influenced-inspired by the teaching of arthur wallice and david lillie (or teachers inspired by them) who were Plymouth B’s who had become convinced of the validity of spiritual gift (the charismatic thing) the distincitive between their teaching and the rest of charismatic teaching was that it wasn’t enough to simply have a return to the minstitry of the holy spirit evident in the new testament but also a return to the church governence, structure and form they saw evident in the new testament (this was also attached to a belief that this was a pre-eminent move before the end of the world or a great revival depending on who you listened to). Hence the influence and affect of the Plymouth Breathen being rife in early and alter house churches and networks.
stumbled across all this talk on organic churches!! So is this the latest fad? Really turned off by the emergent church. Done enough research to know that is a dangerous way to go.
So what I’m wondering is how does every one come together , and have fellowship with no clear direction as far as doctrine? You know there are some really off the wall beliefs out there, so how can you have things in common when people don’t agree on basic doctrines. It seems like you would always be discussing why you don’t agree with something someone else sees different. I think you need to establish the common denominator in order to produce any results for God. I know God is the common denominator, but everyone has a different idea of that!!
I know I would be very frustrated if someone was really taking lightly the word of God. and twisting the verses to say what they wanted it to say . You can’t have a little truth, error has to be exposed as well. If not there is no absolute truth.
The Bible says to stand , girding up your loins, a soldier ready to fight for the truth
I’m so sick of the side show at churches thinking they have to add something to the word of god, or people will get bored. No God has always used his word to convict of sin, he doesn’t need our help. It’s not our job to make the unsaved feel comfortable. Jesus said the world will hate you so don’t be surjprised when they do. Some churches are too busy entertaining the goats and not feeding the sheep. It’s a slippery slope, and is falling into the hands of the antichrist to fulfill prophecy in the last days. The Universal Church!! It is deffinately happening. Anything goes, It’s not about Christ anymore, it’s about us!! It is sickening!!!! Just preach the Bible and people will know how to live!!
So I can understand why the new movement, but I can see problems with this as well.
I think the church needs to get back to basics, and do what God called the church to do, we meet admonish one another, the shepard feeds the sheep, and we go out to reach the lost, like jesus commanded us to do. We don’t need skits, videos, or clever little sermonets to spark our interest, we need to be something diff than the world. , we have a different calling. People aren’t going to like us, the gospel affends. I wonder what the martyrs think, when they hear some pastor say, don’t bring your Bibles to church , we don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. WHAT? The martyrs were tortured, murdered for the very Bible we hold in our hands. How dare we have that attitude? That really gets me cranked.
Why can’t we just stick to the Bible, and let God build his church.