After dialoging with a good friend of mine on our blog site last week about the church, it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding about what I was advocating for. While he rightly assumed that I believe the institutional church system is a destructive system which causes many problems, he went on to assume that my solution to the problem would be for people to simply adopt the ‘organic church model.’ This is when it became clear that there was a big misunderstanding.
My friend is not alone. There are many others who have interpreted that the heart of my message is simply calling for the adoption of another church ‘model’ like the ‘organic’ or ‘house church model’ as a solution to the institutional ‘model’. Let me be very clear about something;
That is a misunderstanding and a rumor. There is no truth to this at all!
First of all, I hate the term ‘house church’. It sounds about as weird as calling a church that meets in a building a ‘building church’, or the 1′st and 2′nd century churches that met in catacombs, ‘catacomb churches.’ Since when should a church community be defined by the location she holds her meetings in? I think that is a symptom of a deeper problem. People’s vocabulary about the church reveals a lot of what they believe the church to be. I actually wrote about this a few months ago. Click here to read this article. That is another topic however.
As far as my message being all about the call for another ‘church model’, I would like to completely dispel that rumor right now. The term ‘organic church’ has quickly become a fad. In the west, people want to know ‘how’ something works, not primarily ‘why’ something works the way that it does. People hear the word ‘organic’ church and want to know what it is. This is when the conversation quickly digresses. People start talking about form. They start talking about ‘how’ organic church is ‘done’ as far as method is concerned. If you have ever been a part of any community that operates in what some would term ‘organically’, it doesn’t take many people long to see that there really are some practical benefits to meeting this way over the more traditional ways the institution typically operates and holds services. Many in the ‘institutional’ church world have caught on to this, and as a result, have attempted to adopt this ‘model’ as an equal to their systems. Many have even begun to start these kinds of communities themselves. It has become a new ‘movement’, so to speak, that institutions are actually starting what they would call ‘organic’ churches.
At first, this threw me for a loop. I began to ask, how can someone see these two ‘systems’ as equal? How can an institution start an ‘organic church?’ Then I realized what the main problem was. Last year, I attended an organic church conference with the purpose of finding out more about how organic church was ‘done’. I wasn’t alone. Many of the people there also had this question as well. You know what I loved about this conference? They never talked about ‘how’ organic church was ‘done’! Can you believe it? Some left angry, I left in love.
What was presented there was the most glorious vision of the person of Jesus Christ that I have ever heard or understood before. While this vision of Jesus Christ will certainly affect the way we ‘do’ church, if we attempt to create a church ‘model’ without this vision we will have missed the point completely. We will end up with just another ‘model’ or ‘form’ that has good and bad aspects just like any other model, but will be void of the grand vision of Jesus Christ that is the necessary foundation of any New Testament church community. In order to correct this rumor or misunderstanding about me, I’d like to make this statement:
I do NOT believe the church is in need of another ‘model’, rather she is in desperate need of a grand vision of who Jesus Christ actually is!
With that said, let me be clear. I don’t believe it is possible to have a correct understanding of Jesus Christ and still see the institutional system as valid. Also, people who attempt to meet ‘organically’ without this vision of Christ, are also going to fall short of God’s desire for His church. It is this vision of Christ that will ultimately hold us together. Like scripture says, without a vision, the people will needlessly struggle and ultimately perish. I know that is an offensive statement to some, but there are reasons why I am saying that. I hope you will see that naturally, and I will also make those conclusions in the near future as our ‘system’ and ‘form’ of church life will naturally flow from our understanding of Jesus Christ. Before we talk about church ‘form’ and ‘function’ (which is important), I’d like to spend the remainder of time on this blog post, and the next, talking about the glorious vision of Christ that I have come to know. I was a Christian for almost 16 years before I heard or even understood some of these foundational truths about the person I gave all of my life to. There is a reason for this.
So, how do you lay out a grand vision of Jesus Christ in one blog? We’ll you can’t, and that is why I am going to try to do it in two separate blogs:) Still, I’m afraid that my words will not do this vision of Christ justice. Words are all I have to communicate with in this setting, however, so it will have to do for now.
When I think about the person of Jesus Christ, I think of completeness. God lacks nothing, and in Christ, it was actually the Father’s pleasure for all His fullness to dwell in Him. He (Christ) is the creator, and all things were created by Him (Christ), and are for Him (Christ) and are held together through Him (Christ). He (Christ) is also the head of the body, which is the church. This is the heart of Colossians 1:16-19.
Since Christ is a person (the fullness of God dwelling in bodily form), I’d like for us to take a look at His person. According to scripture, this person of Christ has a head, and a body. Today’s blog post will have to do with Christ as the head.
Headship is an interesting thing indeed. I believe that God designed everything for a purpose, especially our bodies. That is why in scripture, Paul used the body as an example and picture of Christ. One of the most important parts of our body is our head because life is disseminated through the head. Our bodies, along with all of its parts, look to the head for direction and leadership. Medical science has discovered that when communication breaks down between the head and the body, many problems in the body can arise.
Many seemingly serious unrelated health issues have been corrected simply by a trip to the chiropractor where spinal and back problems were corrected which restored proper communication between the head and the body. After the correction, the brain could route and communicate essential things to the body parts in need that were previously cut off from communication with the head.
Can you see the parallels? Jesus Christ is the head that humanity has been longing for. In the garden of Eden, the headship of God was rejected. Man became his own head. This led to disaster. Thankfully, God did not abandon us, rather it was His plan all along to restore His headship. When the Lord began to separate the Jewish people for Himself, he desired to be their head and ruler. While the Jewish people initially received the headship of God, they typically fell into a pattern in which they rejected God’s headship, fell into trouble, then looked to their fellow man to be their leader. There are several examples of this throughout the Old Testament.
One of my favorite examples is found in the book of Judges regarding Gideon. You probably know the story. The Lord used an unlikely and low statured man in Gideon to overthrow Israel’s oppressors, the Midianites, and deliver Israel from bondage. Once this occurred, Gideon became a celebrity. As a result, the people began to look to Gideon for leadership and headship. Here is an interesting exchange between Gideon and the people of Israel:
Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, both you and your son, also your son’s son, for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.” But Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you.” (Judges 8:22-23)
Gideon reflected the heart of God, and the people of Israel reflected the natural heart of mankind in wanting a human leader instead of a divine leader. This tension did not go away after the time of Gideon.
The more that the Israelites became focused on the world around them, the more they wanted to be like the nations of the world and have a human king. There was another confrontation between God and the people of Israel that I’d like to mention here. The people were asking the prophet Samuel for a human king, but God let them know that He desired more for them. He did not want a man to rule over His people. He loved them and He wanted to be their shepherd. They did not want this. The exchange is very telling indeed:
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4-9)
As a result of their decision, the people of God suffered just as the Lord said they would. Like all things, God still used these line of kings to accomplish His plan. Just because the people of God rejected God’s headship then, didn’t mean that God gave up on fully re-establishing His headship over His people. He had a perfect plan. From this line of kings, the ultimate King would come.
Everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as He Himself said. He would be the fulfillment of everything. He is the ultimate Judge. He is the ultimate Temple. He is the ultimate King. He is the very fullness of God wrapped in human flesh. Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the headship of God. Now that Christ has come, there is no human that can operate as the head of His people. Those human kings & religious leaders were just shadows of Christ who was to come.
The hallmark of man’s system, including man’s religious system is human headship. The hallmark of God’s system is divine leadership. This is the heart behind Christ’s own teaching on kingdom headship in Matthew 23:8-10:
But do not be called Rabbi; for One (Christ) is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven (God the Father who fully dwells in Christ). Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
There is a reason Christ told His disciples this. The system of man is still very much alive and well today. This system to seek out and enthrone a human leader over Christ has been a major battle throughout church history.
While Christians give a theological head nod to the headship of Christ, history keeps repeating itself because the people of God have largely been ignorant of what it practically means to know and function under Christ’s headship. Because people don’t see Christ in this way, they have been accustomed to operating under man’s headship. Christ’s headship brings freedom, man’s headship brings slavery.
Conclusion
I’d like to leave you with two thoughts about the headship of Christ.
1. Headship cannot be delegated.
Like I mentioned, scripture uses the human body as an analogy to describe the union between Christ and His church. According to scripture there is one part of the body that belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ, and that is the Head. The head is unique in its ability to command and control the entire organism. All the decision making about the direction, and life of the body occurs in the head.
All the function and operation of the individual parts and organs of the body get their direction and orders to operate from the head. No other part of the body has been designed to mimic the head or act as its substitute. Each part of the body is fundamentally different, and the head is unique in its function and ability.
2. Each individual part of the body has a direct and intimate connection to the Head.
This is a beautiful way to understand Jesus Christ. There is no one body part that acts as a center or sole mouthpiece that relays information from the head to the individual body parts. There is no ‘go-between’ part. Each part of the body has a direct nerve line to the head! There is no ‘select body part’ who’s job it is to determine what the head is communicating. Again, each part has access to the head.
Because of this connection, the head can communicate to each part directly, and also to the whole body. The head sets the direction for the body as a whole. It is not any one part’s job to discern how the head is directing the body, but the body as a whole must lay a hold of the direction the head sets. The head is primarily concerned with the health and direction of the body, and knows intimately what each body part needs. If a specific body part needs blood flow, the head directs blood flow to that part, if the part needs nutrients, it directs nutrients to that part. If the part needs help fighting off disease, it dispatches antibodies there.
You get the picture. This is essential, not just for the health of the individual body parts, but the body as a whole. This is why no other body part can masquerade as the head, and why there must be nothing blocking connection from the head to the individual parts.
It would be incomplete to lay out a vision of Jesus Christ, and only talk about His head. If we are going to talk about all of Jesus, we must also talk about His body. I wrote an article that talks about this stunning body. You can read this article by clicking here.
Thanks again for reading!
Blessings to you,
Jamal Jivanjee
Amen Jamal! Great blog. I agree that what the Church needs is a clear vision of Christ, we wont function as a body until we see what the Body truly is.
I have never read any books or much at all about organic church, house church, etc. I use the term “organic church” in a general sense to speak of a church that functions as a body. I do believe that we first and foremost need a vision. Otherwise, as you said it is just a quarreling over methods. I also believe that the Word of God does provide a picture of what the body should look like.
Jesus is the Head, and He is the ONLY Potentate!
1 Timothy 6:15
which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords!
Looking forward to part two
God bless!
Thanks Desirie. Also, stick around. It could really be helpful to have your perspective on some of the comments that may appear here. You were a huge help the other day:)
It seems that the question is “who is Jesus”? If you want to know who Jesus is then read Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (Jesus of Nazareth)
Jamal,
First let me say that I agree that Jesus is the Head and our view of Him should be what our eyes are fixed on.
I think we would both agree that many people view “church” as the head. Many leaders view themselves as the head and many outside would have no idea what the difference is. the heart of man will constantly take what God has made and turn it into something it wasn’t intended for. This can make the leaders look like something more than they are and place people into a passive event mentality.
Where we would not agree is when you are saying what you refer to as the Institution (which I will just call church) is invalid. You are saying that if one sees Jesus as the head this person would no longer see the IC as valid. The problem or falsehood that you are promoting is that you are assuming that God didn’t institute leadership. leadership and Kingship are not the same. Did God ordain Judges? Did God give some to be prophets, evangelists, pastors, and other leaders? Did God not ask that people obey their leaders (Heb 13:17)? Did God know that people would start to confuse His God Given leadsership with Headship or Kingship?
You are mixing the two: God Given leadership and Headship. You are manipulating the scripture in order to fit your opinion by emphasizing the story of Saul over God providing leadership to the nation through Samuel. I noticed that you didn’t mention that. This is where we disagree.
I am hoping that what we agree on is more important than what we disagree on. In fact, I am pleasantly suprised that you feel the same way that I do toward the “organic” movement. Nothin wrong with it, but seems silly to define a church by how or where it meets.
I find it interesting that as soon as someone mentions the IC people assume that they are against all leadership in the body of Christ. The contrast isn’t against “leaders” and “no leaders” but godly leadership and a system man initiated. It’s about seeing the Body as a whole so we then clearly see what role those godly leaders truly play in the Body. It is much different that the worlds system, which is what we see mirrored in the IC today. We will become what we behold. So, it is accurate to say it’s an issue of what our gaze is truly fixed on.
Amen Desirie!
Ed,
Thanks for reading bro. In the institutional world, headship and leadership are confused not just because people confuse the two, but also because the position that has been created makes institutional leaders operate as the head of their church communities. This is not correct. There is a huge difference between kingdom leadership and headship. I will attempt to discuss the differences between headship in function, and leadership in function as well. I didn’t use Samuel as an example of church leadership because that would be part of the problem. Judges, priests, kings, prophets in the Old Testament were pictures of Christ who was the ultimate Prophet, Priest & King..
Leadership in the Old Testament was very selective for obvious reasons. This is no longer the case in Christ. Yes, there is a place for kingdom leadership, but it looks nothing like headship in theory and function. Headship and hierarchy is an institutional filter that completely violates Jesus instructions on kingdom leadership that he clearly laid out in Matthew 23:8-12. It is also very different than the selective leadership that existed in the Old Testament. I’ll share more on Friday. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Yes, God has called some ( not all) to be pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists, apostles. These are not hierarchical as the institution has taught us. Those who have these gifting are servants who equip the saints to do their jobs! It is an equipping role, not a headship role at all. More on that on Friday however.
Great writing, Jamal. I just finished my theology lesson on Hebrews Part I so some of this followed along with what I wrote on for my final exam which was an essay of over 500 words. Of course you went into much more depth than my studying the first 6 chapters of Hebrews, but part of what it dealt with was the comparison of Jesus Christ with the Old Testament prophets. It was readily seen that there was no comparison when it comes to our Great High Priest. It was an interesting study and of course in no way to put down the Old Testament prophets nor those of today.
Linda, thanks for commenting and reading. I agree, Jesus is the ultimate Head, and none comes close to Him. Everything in the Old Testament was shadows of Him. He is the reality!
Yes, you can even find Jesus in Leviticus. Try this experiemnt. Next time you read a chapter in the OT, find Christ’s love and caring in each verse.
Desirie,
Jamal already stated in his review of Radical that he isn’t against anyone, but against an Institution. He made the distinction that David Platt, who wrote Radical and leads a Mega Church, should not be paid attention to because he still believes that the church that he leads is part of a valid system. So it is easy to say that Jamal is against anyone who is part of what he calls the Institutional Church or at least for what these people stand for.
That said, are you saying that all of these people who lead IC churches are not Godly leaders?
I don’t think it is really about being against the institution – and I suspect that is where this conversation is getting messy. I think Jamal is more concerned with certain ways that “some” not “all” institutions stifle the ability of the community to act as a caring community.
I suspect there is another way of having this conversation without making it all about institutions – because I don’t think Jamal believes all institutions are bad. Every church is an institution – any time a group of people gather together and a rhythm or pattern of interactions develops and institution is formed.
We all have different understandings of the word “institution.” Family is an institution – the most basic institution of society – but we aren’t opposed to the family – we just want to help it to function in a more godly way. (For me – all Christians everywhere are my family – thus the reason we are having this discussion is because we are all brothers & sisters in Christ – we all belong to the same institution.) Some of us would argue that the family is not the most basic institution and others of us would argue that the family is the definition of the most basic institution. Perhaps our conversation and our listening to Jamal needs to shift from debating if something is wrong with the church institution (and totally dropping the use of the word “institution” to say “is something wrong with how we interact as a Christian community”) to discussing how God is calling us to act as Christians and how do we do this wherever we are currently called!
Stasia,
Thanks so much for your detailed response sister. It is really interesting what you said about your Czech background. It truly is fascinating to find out how our practices and influences are formed. There really are a lot of parallels to church life.
I would say that our traditions, some of which are formed from culture (as you mentioned), are not always neutral. Some of the ways we understand ‘church’ , and some of the traditions / systems that have developed are actually built on and do express some foundational beliefs that are not true. These traditions and systems that flow from those foundational beliefs will actually do violence against the true nature and function of what the church of Jesus Christ was intended to be. Some of the contention here goes much beyond just function, tradition, and style. It goes directly to the heart of some foundational understandings of Christ Himself. I believe that understanding Christ’s headship correctly will actually stand opposed to some of our man-made traditions that flow from and reflect a value system that believes man should function as the ‘head’. I hope that makes sense. Blessings to you!
Jamal,
I look forward to your next blog, but you said amen to Desirie so I assume you agree. Are you saying that all the people who are leading what you would call IC are not Godly leaders? Are they all leading a system of church that reflects the worlds system? Is it possible to have a IC where there is a pastor, worship leader, and elder team lead a congregation and submit total authority to Jesus as the head? OR is that impossible?
If you are going to cover that in the blog than I will wait. Or respond if you wish.
Ed,
I don’t think Desirie was commenting on the hearts of people, rather a system. There is a godly system of leadership (because He designed it) and there is an ungodly system of religious leadership (because man designed it).
Personally speaking, most institutional clergy that I know are very godly people with great hearts. They are operating in an system that I believe to be not what the Lord has designed however. This is unfortunate for them and the body in my opinion.
As far as your last question goes, I’ll tackle that on Friday.
Amen Jamal, that’s exactly right.
The contrast stated was that one was leadership that reflects a worldly system and the other was Godly leadership. I never mentioned anyones heart. There are implications here.
Mainly, anyone who espouses a leadership that looks like an IC isn’t leading from a Godly leadership but from a worldly system. That is a wide sweep of about 400,000 north american leadership teams alone. Not to mention the rest of the world. So, excuse me if I call that broad statement into question here.
So I am clear, any church that has a leadership structure isn’t following a correct vision of Jesus? Is this what you are saying?
Ed, again you are making assumptions. Having structure isn’t the problem, so no not all leadership structure is contrary to God’s design. However, there is a difference between God’s structure and mans. It is not a small difference either.
Time after time though statements are made the lump all together. It’s not clearly specified its just referred to as IC, meaning everyone.
Ed,
Yes, the institutional system is rooted in a worldly system that goes against the headship of Jesus Christ. As far as your question about any church that has a leadership structure, let me say this.
Leadership is natural and organic when done God’s way. We’ll touch on this on Friday, but the Lord naturally develops His body and elders eventually emerge. Sometimes, Paul would plant a church and leave before elders emerged. When he returned to those bodies after some time, he found that elders had emerged, and then he publicly recognized them. It was not a title, or structure, or someone running the church and setting direction. It was service in nature, and was among the brothers and sisters of the body.
So when you say leadership structure, if you mean the typical institutional leadership structure that is found in the institution, that is headship in function, and that is unbiblical.
Yes that is a huge sweep! Don’t let that alarm you, although it is a sad reality. It is the way it has always been. When the Jews were taken to captivity in Babylon, they were only supposed to be there for 70 years. After the 70 years, they were called to go out of Babylon and return to the nation of Israel to rebuild the temple and serve the Lord. Instead, only 1% left Babylon to rebuild the temple. The other 99% stayed in Babylon against what God had desired and built the synagogue system. This was their way of keeping their identity alive without leaving their Babylonian home. God’s house cannot be built in babylon however. There is a lesson for us here.
In Jesus day, the majority of Judaism was so caught up in their own system that they had designed, they could not recognize Christ. It was a minority then as well. If you study the history of christendom, there has always been a small minority down through the ages that has operated outside the institutional norm, but it has always been a minority. Nothing has changed.
It really is all about interpretation and semantics. In the last paragraph – Judaism had created rules and beliefs about the Messiah that had not been proclaimed by God. Some would say it was more about legalism and ritual than it was about the heart. God had created an institution in the temple – Jesus didn’t seem to oppose the system that God had created. One thing it seemed that Jesus opposed was how religion had taken out the heart of the law, so that people were being hurt and marginalized by the law and it was becoming impossible to be faithful. Yet we can all read something different! Not trying to be overly post-modern, but in some ways it is not fair for us to use examples from Scripture that are clouded with our interpretations of the cultural and historic context.
Jamal, I think you should clarify what you believe a God-designed system of leadership looks like. I think that’d be helpful and would help clear up Ed’s questions. Maybe that’s coming on Friday’s edition. Blessings bro. I appreciate your heart and service and your voice!
Clinton,
Thanks for reading bro, and yes that is coming on Friday. It should go into a bit more detail about leadership. I appreciate the encouragement.
Thanks for writing this Jamal. To Ed, when reading your comments you may not intend nor realize it but it comes off very harsh and attacking. Perhaps that is reflective of your passion for the truth of the matter. I would suggest reading Jamal’s post on Healthy Debate vs Personal Attacks. This was very helpful for me personally and I find that those who refrain from personal attacks are much more respected and their points are more received. Perhaps you would be willing to consider this. Blessings to you.
Here are some related and helpful articles that strike the same chord written by a brother named Milt over 8 years ago.
The Perfect Model Pt 1
The Perfect Model Pt 2
The Perfect Model Pt 3
The Perfect Model Pt 4
The Perfect Model Pt 5
The Perfect Model Pt 6
The Perfect Model Pt 7
Seth,
Bro, thanks for reading, and thanks so much for these articles! I’m looking forward to reading these. I look forward to catching up soon. Blessings my brother!
Great blog. You may have heard a resounding ‘amen’ even from across the Atlantic! Icannot wait until Friday…..any chance of Thursday? Just kidding….
Alan,
Thanks for reading all the way from the U.K.! I appreciate you tuning in, and I’ll try to get a move on the next blog:) Blessings Alan.
Jamal,
So you are saying that all of the churches that operate with a pastor/preacher leadership structure are man made in their operation. I think some of your blog friends agree with you on this. So almost every church on every corner of north america are operating outside of Gods design for the body (so say you). Just to be clear, is this what you are saying. Yes or am I not clear?
By the way, I am not attacking you nor am I attacking your amen choras. I just want to be clear because it seems you are attacking everyone I know or have known who has led a church. I don’t want to put words in your mouth either.
Ed,
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions. I have been pretty clear about the system up to this point. The real question is not is every institution on every street corner wrong, but is there any validity to what I have said? Its never about the number of people who may be wrong or right. That doesn’t prove anything.
I am not attacking those who operate, or who have operated in that system. I am simply exposing that system. Also, you may want to read through some of those articles that Seth posted. They might help answer more of your questions.
“In the west, people want to know ‘how’ something works, not primarily ‘why’ something works the way that it does.”
…sadly, “Nor Who works…”.
Very true Eric.
Thank you so much! This has been the best entry I’ve ever read I think on any blog! Most likely because it was about Jesus, and it just reveals His Glory so much.
I’ve been reading the comments and I think the analogy between Babylon and the world’s system is SPOT ON! If we look in Revelation we see that Babylon eventually falls! And when it does all the angels in heaven rejoice! Elsewhere in the Bible it talks about angels rejoicing, Luke 15:10: “In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” If Babylon is a place or kingdom of people why would angels rejoice in the destruction of human life? That is good cause to think of Babylon as a system. Now we know who the ruler of this world is, Satan. Thus when we say something is of the world we know that it is not of God, but of Satan. This may be surprising to some, but there are only two choices: the truth, or a lie (life or death, Jesus or separation from God). That is seen all over the place in Scripture and in our daily lives. Now we know Revelation was written by Jesus (through John) to His Church, and there are other reasons for why I came to the conclusion that Babylon is a symbol of the Institutional Church (man’s stealing of God’s most precious possession). These are just some of the ideas I’ve been throwing around; I could be wrong.
Anyways, thank you so much for writing this! It’s very insightful and helpful in explaining things that I’ve been thinking about for a while.
Anthony,
Brother, I am humbled by your compliment. I am also blown away by what you said. I have never thought about the angels in heaven rejoicing at the fall of Babylon that way. Heaven would never rejoice at the destruction of humanity, but heaven would rejoice at the destruction of a false system!
Amazing insight bro!!!
Never thought of Babylon being about the system – always read it as a comment on morality and faith, with Babylon representing those who were not only unfaithful, but also immoral, abase, and idolatrous. I don’t think God is opposed to any gathering of Christians who faithfully worship Him and live out the gospel! I don’t think it is about the form of how we act or gather as a community! I feel like the focus of these discussions isn’t at the heartbeat of the gospel – the heartbeat of the message of Salvation & the Kingdom of God. If people are being saved, discipled, and living out the Kingdom of God in their interactions with each other and society as a whole, why does it matter if they gather as a “institution” as defined by “a church with ordained clergy and arranged system for doing things which includes regular meetings in the same facility which requires maintenance” or if they meet in some other way?
In Jamal’s next blog – he talks about what it means to see the church as the physical representation of Jesus Christ! That is us, the believers, who are the physical representation. We come from a variety of cultures, languages and backgrounds and these cultures, languages, and backgrounds influence how we do church! If I am German, I like order, I am more stoic, and how I live out my faith in community will look very different than if I am Mexican and I prefer a physical closeness and am not afraid of expressing emotion publicly. If we are the physical representation – they physical presence of Jesus Christ! Then what we will see, is that Christ operates through who we are as individuals and as a community! How we worship and how we organize ourselves will reflect not only our faith and what we believe about God, but also our cultural make-up!
Denominations are so closely related to culture – that it is phenomenal – and completely unconsciounsce! We don’t have a clue how much our ethnic backgrounds impact us! Let me give a quick example. When I sit down to eat dinner, I will either drink my beverage before or after I eat. I may take a few sips while I’m eating, but overall my beverage is mostly consumed before or after the meal. I didn’t know why I did this, until I started researching my Czech ancestry. I am five generations removed from the Czech Republic. FIVE!!!! Guess what, in the Czech Republic, they drink their beverage before or after the meal, not during the meal. As I’ve spoken across the country to groups of people of Czech descent, if I am at a banquet, I will ask them to stop eating and look at their table setting. I’ll point out that the glasses of those of Czech descent are either empty or full and those in attendance at the banquet who “married in” have half-full/half-empty glasses. It never fails, the room fills with laughter as people discover that this is true. The church is the most racially divided place in our country. This kills me, because I have worshipped in very diverse settings and I know how this represents the brokenness of Christ’s body (note how communion reminds us of this every week) – but when you research the ethnic make-up of the churches to a deeper degree than black, white, hispanic, Asian. You discover, that even the white churches are divided by German, Swiss, English, etc. Even among those who have been here for five or six generations and don’t even realize how this heritage impacts them!
We are a broken people – we are the broken body of Christ. We need to hear this word from Jamal – we need to remember that part of one of Jesus’ last prayers was that we may be unified! Part of our being unified though is recognizing our differences and respecting those differences. It is our being able to see how God is at work in the church in ways that we don’t completely understand. It is also about our recognizing our bias and how our bias influences how we see things.
I didn’t use to think that Catholics could be true Christians – because I couldn’t understand how they could connect with God through their worship which felt so stagnant and fake to me. But then I met some of the most faithful Christians I know and was surprised they were Catholic. As I got to know them, I began to understand how their understanding of sacrament, liturgy, and order was an act of deep faith!
Why is there a debate here? Ed – I hear your concern that Jamal and others are dismissing the manner that God is at work and uses what is being called here “institutional church” to transform lives!
Jamal – I hear your concern that the “institutional” church as it is being defined here is stifling people from truly caring for each other and interacting with each other in a manner that shows the devotion of the early believers.
Ed – I agree with you that God is at work in the “institutional” church, but I also believe that there is a reason so many “institutional” churches are dying right now. I think God is allowing them to die in order to give new birth of something new, something that cannot be fully understand by those who have been evangelized and discipled and found meaningful koinea (true fellowship) in the “institutional” church.
Jamal – I agree with you that at times the “institutional” church can be used as an excuse to not know each other at a deeper level and that it in some situations stops people from playing their part in being part of the body of Christ. Sometimes being part of the “institutional” church can become a way of hiding from God (if that were possible) and avoiding the sacrifice and suffering that is required to live in true community. But, I also feel sorry that you have not experienced the depth of community and care that can take place in the institutional church – the church that supplied child care, homeschooling, and meals, every day for a couple of years for my aunt and uncle while my aunt was dying, they had two small children, and were far from home. I wish you had experienced communion in the institutional church as I have experienced it, where different members of the church preside over different elements each Sunday and we recognized God’s presence by the presence of the fellow believers. I wish you had experienced the manner that generational divides are overcome in a multi-generational church in a manner that those generational divides are not overcome any where else in society. I am sorry that you have missed out on experiencing the love of God through the “institutional” church in this manner. I mourn for all of those who have missed out.
But, it is all about Jesus Christ! It is all about the coming of His Kingdom! It is all about salvation, redemption, sanctification! We are all brothers and sisters in Christ – let’s be careful not to put down each other’s immediate Christian families too much! We all have our faults and we all have our strengths and we all have our cultural differences. And no cultural differences do not excuse us from sin – but not all things we call sin are sin, sometimes they are just different cultural experiences.
Now, I’m really sounding post-modern and I’m okay with it.
Stasia,
Thanks so much for your detailed response sister. It is really interesting what you said about your Czech background. It truly is fascinating to find out how our practices and influences are formed. There really are a lot of parallels to church life.
I would say that our traditions, some of which are formed from culture (as you mentioned), are not always neutral. Some of the ways we understand ‘church’ , and some of the traditions / systems that have developed are actually built on and do express some foundational beliefs that are not true. These traditions and systems that flow from those foundational beliefs will actually do violence against the true nature and function of what the church of Jesus Christ was intended to be.
Some of the contention here goes much beyond just function, tradition, and style. It goes directly to the heart of some foundational understandings of Christ Himself. I believe that understanding Christ’s headship correctly will actually stand opposed to some of our man-made traditions that flow from and reflect a value system that believes man should function as the ‘head’. I hope that makes sense.
Blessings to you!
Jamal,
Thank you so much for using your gifts to articulate what many are seeing, feeling and sensing in the Spirit. The clarion call to come out of “her”will be sounded soon…
Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
Your Kingdom come Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
May the Holy Spirit illuminate the truth you speak to those who cannot intellectualize these truths.
Thanks Jim, amen to that prayer!
Without a clear, and more importantly “accurate”, understanding of who Jesus is, all of our efforts will be mere religious trappings falling grossly short of what God wants for His children, the bride of His Son. It doesn’t matter where your religion is housed, it’s still just religion. Only through a relationship with Jesus will we ever be able to begin to see His glory!
Keep it coming!
Thanks Mark. I hope all is well out there in Texas. Blessings to you bro.
I agree with this, hence my problem. Having left the clergy, I’ve detoxed from the IC for 5 years now, but I don’t want to start another one locally, because then they’ll look to me as the “leader”. It’s just human nature. So we may have to move to a preexisting organic fellowship. Do the opposite of the church in Rome. (The church in Corinth moved to Rome, where they ultimately died).
Awaiting part 2….
Anthony,
I know it took faith for you to make that transition out of the clergy. I’m thankful you made that transition. I’m sure He will continue to supply you with the necessary faith to continue making any more transitions that He will lead you to make. Thanks for reading and commenting bro!
Jamal,
Okay. So all churches are wrong if they have a pastor/leader and only those who agree with you are right. This is what you are stating and that is clear.
You asked if there is any validity to your assertion. At this point I would say no. Maybe that is what you are going to say in your next blog? Keep in mind, I read Viola’s book and thought it was just another man trying to defend his own method. So you will have to come up with some biblical truth to support your claim. I am open to hear and learn, but please don’t just repeat Viola’s words. I believe we already discussed this on another FB chat anyway.
So show validity to your claim.
Jamal, great post brother and very timely for me and the group we’ve been journeying with the past year. We realize that we all still have so much to learn but we agreed just last friday night to stop calling what we do “house church”. Instead we’re simply calling it dinner at so in so’s house. Again, we have much to learn in this process of being a Kingdom family, but this was a huge step for us…just to stop calling ourselves a “house church” and hopefully to stop trying to follow a model or create our own. I’m hoping we’re well on our way to exploring and discovering what it means to simply love God and love others. Indeed we must move beyond our model mentality and live out the vision of Christ that He continually reveals to us. Thanks again.
Mike,
Brother, I’m glad that you’re on this journey. It is certainly not easy, but so worth it! I’m sure He will lead you, and he will give you all the tools and parts of the body that are needed to build His house. Blessings to you!
I do believe that we need another model for church. All churches theologically say that Christ is the head, however, what is needed are churches that practacally make Christ the head and actually allow Him to direct their meetings according to the Biblical instructions in I Corinthians 14:26.
When we literally obey that verse in our meetings, an amazing thing begins to happens. The living, resurrected Jesus really shows up and actually begins to direct the meeting. That’s when we must be careful not to disobey another Scripture: “Quench not the Spirit.”
Steve,
I completely agree. When we begin to understand how significant it really is that Christ is the head, then a more biblically accurate model will flow from this understanding of Jesus Christ. It all flows from taking His Headship seriously.
It takes people a long time to learn how to function and operate under His headship as opposed to man’s headship. It’s kind of like a drug addict going through withdrawals. It is a process for people to go from being dependent on man’s headship to being able to function in reality under Christ’s Headship. Blessings bro!
LOL We must have been typing at the same time
Amen!
One neat way I’ve seen churches do this is by making decisions as an entire community. As a pastor in the Disciples of Christ church I submit to the decisions of the congregation. The congregation prays and discusses and makes the decision – my job is to be the person who has the extra training and the ability to be devoted full-time to helping that decision to be implemented. By doing this – we keep Christ as head.
Steve, I believe what Jamal means is that we are not just promoting another “how to” or method, but exalting Jesus and believing that He knows how to lead His Church. As you said the key is that we acknowledge Him in a real way and submit to His leadership in our meetings.
I believe there is a “model” so to speak, or a prototype, example, given in Scripture. However, it’s not a rigid formula or schedule. I think a good way to describe it is that as the Bride of Christ grows into who and what She is designed by God to be, She takes on certain characteristics or a personality
We can list some of those characteristics that we should biblically expect to see in Her. However, they are not a religious formula, but a byproduct of being connected to the Head, a natural result or fruit of submitting to His way.
We need both wisdom and revelation. The revelation/spiritual insight/vision of Christ and the wisdom/understanding/practical guidance of the Holy Spirit in applying that revelation to our lives.
Ephesians 1:17
that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.
Yes he was directing “order” when they came together. Sounds like the Corinthians had a case of the “Me Monster”. This scripture isn’t really backing up what you are saying.
Ed- While there is no COMMAND to have organic church, neither is there a command to do church the way 90% of the world is doing it. You READ Pagan Christianity? I saw all fact, and very little opinion pushing. When I read pagan, I was ANGRY! I even sent Frank a scathing email…who do you think you are..along those lines
(This was when he self-published it)…I don’t remember if I actually SENT it, because I knew in my heart everything he said was correct. And I WAS clergy.I was ordained in the Assemblies of God. But my spirit had been stirring years before this. I knew deep inside this was “all” man made tradition, I just put it in the back of my mind. But one evening, as I was preparing a sermon, I read the entire book of Acts in one sitting. (Never did that in seminary..), and I started feeling uncomfortable…Who am I to tell this congregation ANYTHING? I’m a broken vessel too. One of my congregants was home on leave from being a missionary in Afghanistan. HE should be up there. (See, I even used the word MY..MY congregants? How dare I!) I had one of the other pastors do the sermon while I stayed home and started seeking the Lord. I had previously ordered books from allathisfeet.com. Opened my eyes to the point of no return. Then Frank sent me 2 free books (Pagan and The Untold Story) and he ruined my life. 
I then had to leave my career. My wife was THRILLED. She knew it was all a sham since day one. Now tat I’ve thought about it, so did I, but I felt “called”. I’m still called, but not the office of “holy man” with 200 passive spectators. If you’ve read Pagan, you know who invented the “pastor” as we know it today.
Hey Ant!
Thank you for your thoughtful insight. I appreciate so much that you took the time to tell me your story. I agree with the problems that are in 90% of the churches, but I still don’t agree with “Pagan Christianity”. Without writing a review, let me just say that I am not angry nor am I suprised at what he wrote. I just believe that he is promoting an agenda and scewing information and scripture to fit his agenda.
Many congregations are passive and many are not. I could give you many examples, but if you judge a congregation by what happens during a 1hr service you might get the wrong idea. The IC system (Jamal’s definition) can certainly be messed up with the stain of human sin. In fact, every congregation is infected with sin. The leaders that are entrusted will have to answer for wether or not they used their position to equip or to maintain their identity. Unfortunately, the system can produce an event mentality which then becomes the concept of “church”. The congregation leaves ministry to the professionals and the pro’s are happy to entertain the masses. Sounds like you saw thru that crap and moved on.
BUT, there is another way. With Jesus as the head and a true picture of what His bride looks like this is beautiful. Doesn’t matter if there is a sunday event, small groups, teaching, preaching, songs, tithes, and could meet in homes or in buildings. Everyone is invited to become a disciple, everyone is invited to use their gifting and the importance of a role doesn’t become a heirarchy. Godly leadership can exist in any setting wether an IC or something else.
Instead of promoting the possibility of this beautiful picture in any setting, Viola sweeps anything that doesn’t resemble his “method” as “not from God”. Maybe he just never saw a good representation of the Bride. His book seems to say as much. If we challenge each other to allow God to lead, than we might see something more beautiful. I don’t believe it matters how it looks in terms of method (House, Mega, Organic, Dinner, Underground). My real problem with Viola and this blog is that instead of promoting that beautiful possibility, it tries to tear down the body. That is my opinion anyway, which, Jamal will disagree with.
BUT, I am waiting to see if Jamal really believes that only his way is right (I mean Viola’s adopted view). If he is correct, than it should be easy to point this out clearly from scripture.
If scripture mandates a paticular “way” it should be, than I will follow that leading. What I see in scripture seems to allow for flexibility in terms of paticulars. So here is to building each other up!
@Ed- I can’t speak for Jamal or Frank, but I personally believe the first disciples knew more than us. Why not follow their example in stead of trying to add 2,000 years of hierarchal leadership? I don’t think it’s wrong, of course. But just by reading Pagan, how much of what most people do in chruch is man-made and not Christ driven, at all? It seems that the first Christians truly had Christ lead. You can still go to church, you’re not sinning, but “I” could “never” accept tithes from a congregation after knowing what I know now.
Anthony,
I had a similar experience reading Pagan Christianity. It confirmed much of what the Lord had already showed me. It’s kind of hard to argue with history. Church history is kind of like that old game of telephone. It is facinating to watch how something starts, and by the time it gets around to the end, it is completely different. Sad thing is, the people at the end of the line in the game of telephone really don’t have any idea how different what was presented to them was from what was originally started. The history of Christendom is the same way.
“Everyone is invited to become a disciple, everyone is invited to use their gifting and the importance of a role doesn’t become a heirarchy. Godly leadership can exist in any setting wether an IC or something else. ”
Ummm role (in the IC) doesn’t “become a hierarchy”? It already IS and Godly leadership is not, hence the problem.
So no, the two are not compatible.
Agreed. In the IC, can YOU just walk up and share for an hour what the Lord showed you last week. If you disagreed with the pastor in charge, could you stand up and ask a question? What if the pastor just quits? Do people set up a “pastoral search party”? What if he didn’t show up? Would everyone just go home?
Amen.
This “Amen” was not suppose to show up here. I was agreeing with a comment of Ed’s – sorry about that!
Also, I have never read any books on the matter at all. I have not read Pagan Christianity and have not honestly read much of this blog. I believe this is maybe the third article I have read by Jamal.
However, God has brought me to the same conclusions over the past few years through His word. I added Jamal as a friend on facebook because I saw something he wrote as a status or maybe comment on someone elses wall.. I don’t remember, but I remember thinking “hey this guy sounds like me” haha God is faithful to give us confirmation.
@Ses: You can add me too
@Des: You can add me too
Hey Ant!
If what happens on sunday defines a church, than I completely agree with you. This is the problem. Since when does what happens at a service define what a church is? If you could only see that what happens on sunday at an event isn’t a church, than you might start getting somewhere. In fact, you could share for an hour with any other believer what you are learning anytime you want. Seems like you are talking about 1 hour sermons. Since when does a sermon define a church?
You can share and teach all that God has led in and thru your life. Hebrews 5 implies that everyone should teach. That said, I hope that helps you understand that when I said it can be beautiful it isn’t defined by some sunday event.
Thanks for sharing!
Try getting an institution to give up, or change up what they do on a Sunday and you will see exactly how big of a deal it is. If the ‘staff’ doesn’t freak out, many people who are hooked on that experience will. If the Sunday show wasn’t such a big deal, there wouldn’t be such a fight to try to defend and preserve it in its current format.
Can you give me some examples?
I am not saying your wrong. I think you are probably right.
Maybe you without slandering could give a couple of
personal examples to help me know what you mean.
Hey Des!
Help me understand what you mean by heirarchy. Maybe we don’t understand each other here.
You are saying that if there is a heirarchy than it isn’t from God. Help me understand what you mean by that.
Thanks!
Well Ed, I don’t want to get ahead of Jamal’s blog post here. He has said his next blog will explain the differences in structure and function in more detail on Friday. However, since you asked I will share a few starting points from my perspective that may or may not represent Jamal’s view. I am waiting to hear his details on Friday just as you are, like I said this is only about the third article of his I have read.
First off, there was no hierarchy in the early church. Nothing like we see today. In Scripture we see only two leadership roles in the body of Christ, one is Elder (or Bishop/ contrary to today’s system and mans tradition those two terms mean the same thing) who together served to disciple and under shepherd Jesus’ flock. They served according to whatever gifting they were given (whether they were gifted as apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, teachers). Each of the apostles in the early church, were elders. (I can give scripture for all these statements but for the sake of time I’m just sharing) They were servants who gave themselves to discipleship and equipping the Body for the work of the ministry. None of the five fold ascension gifts were used as “titles” or offices, there was no elite class of Christians, there was no ONE man or “Pastor” in charge at any local church. Even at times when there was only one elder in place, it wasn’t because they were “the man” and everyone had to submit to them, but because in the natural course of God developing and raising up leaders things don’t always happen according to some rigid structure. However, the norm was for plurality of elders. They all served as a Body with each member doing it’s part, gathered for mutual edification and submitted one to another in love.
The second leadership role is that of Deacon(minister) who served in helps ministries, such as serving tables at the daily distribution. They were colaborers with the elders and also servants rather than officers.
Even with those two leadership roles, the rest of the Body was not passive or inactive but they each contributed to what God was doing and saying. They didn’t come to believers meetings with the mentality that it was the “leaders” job to hear from God for them and they were to simply sit idly and listen. They gathered for mutual edification and did not need to be considered a leader to contribute to the edification of the Body.
I can go on and I can list many Scriptures, but then it would be just as long as Jamal’s blog LOL The point is, God does things differently then we have grown accustomed to. As a whole the majority in Christendom do not have a clear picture of the Body of Christ or how we are designed by God to function. We don’t have a clear understanding of leadership roles, and even though many in the IC today have began talking about the importance of seeing a restoration of the “five fold ministries” they still see it all through a IC lens and have simply added more “positions” to the already established hierarchy of leadership they have structured. What they don’t see is the entire structure is flawed and not biblical.
I hope this clarifies some. Thanks for reading.
Hey Des,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Elders and Deacons, acting as servants, using their giftings to equip and serve. This is what I got from your post.
Well, I agree 100%. Where me might disagree is that this is still the case today. The problem is an overstating of the authority and the lack of servanthood. People “try out” or become educated to attain some “position”. This shouldn’t be. (I’ll bet we agree here).
I have seen this become beautiful in settings where the elders and deacons see themselves as servants. I have also seen things that make me want to vomit.
Heb 13:17 implies that there is authority and submission taking place in the body (hierarchy). The lead starts with Jesus. We see the same thing in the Trinity, marriage, the family, and also in the body. Hierarchy is not a bad thing. It does certainly get abused. I wonder if this is what you are really talking about?
Anyway, I am hoping for encouragement that servanthood would rise, abuse would cease, and the body would become a beautiful picture of a bride on her wedding day.
Ed,
Great question. If you’d like to know how entrenched the institutional Sunday service thing is, ask Ken Dillman. I don’t want to go into a lot of detail here. He and I have talked about this a lot. He could certainly give you some examples.
Does Ken Dillman have a blog?
Yeah,
Ken and I have talked a bit about that. I know of a man who tried to make a small change to the “service” by removing the lecturn and people got upset. Weird?
A service is not a church! It is just a small fragment of time where people meet. Sadly, it has become the identity of the church. This doesn’t have to be true. This could change. This is why I agree with what Platt is doing. I know that you want to throw the whole thing out, but I don’t agree with you on this. I am anxious to see how you are going to make a case that it should be thrown out.
Ant,
Ken has a blog. You could probably friend him on FB.
Ed,
I have also talked to Ken about this thing at length. I can tell you that it most certainly wasn’t just one guy trying to ‘remove a lectern’ in which people got upset. It was much more than that. I don’t think people get upset over lectern removal. It is fascinating how we hear things through filters.
Also, Hebrews 13:17 most certainly does NOT indicate hierarchy whatsoever. This is the most commonly skewed scripture to fit the ‘hierarchy’ filter by those arguing for the validity of the institution. I’ll talk more about this in my blog post later today.
Jamal,
The lectern was a different place and had nothing to do with Ken. I was just making a point about the wierdness that people have when it comes to tradition. I’ll let Ken speak for himself, but I was not disagreeing with you here.
Can’t wait to see your take on Heb 13:17. The verse clearly indicates authority and submission. Impossible to erase the meaning here.
I have to agree with Ed, this is what really bothers me as well, its all done with one big swath putting everyone in the same boat. The magnitude of the body of Christ is beyond your comprehension yet those who attend an IC are labeled and not really not living in the fullness of Christ.
Here is the dream God has given for the Church through me thekingspresence.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/purifying-love/
I saw this quote earlier today “Baseball is like church. Many attend, few understand.” I think you are doing a wonderful job Jamal.
Thanks for reading Donna:)
“People’s vocabulary about the church reveals a lot of what they believe the church to be. ”
I totally agree. http://jephandcraig.com/posts/bad-language/
I get so tired of going round and round just trying to push through the semantics and contextual issues of “do you mean ‘Church’ or ‘church’” just to be able to finally get to the heart of the issue which is Christ. Instead of rambling on and on about what the Church is or isn’t which becomes so quickly confusing and convoluted, it would seem more to the point and proper to discuss Jesus, and where you find the head, you’ll find the true body. thanks Jamal
Craig, thanks for reading and for the link to your article. Great stuff, and my thoughts exactly. Blessings to you.
Just read through all of this and I have to agree with Ed in that “a service does not make a church”. I said the same thing on my Facebook wall over a week ago. Jamal- I know you well enough that you don’t believe that a service does not make a church either.
At the end of the day, every believer needs to search their own heart and motives to determine if their words and actions are edifying Christ’s body as a whole and not just a subset of the body that meets a certain way or believes a certain way. Even if a member or group of members of the body are hamstrung and sitting idly in an institutional pew, our command to edify the body still stands. I have been searching my heart and have felt convicted on some of my past efforts and elitist mindsets that had not edified those in my life.
Does this mean that we should’t call out something that is flat our wrong or a sin? Of course not, assuming we do it in a loving and edifying way. The question becomes whether calling out a system can be done without hurting and tearing down those believers who meet that way, even though they may not know better.
I’m not saying I have the answer to that, but i would suspect that for every organic-minded believer that says “amen” to things, there may be 2-3 other believers who are hurt for being faithful to what they perceive God’s call or place for their lives at that point. I strongly believe that it is God who brings folks to maturity or an understanding. As a result,I would suspect that the Pagan Christianity type books rarely change someone’s view on Church. Instead, I think they reinforce and validate thoughts that someone else may have ALREADY been feeling.
Either way, the heart of those pushing for change is typically right so we should not judge them. I think we should focus more on how can we unify the church, edify it, and love each other more than we did yesterday. My 2 cents…
Thanks for your insight Matt. The only thing that I would add to that is why the Lord would lead people to write books like ‘Pagan Christianity’. For me, ‘Pagan Christianity’ did not change my view of the institution, rather it confirmed it. It had to be confirmed however. I was stuck until I heard it. The book was vital and a tool of God in my life. This is how God confirms things. No book, or argument ever changes someone’s mind, however. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does use books and arguments however to enlighten and confirm what He has been showing them. ‘Pagan Christianity’ is full of these kinds of arguments. Many times the books and discussion are not really for the person who may be engaging in the discussion, but for those who would hear.
Jesus engaged the Pharisees in debate, not for their sake, but for the sake of those whose hearts were soft and needed to hear another way.
Jamal,
So those who read Pagan Christianity and reject it must not hear?
Is this what you are saying?
Agree Jamal. I am personally thankful for that book and others that I have read because I needed that confirmed when I was at the point of questioning the system.
Good point about Christ addressing the Pharisees. It is too bad we can have more public roundtables on the topic with traditional pastors with the “laity” listening in or watching.. That is where I think the attention is probably better focused, but also the place where there would be the most resistance due to money, power, prestige, etc.
Ed,
If Pagan Christianity did not speak to you about the unclean foundations/mixtures of the religious system, try this book by a new friend of mine….a deeper organicity than we imagine.
The Harlot Church System
“Come Out Of Her, My People”
Charles E. Newbold, Jr.
“Show the house to the house of Israel that they may be ashamed of their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern.” Ezekiel 43:10
“The trumpet of the Lord is sounding an alarm to God’s holy remnant to ‘come out of her My people, that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues.’” Revelation 18:4
Jill,
I just found it online. I’ll give it a read!
Thanks !
Wow. Somebody besides me is recommending Charles Newbold! Good stuff Also look up George Davis & Michael Clark. They give away their books
Just found their website…..http://www.awildernessvoice.com/
I ate up all their books when 5 or 6 years ago.
Also, check this out..I bought the video from Jon Zens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Dz7B75Z58
Thanks for posting this Anthony.
Hey guys. I just posted part II of this vision. Here is the link:
A Stunning Body- (A Vision of Jesus Christ part II) http://wp.me/p1hf9o-3x
If you’re interested, I read the book “52 lies heard every Sunday” a couple of years ago also, and it’s a book that will shudder even people outside he IC. I’m going to blog each lie in a new series onmy blog, so if you can’t pony up the cash, I’ll be posting it. You should really buy it, as it’s a book you’ll look through again and again.
http://antwrites.com
“organic” was never meant to be a model but a way of life, it becomes a model when it starts moving away from the organic to the institution, and then no longer becomes organic except in name only.
John, so true. Actually in reality, there is just the church. ‘Organic’ is simply a term used today to differentiate between the church and the institution. The important thing is found in the essence of what the church is, not in what she is called.
Just like “organic food” is all natural food free from man made additives and preservatives, “organic church” is church without all the man made additives and preservatives.
Here is a little comic I found online that shows what we have done to church over the years by adding all of our man made additives and preservatives: http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/LionCros/nobody.htm
I don’t see organic church as a model, but as an understanding of who the church is and what her purpose is here on earth. I like this definition of Church: “the presence of Jesus among His people called out as a spiritual family to pursue His mission on this planet.”
At it’s simplest form organic church is members of the Body of Christ living out the following commandments of Christ daily:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”
Some call it simple church and some call it organic church, but what I have learned is that where the “DNA” of Christ is present among people, there is church.
“D” – Divine Truth — our commitment to live out a life following Jesus & the Scriptures in today’s world
“N” – Nurturing Relationships — our mutual love for one another as a spiritual family
“A” – Apostolic Mission – our common mission on this planet
Thanks for reading and commenting brother:)
Thank you, Jamal, for your post…yes, some had the answer of “house churches” being the answer when they were hurt in the “institutional church” and yes, weirdness has happened in that setting, also! Thanks for stating that!
Revelation of Jesus through personal and corporate seeking of Him (for He is Truth)…is the answer…let us seek to see and know Him as He is…when we do see Him as He is we will be spending more of our time on our faces before Him…thanking Him…and in awe…of His glorious presence…and then going “out with joy” and revelation power to others!
Great blog! …and necessary!
Debbie,
Thanks for reading and commenting my sister! Your thoughts are always appreciated.
@Ed–Thanks for speaking for (what may be) many of us. I simply do not have to the time to read all the posts on this blog, nor to keep up with opposing views of those who do, but I deeply appreciate your perspective and input. Although I do not know Jamal well, I love those who do not swallow “the system” just because….. well, just because. So, the debates on perspective invigorate and challenge me. I believe your opposing view is good for this blog and I’m glad you have made time to express your thoughts. Personally, I’m seriously considering leaving it altogether, simply because I do not have the time to thoroughly express my “take” on the issues discussed here; I have also come to believe that the purpose is really not to learn from each other, but rather to influence others regarding issues that really aren’t up for debate or challenge, but rather the conclusive and definitive word according to the author. (Don’t mean to sound offensive, Jamal, but that’s what I think.) While I respect those beliefs and conclusions, I do not embrace all of them. But who has the time to spend hours reading, debating and writing on these things, when we have life in Christ to live! I would like to think your (Ed) expressions are truly being heard and considered, but I bet you a quarter you’ll also reach a point where you’ll decide that life in the Body of Christ should be lived with people…not blogs. (Are blogs institutions? lol)
Even though we disagree Joe, thanks for offering your perspective.
APPLAUSE! Amen, hooray, yes indeed, extremely well said, and thank you. It’s a short answer, but that about covers it. I’m with you 100%. (And comforted to know I’m not the only one who thinks these things. If there are enough to be an “us,” then I’m even more confident we’re being led.) And I support you for speaking up when important things need to be said, regardless of the potential lash-back. I know it’s not fun, but we’re simply compelled. Don’t lose heart!
Michelle,
Thanks so much for your kind words sister. There is certainly an ‘us’. There was a recent article that had this statement: “More people are leaving the (institutional) church today, but not because they are leaving their faith. They are leaving to preserve their faith.”
He is certainly leading.
I wanted to share this with you as encouragement; I don’t know if you’ve taken note of it before:
“Be salt and light….
Salt promotes thirst….
Light demands exposure….”
(From my notes on a sermon by Dr. David Jeremiah)
Beautiful!
Whether people are pro-institutional, anti-institutional, in agreement with my thoughts on the church, or in disagreement with my thoughts on the church, they are corrupting the simplicity that is in Christ when they start acting as if their judgments or thoughts are the litmus test of someone’s obedience to the Word of God. Letting someone convince us that we need to be “englightened” as to how church really should be, is falling for the deception of Satan, and letting the same carnality in the guise of spirituality invade your mind, and spill over into the church body.
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. (1 John 2:27)
Repent of your sins, trust in Christ, and walk in the Spirit. Could that really be all there is? Don’t we need to be warned about hierarchal leadership, the institutional church, and all of the other things that are wrong with organized religion? Why? Does God’s Word state that these are the problem? Or, is it our feeble judgments and conclusions as men that tell us that this is the problem? Dare we pronounce our judgments and conclusions as truth? Dare we say that we know how other brothers and sisters in Christ should walk out there lives as the church?
Who in the world do we think we are? I would never encourage people to come to my church, attend a Calvary Chapel, read a certain book, or watch a certain video to get “the truth” about how to walk out our lives as the church, as only the Word of God and the Spirit God have that role. As a teacher I have the responsibility to proclaim Christ and teach His Word, but I must be careful not to present my personal thoughts, interpretations, and judgments as the truth.
Some believe they have “light” on the subject of the church that most in the institutional church do not have, and that is both sad and dangerous. Christ is the light. His Word is the light. Their interpretations, judgments, and “insights”, are not “light”, but human interpretations, judgments, and insights. My interpretations, judgments, and “insights” are not “light”, but human interpretations, judgments, and insights.
I emplore you to resist the temptation to complicate the Christian walk by thinking that God has somehow given you some “key” to the woes of the church and the world. Don’t make the following Christ complicated. It is not! Love one another as I have given you commandment.
And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. (1 John 3:23-24)
I get the idea that you’re as passionate for Christ as we are, but in this comment I also get the impression (via the “insights are not light” and “resist the temptation… [of] thinking that God has somehow given you some key” statements in the closing paragraphs) that you don’t believe God can speak to us individually and by doing so, say anything useful for guiding the Body along. Which, inherently, would mean you don’t think we should read the book of Revelation to John because it wasn’t simultaneously revealed to you or every other believer, or the Pentateuch because that was revealed directly to Moses, or any books of the Prophets, that Paul’s letters are entirely his opinion and therefore should have been kept to himself…. Do we have to preface things with “Thus saith the Lord:” in order for it to be received for what it is? Jesus had constructive criticism for the early churches some 70 years after His resurrection and delivered it via one man (John) who passed it on via writing letters. A precedent for this kind of light delivery system has been set. The internet has made letter-sending faster and safer–you can’t kill the messenger anymore.
Baron,
Brother, thx again for reading and offering your perspective.
Hey! I want to thank you so much for writing this. Why? Well, I just moved to Athens, Ga, and I am a freshman at UGA. Two years ago I would have said I will never come to Athens and go to school here, but here I am, with a heart totally changed by the Lord. Anyway, some friends of mine have a “house church” if you will, and I have gone to it on numerous occasions. There is also another one, that is quite connected with the first one, that is starting very soon. To make a very very long story short, the Lord led me to this new one through mutual friends on night I was not even supposed to be there. It was their leader meeting and I showed up on the wrong night. Anyway, I stayed and to make an even longer story short they asked me if I would be apart of leadership. I new the Lord had brought me that night for a reason. Several things confirmed that I was supposed to be there so I said yes. So here’s the thing. I have always been a bit wary of organic or house church or whatever you want to call them. I never want to be a part of something that is trying to separate itself from the body or try to create a new model, so I guess I’ve just been doing alot of praying as to why God has put me where I am. As I listened to the leaders’ vision for what they want this to be, it matched almost exactly with much of what you have said here. Their own words were, we don’t need another way to do church. We need a community of believers unified that are completely and totally about and in love with the person of Jesus. They don’t want to be separate. They want to simply be a part of the body, knowing Jesus and making him known. So, like I said, I really just want to thank you for this. I so appreciate your honesty about this. At first I was like, is this guy against “house” churches? But that’s obviously not it. You’re just about Jesus. I love it. Thank you so much, and sorry if this seems rambly or confusing.
Jamal I loved your article bro!
Amen and amen again. There are two distinct aspects that people who are invloved in any way in the Institutional Church should take note of:
1) The gospel we preach. Are we preaching the finished work of the cross and righteousness through faith.
2) The setting in which we preach the gospel. This will definitely have in influence the way we receive the gospel and also shape our faith.
If we preach that God has made every person a competent minister, FULLY filled with the Holy Spirit, but only allow some to minister, aren’t we effectively contradicting our message? If we are preaching that WE are now carrying God’s presence as living breathing temples (in other words WE ARE the church) but we encourage people to “attend church” – aren’t we contradicting our message?
The five fold ministry are FUNCTIONS in the Body of Christ, but we have turned it into TITLES.
Keep up the good work!
In Grace,
Andre
http://www.NewCovenantGrace.com
Andre,
I appreciate your comment here. I completely agree with your assessment of the institution. It is meaningless to preach about the body of Christ (priesthood of believers, members of Christ’s body who have unique function, etc…) if we are going to deny those essential truths by our traditions and methodologies during our main church gatherings and functions. What good is a body that is strapped into a wheelchair?
Visit the blog anytime. I’d love to keep the dialogue going:)
Interesting blog!
I think you would appreciate mine too.
Been relational housechurching and planting for 30 years now.
My blog is about Jesus, church and life in general.
http://notesfromthebridge.wordpress.com
Christopher “Captain” Kirk
Captain Kirk,
Thx for checking out the blog. I look forward to checking out your blog as well. Blessings to you brother:)
I’m glad i “stumbled upon” your posts, Jamal.
My husband and i are church planters in southern Chile, and i so don’t want it to be about form. I want it to be about being in love with Jesus.
Thanks!
Thanks again brother for an awesome post…it’s amazing to me that I was raised in church…considered myself backslidden because I never fit in and once I really read the gospel and realized what the “good news” really was did I ever feel okay complete alright to be me…yet I was still alone but then I found you brother…your blog and how you put things into words shows me that I am on the right track…Jesus really is all I need. I thank God for you.
Leana,
Your kind words are very encouraging to me sister:) Thx for sharing your heart. Your journey is evidence to me that He (Christ) is the good shepherd, and His sheep really do hear His voice. He has led you, and He will continue to lead you to the house that He is building. There is a place there specifically for you!