institutional church?

[jriccitelli]

I would have no problem doing that regularly.

Then you list 4 reasons why you won't.

And that is the problem, all these pastors say the same thing, they won't give up that pulpit or the room, so here we go:

1. I'm not choosing b/w sermon OR group discussion. I'm choosing to do both. We have more opportunities for group discussions than sermons. I preach/teach 5 times a week. Trust me, I'd be glad to have a break, haha.
Then take a break. I respect you Matt, and its not your fault you are duplicating the historic tradition, but If a pastor has not been able to equip at least a couple believers to be able to teach or lead within a couple months, what the heck does that say? You should be duplicating yourself, and if your good enough to truly be a pastor, you should be able to have a number of people capable of leading discussions or doing talks by now. No other school, profession or occupation would ever tolerate the success rate churches produce. I'm sure you have discipled many others to teach, but I also would train them to stand and teach, they should be able to give a sermon (this does not mean sermons are for Sunday morning, there is a difference between sermon and preaching, and sermons should be labeled as such: lecture). This association of the Pastor with the pulpit corrupts what the principle model of equality, discipleship, and the Spirit should be in His Church.

As a bible teacher I try to hand the material off to others to read or lead with, when I see the group interacting and having a good biblical discussion without my help, my job is done! You continue doing that and you will have more and more well equipped capable believers, then take a break.

2. To be completely honest... that is not what most people want on Sunday morning
Those remaining may say so, but what about those not in church? And those who have left? Those in church may 'believe' they want it that way because they have been 'taught' this is the 'only way' to have Sunday.

3. I probably don't view Sunday morning like you. I think of Sunday morning, not as the church, but as the Christian version of the synagogue. It's just a place where religious minded people go (like a religious town hall). Sunday morning is the place where we recruit true Christians to the church...
Religious minded people?? I think you mean an outreach, not the Church. The Church was made up of disciples. People could come listen or join them, but the body of Christ is made up only of believers. It was not catered to unbelievers, until it was institutionalized that is. Recruit true christians to the church? What do you mean by that? Sunday is the one day most 'all' the believers have off together, for many it is the 'only' day off, and the 'one day' they can meet with others 'who only get this one day' free! Sunday time is very precious time. Sunday is the day the Church should be coming together to meet, talk, pray, laugh, share, get to know one another, love one another, be Christian to one another, commune and be friends and family together - none of this happens during a sermon.

... I'm with Bruxy Cavey here too. He says The Meeting House (their 'church') isn't a big church with a bunch of cell groups. It's a bunch of cell churches that meet together for weekend programming.
'Weekend 'programming' boy that's a mouth full. Caveys church is a perfect example of what’s wrong with 'church'. Here is a clip from that churches website under 'our model':

Our regional sites mostly meet in movie theatres that we rent in various local communities. Each week, we transport our trailers full of sound equipment, program supplies and other stuff to various locations and set up our sites for a church service led by a Lead Pastor whose job is to connect with people. Here people gather weekly to watch the teaching that is delivered on the big screen by means of high-def video files and generally hang out as a larger community. When we are done, we pack up and go home or to the local chicken hut just as people are coming in for the afternoon matinee.

My old church gave up and handed its own chapel over to the trendy church in town, painted the whole interior black, and now video feeds a pastor teaching from another church. The big church I now attend did the pre-taped video feed from the Saturday evening service, and one Sunday morning while I was sitting in the church coffee shop having bible study with friends, I noticed our pastor Chip Ingram just standing out in the empty courtyard staring at the sky, so I went over and talked to him. He had nothing to do because he was on video and everyone was inside watching the screen. I said I heard the message on the Internet yesterday, and yet like us, most all his friends were inside trapped by the sermon. I didn't have time to remind him that we all have Internet MP3 players and TVs at home. Or why come to church on such a beautiful day to sit in a theater and stare at a screen in the dark? Boy what great fellowship and church that is! Very trendy though! All the videos are doing is exposing the sermon for what it really is: A theatrical show, all that is missing is the popcorn, which would be good because many of us are really hungry, and many of us are tired of this show, and you know, it is a beautiful day...

[mattrose]

I would have no problem doing that regularly.

Then you list 4 reasons why you wont.And that is the problem, all these pastors say the same thing, they wont give up that pulpit or the room, so here we go:

You changed the wording. I listed 4 reasons why we don't. You changed it to won't. But that completely changes the tone of the conversation. And I think this is one of the reasons you struggle on message boards. You come into conversations with such a big axe to grind that you don't REALLY listen to what people are saying.

I'll just share a few brief thoughts in response to what you said after that...

1. Since you don't really know anything about my ministry or the churches that I am part of, I"ll disregard all the assumptions you made about my ministry and the churches that I am part of. How do you know how many people I have or have not helped to equip for leadership, Bible teaching, preaching, sermon-giving, small group leading, Sunday School teaching, etc.? You don't.

2. Again, you seem passionate about making SUNDAY MORNING church. I am not passionate about that. I think we live in a culture that is far away from Jesus Christ. And I think Sunday morning is a golden outreach opportunity. It is likely a passing remnant of our Judeo-Christian foundations in this country. But until it is gone, it is usable. Paul used the Jewish synagogue to recruit interested people to the home churches that he planted. I try to use the Christian synagogue (Sunday morning) in the same way. You are free to disagree with that perspective. But you are not free to project YOUR assumptions about Sunday morning onto my paradigm and then critique my practices by your standards.

3. All the things that you feel need to happen instead of the sermon can happen in addition to the sermon. Not only can they. They do. Sometimes when I read your thoughts on this issue it's like you're a guy who really wants to eat at a particular restaurant but thinks he can't because they are always really busy on Tuesday night's from 5:30-6. Umm... a sermon is like 30 minutes long. I understand you've had some bad experiences where you were discouraged or prevented from developing some interactive ministry, but come on man... are you going to live the rest of your life upset that it didn't work out. Don't take it out on every other church in America. Try again. And if you have tried over and over again and failed, maybe the problem isn't the churches... maybe the problem is the style you use to try to bring your goals about.

4. Why do you say things like "Weekend programming, boy that's a mouth full"??? It's 2 words. You're really weird sometimes. If Bruxy Cavey's church is a "perfect example of what's wrong with church" then you and I just see things REALLY REALLY REALLY differently and we should probably never talk again until at least 10 years after we enter eternity. Your rhetoric is astounding. Have you been to the church? Heard the heart of the leadership? Or did you just visit the website for 10 minutes looking for something you didn't like? We're talking about a church that is built on the model of exactly what you're looking for. Home churches where everyone particpates. They UTILIZE Sunday morning to grow that movement.

5. I don't disagree with everything you say. We probably have a lot of the same goals for the church, to be honest. I really think that. But we're called to minister to the present, not get upset that our goals are not yet reached. We work toward goals, one step at a time. I could spend my days complaining about everything I wish was different in my church or, you know, I could minister day in and day out, taking steps toward those goals. I've chosen to take those daily steps and to do it patiently. And if I'm being completely honest the worst part of that process is having to listen to people like you who are just constantly complaining about the church. And the worst part is the projection of your 'church' experience on everyone else.

I'm usually nicer than this. I hope you realize I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to tell you why I'm constantly less likely to read what you post.

[jriccitelli]

You changed the wording. I listed 4 reasons why we don't. You changed it to won't. But that completely changes the tone of the conversation. And I think this is one of the reasons you struggle on message boards. You come into conversations with such a big axe to grind that you don't REALLY listen to what people are saying.

'DON'T' I changed it on purpose. I didn't say I was quoting you.

I struggle? You have got to be kidding. A preacher telling me I don't listen? You do not know me at all.

[mattrose]

You changed the wording. I listed 4 reasons why we don't. You changed it to won't. But that completely changes the tone of the conversation. And I think this is one of the reasons you struggle on message boards. You come into conversations with such a big axe to grind that you don't REALLY listen to what people are saying.

'DON'T' I changed it on purpose. I didn't say I was quoting you.

I struggle? You have got to be kidding. A preacher telling me I don't listen? You do not know me at all.

Haha, that you changed it on purpose is EXACTLY my point! It doesn't really matter to you what your conversation partners actually say, which ends up meaning you don't actually have any conversation partners!

JR, I'm sure your ears work. I'm not sure you have ears to hear. And that's not me questioning your Christianity. That's me questioning your ability to be part of the message board form of communication.

[dizerner]

Seems like there's precedent for one man of God giving a lengthy talk to minister the Word of God, and also for everyone to have a chance to minister their particular gift or fellowship. Perhaps it's not the shape of the cake, but rather the ingredients that matter.

[jriccitelli]

I would have no problem doing that regularly. (Matt)

OK, If you really meant that, I will take it back the won't, make me a believer! And I will very happily and personally visit your church when I'm out there. I've explained this issue at long length, and with you, in another thread here, and I have listened to your sermons, so we should know at least that much about each other.

[TheEditor]

Look, most of this is nothing new in Christian history. You wrote Matt that you think one possibility for my attitude is being burned by the JWs. You are correct, in part. Being burned by the JWs was my impetus to review everything that I had purchased, lock, stock and barrel. We had such an emphasis on "Organization" that I had to look really hard at this concept. It came as a surprise to me that the first President of the WT Society, was himself dead set against Organization....at first. Then I started to do some more reading and came to a realization; this is a recurring theme. Likely a lot of it is birthed by human dynamics.

British Parliamentary member WP Brown wrote an essay entitled Imprisoned Ideas. In it, he made the following observation:

"But, just as the human spirit must incarnate in a body, so must the idea incarnate in an organization. Whether the organization be political, religious, or social is immaterial to my present argument. The point is that, the idea having embodied itself in an organization, the organization then proceeds gradually to slay the idea which gave it birth."

In a similar vain, FF Bruce noted the following observation by a fellow Brethren author:

"When a modern movement starts out with the deliberate intention of reproducing the life and order of the apostolic age, it will before long reproduce the features of the post-apostolic age, such as standardization of worship, ministry and doctrine, formalizing of inter-church relations"

Most interesting to me is the truth of these statements as I have discovered them, in reading countless books and articles on the origins of various "movements" throughout church history. One of the founders of the churches that came to be known by their denominational names, Church of Christ; Disciples of Christ and Christian Church, was Alexander Campbell of the the Restoration Movement in the early 1800s. No one looking at these three large denominational bodies (except perhaps it's members) would think of anything other than another church, sect, denomination--what have you.

However, Campbell himself made a noteworthy comment on the function of the "Church" and it's members and leadership:

"But a question arises: Does not society, as now constituted, require still greater exertions than these; and ought not Christians to select such agents as can have the greatest influence in converting men, and employ them for that purpose? To employ men to preach the gospel in a Christian congregation is a satire upon that congregation which employs them. It is the duty of every Christian to proclaim the word to those ignorant of it...That any man is to be paid for preaching, i.e., for making sermons and pronouncing them; or that any man is to be hired for a stipulated sum to preach and pray, and expound scripture, by the day, month, or year, I believe to be a relic of popery."

All movements, it would seem, started with an idea to restore 1st century fellowship. All that were successful in driving down stakes (some movements never made it out of the "ideas" phase) ended up recreating, to one degree or another, the post-apostolic church.

You said that you thought I valued the individual over the collective. I maintain no such position. In fact, when it come to the socio-cultural dynamic, I am bi-polar. I can see a strong case for both, depending on circumstances. But it seems it is easier to get people to yield their individuality and conscience to a group, then it is to get the group to respect the individual and his or her conscience and individuality. Apparently, the tendency is strong enough in humans, that Moses warns us against it:

"You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends; and you must not testify over a controversy so as to turn aside with the crowd in order to pervert justice." (Exodus 23:2)

I am not comparing a church fellowship to a "mob." My point is simply as stated above. More often then not, the collective overrides and influences the conscience of the individual, and this is not a healthy thing.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that large groups foster diversity. I think it is just the opposite; large groups tend to foster homogenization and "group think."

Many functions of a small group are made difficult or untenable when tried in a larger setting. The small group that may have an issue with sin in a member, could deal collectively in a loving fashion with someone that is in need of help. The small group would already be aware of issues and the one struggling would be able to open up more easily in a small setting.

But, since large churches also have to deal with 'church discipline' (so-called) then new methods, or embarrassing ones are needed. In the former, a select "committee" may have to be dispatched to see about the matter. This has the potential to pervert justice, since it is not out in the open--at the gate. On the other hand, if something is "taken to the church" in a very real way in a large setting, we have the unfortunately comic scene of a large group being asked to hear about a matter dealing with Brother Smith. "For those of you that don't know Brother Smith, he's that fellow that usually sits over there with his wife....no not him, the fellow behind him..right him. So, anyway, Brother Smith it seems is a bit of a bacchanal...."

You seem to feel it is just the "religion" aspect that is bad. Religion merely means a system of worship. Any system, liturgy, what have you could be called religion. But I agree that "religion" should not be placed over "relationship." At he same time, I believe "Organized Relationship" to be a bit of an oxy-moron.

You say my views are "dangerous" and cause you 'fear.' Not my intent. But I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that isn't the first time I've heard that....

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

I understand you've had some bad experiences where you were discouraged or prevented from developing some interactive ministry, but come on man... are you going to live the rest of your life upset that it didn't work out. Don't take it out on every other church in America. Try again. And if you have tried over and over again and failed, maybe the problem isn't the churches... maybe the problem is the style you use to try to bring your goals about. (Matt)

I just read that, boy are you off base, and out of line.

[mattrose]

I understand you've had some bad experiences where you were discouraged or prevented from developing some interactive ministry, but come on man... are you going to live the rest of your life upset that it didn't work out. Don't take it out on every other church in America. Try again. And if you have tried over and over again and failed, maybe the problem isn't the churches... maybe the problem is the style you use to try to bring your goals about. (Matt)

I just read that, boy are you off base, and out of line.

You know your own story. You should feel as free to disregard the 'maybe' as I feel to disregard your constant critique.

[mattrose]

A couple of clarifications...

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that large groups foster diversity. I think it is just the opposite; large groups tend to foster homogenization and "group think."

No, that is not what I was saying. My view isn't that large groups FOSTER diversity. My point was that a small group, by definition, involves interaction with less people. And I think it is healthy to interact with more people b/c that gives you a better opportunity to meet with diversity.

Many functions of a small group are made difficult or untenable when tried in a larger setting. The small group that may have an issue with sin in a member, could deal collectively in a loving fashion with someone that is in need of help. The small group would already be aware of issues and the one struggling would be able to open up more easily in a small setting.

This section (and many of your thoughts) speaks against a large church organization that doesn't include emphasis on small groups. The organization could, simply, help the small group network out whenever necessary in a variety of ways.

You seem to feel it is just the "religion" aspect that is bad. Religion merely means a system of worship. Any system, liturgy, what have you could be called religion. But I agree that "religion" should not be placed over "relationship." At he same time, I believe "Organized Relationship" to be a bit of an oxy-moron.

There are many possible definitions of religion. We are probably just using slightly different ones. I don't think, though, that the term organized relationship is an oxymoron.

You say my views are "dangerous" and cause you 'fear.' Not my intent. But I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that isn't the first time I've heard that....

They only cause me fear if you truly think the Gospel is about a bunch of individual salvations and not the Kingdom/Church/Bride, etc. Since you seem to be saying that is NOT your perspective, my fear is abated.