OK, I'm trying to play catch up here...
There's so much great discussion that I want to get in on.
Matt:
Perhaps, though, you both misunderstood (or I miscommunicated) my statements. I wasn't implying that only 'good' singers are gifted or even that only 'good' singers should sing. I think you might be under the impression that I said this b/c of this statement by Danny:
Quote:
The lesson I learned is that it's not about how gifted we are. It's about our heart towards God.
This seems to me a fairly odd statement. It seems you are talking about physical gifts and not spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts are, of course, from the Holy Spirit. We don't have to pick (as I'm sure you would agree) between a good singer and a singer with a good heart. We have many examples of both! I agree that the latter is more important than the former.
I wasn't so much responding to anything you said, but rather reflecting on what I've seen in my own experience. Over and over again, I've seen pastors "wowed" by great musicians who come into their congregation (even "recruiting" musicians from other churches) and seeing them as assets to further the growth of their church. Meanwhile, folks who aren't as "gifted" talent-wise but are extremely gifted Spirit-wise are passed over. "...for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." In a Spirit-led (rather than man-led) setting, the gifts of the Holy Spirit will naturally emerge, for the building up of the entire Body.
Danny also said...
Quote:
The other problem is, who determines who is "gifted" enough to stand before the congregation and lead worship? Oftentimes (in fact, in my experience I'd say usually), such decisions are based more on taste than discernment (and sometimes on politics).
Again, I agree this can become a problem. But the way to fix it is more discernment and less personal preference.
That would be nice, but in a structure where decisions are made by a lone pastor, or small coterie of leaders, there is an inherent weakness in being able to make Spirit-led decisions. "In a multitude of council there is wisdom."
Danny: One of the interesting aspects of an egalitarian worship community is that if something seems "off", it can be brought up and discussed by the entire group. There are some popular worship songs which I have trouble with theologically. If I was part of a house-church where that song kept being sung, I could lovingly bring it up for discussion and see what consensus we might reach. On the other hand, if a worship leader up on stage at an IC keeps singing a song that I believe is theologically questionable or downright heretical, my only recourse is to try to get word to the worship leader (via email or maybe catching them in the hallway) or complain to the Senior Pastor.
Matt: So in a house church, if there is a problem, you can discuss it with other believers and address it? But in an institutional church, if there is a problem, you have to discuss it with other believers to address it? There need be no difference! Are you trying to tell me that if a member of our church had an issue with the content of a song selected by a worship leader, he couldn't discuss the matter with other believers in the church and/or discuss it with the worship leader? Viola is painting a VERY cynical view of churches. While the cynicism is sometimes well-founded, it's over-arching nature is the main critique I have of this book (a book which, as I said, I am enjoying).
I can only speak from my own experience and from the experiences of people I know. I
have become cynical about the IC. In most IC's I've been part of, if there is a problem and you discuss it with other believers, you risk being called on the carpet for sedition, gossip, murmuring, and undermining the pastor's authority. In the IC's I've had interaction with, any problems are supposed to be brought
directly to the pastor and the pastor's ruling on the matter is law. In a top-down structure, you can't have anyone pulling in a direction contrary to the pastor's vision. Oftentimes, problems are swept under the carpet and kept hidden from the congregation.
I'm very impressed with the way the Quakers have been doing it for 350 years, which is to seek informed consensus from the entire congregation.
Danny: Also, in an organic church, the group as a whole could put together their own songbook or hymnal. This process could lead to some great theological discussions!
Matt: Haha, why couldn't this happen in an institutional church?! In fact, just last week we were discussing having just such a time of writing and sharing in the near future!
It could, I just think it's less likely.
I suppose I am simply of the opinion that Viola is quite a bit heavy-handed in regards to institutional churches. I am sure he's had some very bad experiences. I'm sure many do. I agree that there are dangers. There always are.
I can't disagree with you here. Reading Viola can be a bit like a slap in the face. He can be strident and polemical, which I'm sure is his intent in order to stir things up.
Homer:
I'm curious - what is an "organic church"? Chemical free?
I guess you've researched your question yourself since asking it, but I'll give you my quick answer. "Organic" is a descriptive term, rather than a formula, so different people will have different opinions on what exactly it means. To me, it means "bottom-up" instead of "top down". For example, in a "traditional" church, one of the pastor's jobs is to "cast" a vision for the church and convince the people to "buy in" to that vision. In an organic church, each individual can have a vision/dream/burden directly from the Holy Spirit. In an OC, the role of the leaders is to nourish, equip and otherwise help people to act upon their God-given visions. As a result, the "vision" of the church as a whole looks more like a mosaic. The church's vision is not crafted (like a mission statement) by a handful of people in leadership, but rather bubbles up from the people, via the Holy Spirit working in them.
Also, an organic church tries to minimize the amount of structure and agenda. Some structure is necessary in any living thing, but too much structure becomes restrictive and chokes off life.
I take it from the discussion that prepared sermons are not highly regarded, just not led by the Spirit, I guess. Now you are discussing music. If sermons written ahead of time are not the best, why wouldn't the same principle apply to songs? Just make them up as you go. That should be interesting; never know 'till you try it!
I've actually been in meetings where that has happened and it's been amazing!
Rae & Paidion:
Viola wrote: "We have observed that most small groups attached to an institutional church have a leader present who is the head of the meetings. Thus to our minds, such meetings are directed by a human head who either controls it or facilitates it." (thanks for quoting it Paidion)
I have observed the same thing. Any time a group of people gather, leaders will emerge. That's normal. What thwarts Body ministry, imho, is a) when there is only a single, appointed leader and b) when leaders create and drive an agenda (beyond simply encountering the Living God and equipping the saints).
The hardest part about trying to have Spirit-led gatherings is that most Christians have been so conditioned to be passive receivers that they will constantly look to a leader to do the ministry for them.
Leaders should exist in the ekklesia, but their role should be more as care-takers and facilitators than what we usually see. When I was leading a house-church I very often heard the Holy Spirit clearly telling me to "shut up". My role was not to dominate the gathering or to be the "talking head", but to enable and encourage others to step out in their gifts. That oftentimes entailed biting my tongue and staying out of the way. It's murder on the ego.
Homer (again):
Several prominent voices have serious concerns about simple church. For example, referring to George Barna's description of simple church and similar trends in "Revolution," J. Lee Grady (Charisma Online Editor) says such a movement wants to "reinvent the church without its biblical structure and New Testament order — and without the necessary people who are anointed and appointed by God to lead it. To follow this defective thesis to its logical conclusion would require us to fire all pastors, close all seminaries and Bible colleges, padlock our sanctuaries and send everybody home..."[21] Grady and other critics worry that the simple church movement could encourage people to leave more traditional forms of church, which could lead to further collapse or decline of Christendom. They also see in simple church an accommodation of current culture and "everyone does as he please spirituality" that is at best ill advised, and at worst destructive -- an accusation that has been leveled at all forms of emerging church[22].
I have a fairly low opinion of the views of J. Lee Grady (being a former subscriber to Charisma magazine) on many things, so if he's vehemently against simple churches, I consider that as lending
more creedence to them.
In the quote you provided, he makes clear how institutionalized his thought processes have become. When he talks (hyperbolically) about "firing pastors" and "closing seminaries", who does he think would do the firing and closing? He is still stuck in the idea of a central human authority who makes such decisions.
A very common teaching within Charismatic circles, and one I believe Grady subscribes to, is called "Set Man". The idea is that the pastor is God's "set man" in the local church and, as such, is the unquestioned authority. He is viewed like a mini-Pope (or king). I find that teaching disgusting.
Leadership: Who are the leaders and what is the leadership structure? Is the simple church understanding of leadership biblical? Is there enough control to prevent abuse, cultism, and heresy? Are the lay leaders in simple churches qualified for the care of others?
If you think about it, most heresy and abuse (think Jim Jones, C.T. Russell, Joseph Smith, H.W. Armstrong, etc.) occurs when people come under the authority of a lone charismatic leader. The egalitarian nature of a simple church goes a long way to preventing any individual from taking control.
Longevity: According to sources within the movement, the average lifespan of a simple church is only 6 month to two years[24]. This leaves critics to wonder how Christianity can survive in such a transient movement. What will be the long-term impact of simple church when it lacks the sticking power of more traditional forms of church?
This is true, but it's based on institutional assumptions. Who says an ekklesia should last 100 years? The Body of Christ goes on and on, but we get focused on our man-made structures in which we try to contain and control it. I've gone back to visit institutional churches that I was part of in the past (for example, prior to moving from Denver to Seattle) and found that within a few years an overwhelmingly large percentage of the people I knew in the congregation have left and new people have replaced them: Although the same senior pastor might be there, and the church name is the same, there's been an 80% turn-over in the congregation. I wonder if anyone has done a study on this? I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the transient nature of our culture.
Teaching: It is rare for simple churches to have sermons or bible classes in the formal sense. Critics wonder when teaching occurs and how people are formed educationally and doctrinally in simple churches. Without concentrated teaching, sermons, and bible classes, how will believers be educated?
Teaching generally still occurs in simple churches, it just isn't the centerpiece of the gathering. Many, if not most, simple churches engage in interactive Bible studies. Personally, I've found the amount of Bible study is actually much greater in a simple church. Oftentimes in an IC, people don't even bring their Bibles to the Sunday service and the pastor's sermon, though based on a Bible verse, might go off in all kinds of directions.
Actually, what we do on this forum is reminiscent of the way a simple church functions.
Orthodoxy: Without denominational control or pastoral oversight, who will maintain orthodoxy among simple churches and its participants. Isn't it a breeding ground for people with wild theologies who would get drummed out of more traditional and more orthodoxy churches?
Once upon a time when most people were illiterate and information was scarce, such a need for centralize control to maintain orthodoxy was valid.
Nowadays, most pastors have no control over what their parishioners are watching on TBN or buying at Barnes & Noble.
In a simple church, people
do bring up wacky theologies, which can then be discussed and critiqued. I would rather lovingly correct a brother than "drum them out" of the fellowship!
Cultural Accommodation/Syncretism: Has simple church sold out to a culture that sinfully refuses to go to church? Is simple church just caving in to postmodernism? Does simple church promote the West's tendency to worship the individual and individualism?
No. In fact, simple church is much more corporate-minded (or Body-based, or community-oriented) than the IC's. It's much easier to keep my sins and peccadilloes concealed in an IC than it is in the community of a simple church.
Outreach Potential: When the unchurched want to go to church, how will they when there is no location and no phone book listing? What about visiting Christians in the area?
At last, a valid objection! We discussed this point earlier.
Relationship with Established Churches: Is simple church another movement pulling people away from congregational churches? Is simple church a threat to more traditional models? Do simple church practitioners condemn or criticize other forms of church? Can simple churches and traditional forms of church work together?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.