Archive for category ecclesiology
House Churches Unlimited
Posted by D Anderson in church planting, ecclesiology, house church on May 11th, 2009
Free ebook!
This book addresses the dangers and delights of the house church format. It covers support and accountability, advantages and disadvantages, leadership and mentoring issues, worship and sacramental needs, conflict resolution and preaching, starting and multiplying house churches.
This work originally appeared in a book titled “House Churches Unlimited” by I. G. Spong in 1998. This is an updated version.
http://knol.google.com/k/ian-grant-spong/-/25uwu3q02a7v6/63#view
Home meetings restricted in VA
Posted by D Anderson in church, ecclesiology, house church, theology on March 18th, 2009
The Commonwealth of Virginia was once the bastion for ideals such as freedom of religion and the right to assemble. Now look.
Will your state be next to require permits and limit the number of attendees?
Virginia Beach has agreed to consider giving a group of Buddhist monks a permit to hold worship services at their home. The tentative agreement would settle a federal lawsuit the monks filed against the city in September after complaints about traffic prompted the City Council to shut down their services. City officials filed a stipulation of settlement yesterday in U.S. District Court. The proposed permit would limit Sunday meditation services at the home to no more than 20 people at a time. Festivals wouldn’t be allowed but the city agreed to help the monks to find another location.
Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch, March 17, 2009
Classroom size with respect to intimacy
Posted by D Anderson in church, ecclesiology, home school, house church on December 17th, 2008
Colleges and universities are rated on a number of criteria. A high rating comforts parents as they write out the checks each semester. One criteria is the faculty to student ratio, supposedly a measure of teacher/student interaction and intimacy. Another rating consideration is the average class size. The lower the ratio and smaller the class size, the better the rating.
Obviously, there is a parallel to small Christian groups such as house churches.
(In fairness to the traditional churches, it should be duly noted that Sunday Schools also allow and encourage intimacy.)
Cheers to the Lamb in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge!
Charles Finney on formless church
Posted by D Anderson in christianity, church, ecclesiology, house church on August 22nd, 2008
Charles Finney (1792-1875) is a hero claimed by the likes of far-righter Jerry Falwell and left-leaning Jim Wallis of Sojourners – and all sorts in between.
The following extract is from Finney’s Revival Lectures, chapter 14. He popularized, I believe, the view that Scripture dictates no certain form of church structure, government, or ritual. Of course, he had plenty of ideas about those matters, himself.
We are left in the dark as to the measures pursued by the apostles and primitive preachers, except so far as we can gather from occasional hints in the Book of Acts. We do not know how many times they sang, how many times they prayed, in public worship, nor even whether they sang or prayed at all in their ordinary meetings for preaching. When Jesus Christ was on earth, laboring among His disciples, He had nothing to do with forms or measures. He did from time to time in this respect just as it would be natural for any man to do in such cases, without anything like a set form or mode. The Jews accused Him of disregarding their forms. His object was to preach and teach mankind the true religion. And when the apostles preached afterwards, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, we hear nothing about their having a particular system of measures for carrying on their work; nor do we hear of one apostle doing a thing in a particular way because others did it in that way. Their commission was: “Go and preach the Gospel, and disciple all nations.” It did not prescribe any forms. It did not admit any. No person can pretend to get any set of forms or particular directions as to measures, out of this commission. Do it – the best way you can; ask wisdom from God; use the faculties He has given you; seek the direction of the Holy Ghost; go forward and do it.
This was their commission. And their object was to make known the Gospel in the most effectual way, to make the truth stand out strikingly, so as to obtain the attention and secure the obedience of the greatest number possible. No person can find any form of doing this laid down in the Bible. It is preaching the Gospel which there stands out prominently as the great thing. The form is left out of the question.
It is manifest that in preaching the Gospel there must be some kind of measures adopted. The Gospel must be presented before the minds of the people, and measures must be taken so that they can hear it, and be induced to attend to it. This is done by *building churches, holding stated or other meetings, and so on. Without some measures, the Gospel can never be made to take effect among men.
So, if I am a Mormon, my church rituals are OK just as long as I am not pushy about them?
“This is done by building churches,” you say? Is that “building churches” as in church buildings?
Are house churchers (and all you others) prepared to end all discussions about church rituals and forms if they accept Finney’s viewpoint? I don’t see any other choice.
Spontaneous Expansion of the Church
Posted by D Anderson in church, church planting, ecclesiology, evangelism, house church on February 18th, 2008
Rowland Allen published a fine book by this title in the early 1900’s based on his experiences as a foreign missionary. I dig that title. Bring it on, Lord.
I found a text version of the book. In it, the phrases “church planting, church planter” did not appear. That is significant in that we too often see the church as something we plant rather than God adding to.
One plants (the gospel), one waters, God gives the increase!
Taking back the streets of Philly
Posted by D Anderson in church, ecclesiology, eldership, house church, ministry on January 27th, 2008
Ordinary caring people and older ones (elders) doing what is usually done by professionals. Hmmm… Do you see any parallels with church life? Are you a volunteer or do you expect professionals to take care of everything? Looks as if most folks in Philadelphia don’t want to get very involved despite it being the City of Brotherly Love.
Still, it’s is a great idea – perhaps the start of something permanent.
“10,000 Men, A Call To Action” kicked off on some of Philadelphia’s meanest streets Tuesday night, near 19th and Federal in the 17th District on the city’s South Side.
It wasn’t thousands that showed up, but dozens … all African-American males, most in their 40s and 50s, some pushing 70, fathers and grandfathers hoping to make a difference.
“We’re doing this for the children,” one told me. Showing they care, patrolling block after block in reflective “Town Watch” vests, talking to residents and drivers, handing out fliers, chanting, “It’s a new day, a peaceful way” and “10,000 strong can’t be wrong.”
We walked with them from a local community center to a gritty area a mile away, where they canvassed six square blocks, two-way radios and fliers in hand, talking to anyone who would stop and listen.
I saw curious stares from behind curtains, skeptical looks from some young people on corners, and honks and hugs of gratitude from others.
The all-volunteer effort is designed to reassure folks in the crime-plagued neighborhoods that people still care about their problems, spreading the word help is available for jobs, financial services, youth programs and more. The fliers have phone numbers on the back and words of explanation and encouragement on the front.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313564,00.html
Another Institution Is Cracking
Posted by D Anderson in ecclesiology, house church, theology on November 4th, 2007
The banking industry has a new competitor. The ‘person to person loan’ it’s called. Individual borrowers and lenders meet via the internet. One such site has almost a half million registered users – prosper.com.
Loans are made and repaid without the proverbial middle man. This represents the de-professionalization of another major institution and the parallels to clergy-less house churching are readily apparent. Folks really can serve one another beyond and without “the system.”
Power to the people.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15876230
McLaren to the anarchists: Organize or die.
Posted by D Anderson in church planting, ecclesiology, emergent church, house church on August 25th, 2007
Take, for example, a church with an anarchist ecclesiology. (Don’t laugh-it’s more common than you think.) This ecclesiology sees problems in “the institutional church” (which is another term for “the church wherever it actually exists”) and concludes that they result from its being “organized.” According to this way of thinking, the early church was blissfully spontaneous. The Holy Spirit led individuals with such power and mastery that the early church performed like a symphony without a score. The beautiful music poured out harmoniously from the untrained musicians as they were moved extemporaneously by the Invisible Conductor.
Never mind that no one has ever actually seen a church like this function for very long, or that when a church appears to so function, it turns out to be the product of covert human leadership and training from a real-though-unwritten rule book. Never mind that the whole second half of the New Testament seems to be about problems arising in the early church, with organized yet Spirit-inspired solutions being developed to deal with them. Never mind that organization is a fact of life for every organism-from paramecia to blue whales. Never mind, because some good folk in every generation are going to try to start churches that operate with as little overt organization as possible, fighting organization with at least as much zeal as they use in fighting sin.
Despite these words of criticism, I call these anti-organizationalists “good folk” with good reason, and not only because I was once one of them. They are idealists, and their idealism is attractive. They are driven to work hard and love long and bleed deep for their dream of building a community unspoiled by institutionalism and organization. And I wholeheartedly concur that organization and institutionalism can obstruct community as effectively as telephone wires can ruin a beautiful view. I sent one of these “good folk,” a most enjoyable friend, a copy of this manuscript, and he replied, “I read your unfinished manuscript twice …. My experience tells me that [real Christianity] won’t work in the institutional church no matter what side. The truth, as I see it, is that the visible and the physical work against the invisible and spiritual… If God is leading you to write this book, I am in your corner. However, in my heart, I just don’t think “the church on the other side” will ever exist.”
My friend is working out his perspective by lowering his expectations of the institutional church to near zero, focusing instead on interpersonal relationships-”loving my neighbors,” as he would say. And I don’t quarrel with him; I like what he is doing. But the fact is, if some well-meaning people like my friend, wary of the side effects of organization, gather regularly as friends in a home or a restaurant-not in an elaborate “church” building forming a group that thrives on unstructured relationships with no formal leadership and as little as possible of the dreaded “O word”- then one of four things will happen:
- The little proto-church will thrive for many years as a small circle of friends requiring very little organization, perhaps aided by the fact that (1) they don’t call themselves a church, and (2) they don’t invite too many people to join them.
- The little church will die after a few months or perhaps a few years.
- The little church will adopt a “cell church model,” dividing in two as soon as the size of the group requires organization, thus increasing in numbers by multiplying small groups. However, if this works long-term (which seems to happen less in reality than in theory), they will soon discover that they are indeed organized-just differently-and that the organizational demands of keeping a cell-multiplication movement going (such as leadership training or problem solving) can equal or surpass those of a more traditional church.
- The little church will grow, change its ecclesiology – with agony, of course-and get organized. In the process of changing its ecclesiology, many late-night discussions will take place featuring heated debates that rival Luther’s at Leipzig.
More than likely, this group, if it capitulates to organization, will enfranchise an ecclesiology that will allow the fledgling church to grow from, say, 40 to 150. At this level, the following structural elements will be typical:
- One pastor-volunteer, bivocational, or salaried
- A formal or informal board that serves as the volunteer staff of the church, attending to administration and ministry
At about 150, a church that wishes to keep growing will probably hire a second pastoral staff member. This move is far more monumental than it seems, for at least four reasons:
- The pastor, who may have excelled with volunteers, now may be asked to supervise the second staff person. Managing staff requires skills that are in many ways antithetical to those previously required with volunteers. Few people are good at both. If neither pastor is seen as the chief of staff, the church will generally slide into another slick of risks and problems, ranging from ineffectiveness due to a lack of accountability to ineffectiveness due to power struggles.
- The board must give up some of its power to this new staff person. It is human nature not to give up power without a struggle unless those who hold it are thoroughly exhausted and tired of the responsibility that comes with their authority.
- The second staff person, besides dealing with an inexperienced pastor and an ambivalent board, is working for a church that can barely afford to pay a salary and has little patience with setbacks or delays in productivity. To make matters worse, this person generally joins the staff with high ideals, boundless goodwill, and a bit of naivete. He may also bring any number of his own needs or pathologies to the situation – seeing the pastor as a father-figure, ministry as a way to be liked, associate-pastor status as a means to power without responsibility, or some other image.
- The congregation, with many idealists from the first stage, welcome the new staff person and fear him at the same time. Will this person compete with their beloved pastor (or, conversely, will this person compensate for the pastor they secretly distrust)? Will this person change the homey church they love by making it more “corporate” (i.e., organized)? Their unspoken mandate – an impossible assignment if ever there was one.. is this: Help our church grow, but don’t you dare change it.
If the church survives this structural transition, it will more than likely grow toward numbers between 300 and 800, but another ceiling awaits it there. This ceiling results from some or all of the following:
- As additional staff are hired, the now-senior pastor’s role changes: less ministry, more leadership, more staff management, more administration. Few pastors can survive a change in role of this magnitude.
- The additional staff hired at these early stages are nearly always generalists, or at least multitalented. A music director, for example, may also direct Christian education or small groups. But with growth in numbers comes greater demand for specialization. A “B+” musician who is also a “B+” Christian education director was a godsend to the church of 250; she may be an embarrassment to the church of 600 that wants – and can now afford – “A”- caliber staff in both categories. To put it bluntly, the same staff that helped the church surmount the earlier ceiling can create this one by being good in general but not good enough in specialized areas.
- A fully staffed church no longer needs the board that helped create it. In place of volunteer administrators or unpaid pastors, it now needs a board that does one or both of the following: (1) provides oversight in a way more akin to a nonprofit board of directors, skilled in strategic planning, oversight, organizational management, budgeting, and whenever possible, fund-raising; … (end quote)
THE CHURCH ON THE OTHER SlDE by Brian D. McLaren, Zondervan Publishing, pp 96-99.
Brian McLaren is considered by many to be the leading spokesperson/writer for the emergent church movement. Certainly, he is the most popular in terms of book sales.
Recent Comments