I think it’s worthwhile thinking about why gospel freedom is difficult to maintain for the long haul. I agree with Hirsch’s list, but I don’t have an answer to it. All one has to do is look at the history of various heresies popping up in the early centuries and the necessity of the church dealing with that, to understand why the church had to develop its doctrine and pin down what it means to be a Christian. Same with my own movement (Pentecostal): the tendency toward institutionalization is a reaction to the tendency of individuals to go off the deep end.

I like the terms “people of the Way vs. people of the Book.” Too often I have found myself in churches where they are people of the Book. The only church where it was ever “of the Way” ended up being so liberal in its theology that anything goes… so in the end it was not necessarily “of the Way” but of “unconditional love and acceptance”. (Which is not to say that this isn’t part of the Way, but that accepting and loving includes bringing people into repentance about their sin.) But it is as balance of sound doctrine lived out in the lives of the people through the Way.
We have order the book, but it is taking forever to get here!!! Frustrating!!!
As far as institutional problems, there have been many which affect everything including ministry needs and desires of the people. One example includes going to the campus pastor who went to the senior pastor to get a decision on selling a piece of equipment (that has never been used). I am not sure, but I think then the senior pastor discussed it with the administrative pastor… whew… and the process took over a month to get answer. It is that way with just about every decision, and by the time the answer comes, people have moved on and found other places to minister. They tire of the bureacracy. I long for a place where people who want to minister are loosed to do it… as the Spirit leads.

Items 5 and 6 resonated with me. Moving and doing. Christian (the church) should always be eagerly planning its next move for a progressive and aggressive evangelistic body.
As I’ve not read the book, I’m not certain of Hirsch’s definition of institution. My understanding is the church is one of the institutions God has “ordained” (another is marriage). It’s domineering, man-centered governing approach however is not.

Scot,
I recently got the book and have yet to read it. Does Hirsch discuss where the penchant for institutionalizing from “having a cause” to “being ‘the cause’” comes from?
I think comparison #2 is crucial—the way of the Founder. What you did your dissertation on.

John,
Not sure he does discuss the penchant — more the reality and how to keep it from creeping in.

I agree that there is perhaps too much covered in this chapter, however I found it to be one of the most provocative in regards to an organic movement vs. institutional religion.
Simply from a pragmatic perspective I believe it is very difficult not to see the enormous problems with the current institutional model as summarized in your post. We need to ask the hard questions proposed here. Does the church really “seek to embody the way of life of the Founder” vs. “represent a codified belief system?” (#2 in Scot’s post should say “seeks” not “seems”) I think the answer is clear! Just go down the list and ask which do we desire? Which is the biblical standard? But also ask which is reality today? I think the organic model must be desirable!

Scot, I like your emphasis that we discuss “overall trends . . . instead of absolute alternatives.” I think this is wise and appropriate. While I would lean toward absolute alternative (and believe we can do so in church planting opportunities) I also recognize that in the life of existing churches it is a very good thing to see small “shifts” in thinking and use of resources.
Specifically dealing with organic systems or networks I think we can attempt to allow a growing edge of the church – through small groups, house churches, third place gatherings, church plants – to remain more organic/relational and less structured/organized, and in doing so create opportunities for the organic movement desirables to surface more readily.

i too resonate with the overall idea of organic vs institution. i work as a pastor for a church where our senior pastor claims we are “transitioning an established church” into a missional church.
i definitely resonate with #4. i can’t count the number of times i’ve been told we can’t do something because it goes against the “church consitution.” (and of course changing the constitution is near impossible because of the rules it sets up for itself).
an organic system, with less structure has problems, but right now i’d love to work through those problems instead of the ones we have right now…

I really appreciate the comments here. In response to Keith’s (#1) and regarding point #2 on the original list, I have a question–Do institutions necessarily deal with heresies better than more organic relational ties? Don’t we see the apostles effectively dealing with heresies without institutionalism? Many (by definition functional) families do the same. Is the family primarily an institution or a set of relationships in which love is the foundation of any lasting authority in the life other members? Parents get obedience, over the long haul, if at all, because their love (including their discipline) has earned trust, not because of their title. For my part, I don’t think that institutions are inherently better at dealing with heresies (i.e., bad ideas to follow) than functional relationships.
However, I don’t think we’re very good or experienced at dealing with difficult issues in noninstitutionalized relationships (friends & family) though we are often kind, and we’re used to being more brutally honest (sometimes, though, without appropriate feeling) within institutions (like work or the like). This seems like a current cultural preference/norm that isn’t present with Paul. He pleads, with tears, with particular people he cares about because of the severity of their situation. He doesn’t hold back his honest assessment, nor the emotions that ought to accompany it from one loved one to another, and he only reluctantly relies on his apostleship, which I don’t think he relied on in institutional terms as much as relationally–he was sent by Jesus to them, to give of himself, to serve them, to be helpful to them, for their benefit. Yet he claims no ownership of them–they belong to God as he does. We could pursue the same kind of relationship, but I think we’ve created institutions, in part, to try to get the same results (mature, Christlike people) without the personal and relational exposure and aggrivation that we see in Paul (and in the approach I think Hirsch is advocating).

I guess I need to get the book. I like what I am reading above in the summary and find a broad area of agreement with what Hirsh is saying. Jesus commanded us to “seek first the kingdom” which probably comes under point 1) above…”Jesus as Lord.” He commanded us to go and “make disicples” … also one of the points above. But the only thing he said about the church, was NOT to go to one or start one…he said “I will build MY church”
after having planted 4 churches, I have come to the conclusion that cp was the wrong starting place. If you start out to plant a church, you will end up with a meeting and with spectators. If you start out to seek firt the kingdom, and to model it through serving, healing and setting free the oppressed, you will end up with disciples….and then Jesus is free to build HIS church.
Another biblical metaphor for what I take Hirsh to be saying from the summary above, is Genesis 11. The institutional represents the tower…centralized, vertical. “Lets make a name for ourselves” “Lets preserve ourselves as a group lest we be scattered”
when in fact, it is God’s desire that we be scattered like kingdom seed throughout the earth….
good thread, thanks. I will order the book now. I enjoyed Hirsh’s earlier book with Michael Frost, “The Shaping of Things to Come.”

I too resonate with #4. I find myself in a situation where the church is “the cause” rather then the cause coming from the leading of God’s Spirit.
In my case, #10, People of the Book, is being used to justify “the cause”; but only if you omit parts that don’t agree with the churches direction. Add in a little legalism, and you have yourself a fine institutional system.

The urge to become an institution comes from 2 main directions. As pointed out earlier, dealing with heretical stuff is in the mix but i see growth, especially rapid growth as one problem for it forces quick fixes and militates against real disciple building as that is a slow, laborious and often 1-1 process. Secondly protectionism of whatever was unique about the original plant or group ‘feeling’, environment, identity etc. This is related to heresy but more emotive and a bigger motivator to codify and regulate.
i come back to discipleship. If growing disciples remains in focus the rest should sort themselves out!

Sam (#12),
I like your comments, however, didn’t the early church experience fast growth without becoming institutional? Didn’t they keep a discipling method (see, e.g., 2 Tim. 2:2)? As I understand it, and I’m no church historian, the early church rimmed the Mediterranean Sea with “churches” within the first 200 to 250 years with little or no institutionalization. I agree that protecting against heresy shapes an institutional form. I’m wondering if the later Christians picked up either the institutional patterns of the political realm or mimicked the OT institutions (priesthood, etc.), or maybe a mixture of both.

Hey Scot,
It strikes me that part of the problem an American audience would have with understanding this critique is related to Hirsch’s writing from a post-christendom point of view. The US is still very much trapped between a christendom worldview and a post-christendom one. Stuart Murray-Williams from the UK has written quite a bit this. In christendom the church is the guardian of the dominant culture.
I lived for a year on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. After having lived in France for 9 years this was a big change. It was there that I saw the US is really divided into two worlds. The christendom one and the post-christendom one. Evangelism is easy in christendom because you are appealing to nostalgique memory of when things were better. Then there were the folks who had nothing to do with christendom. Now they needed Hirsch way of going about the Gospel…
I’ll give another example. When I was in seminary in Dallas in the last 80′s I listend to an alternative rock station. When I return to Dallas these days and I can’t find music I can listen to. The secular rock stations have become incredible crude. Now some will say it’s bacause of Howard Stern… That’s part of it but the rise of the christian music has caused the secular stations become extreme in “retaliation”.
As long as there is a big audience that wants institutional church because of the christendom mind-set then institutional church will happen…
Living in a country where christendom has clearly lost its sway makes understand and living out what Hirsch writes about a lot easier.

Actually, you can see the early stages of institutionalization very quickly after the death of the foundational apostles. Irenaeus (130 to 202) began talking about the importance and value of “bishops” nearly within a generation of the death of John. Irenaeus was a disciple of polycarp, who himeslf was a disciple of John the beloved.
The new testament seems to indicate that there was two offices in the local church in the time of St. Paul: elder/bishops (in plurality) and deacons. By the time of Irenaeus…this had already began changing to three offices: Bishops (first among equals) elders/prebyters and deacons.
I guess it is in human nature to elevate leaders….the people want a king.

I like the stuff below the surface. Organism v. Organization…relationship over policy and stuff like that…but to act like the early church did not have institution is omitting much of church history.
Who did they go to in Acts 15 whenquestions arose over the Gentiles coming into the church? They went to Jeruslaem and spoke with James and the other leaders.
In the second generation of the church, bishops were set up…not for discipleship issues but for heresey. Yes, an institution is just as likely to mess up the power they have…that is why they should still be organic and of the way…but there are practical realities that a network grows into an institution after a while.
We just need to stay on our knees and find leaders that are servants.
Thanks for this provocative look at MDNA…
Andy

John, I agree completely! The earliest churches were certainly strong on discipling, and they seem to have naturally gone for being small, light, mobile as their modus largely being house fellowship based and with the ‘leaders’ going wherever they were called by the Spirit to go.
certainly when reading the Fathers one gets the sense that the rise of strong heresies did drive institutionalization as well as helping the push for incresingly hierarchical models.
I don’t get a sense in the NT that outside of the beginnings in Jerusalem, large congregations of followers were the norm. Perhaps that’s one of the ‘reasons’ for the persecution in Judea. I think I was thinking of this type of growth, i.e. a tendency for good fellowships with charismatic leadership to rapidly grow into large congregations and then imagining that this is what success really boils down to. The successful formula then has to be protected, nurtured, and voila, an institutional church.

Joseph (#15),
I hesitate to call the New Testament functions of elders/bishops “offices”–the church needed qualified people to care for, serve, and oversee the growing communities of faith. “Offices” is an institutional term that I don’t think Paul had in mind. I could be wrong. I don’t doubt that institutionalization began early in the life of the church, but the Mediterranean rim was populated with lower class, house churches until the institutionalization process reached a tipping point and halted “the spontaneous expansion of the church.”

For about a year I’ve been trying to figure out what “missional ways” mean. I have known “missional” to mean sending ppl to other countries to do projects or convert ppl. Or missional meaning living among the poor, the ghettos, those displaced ppl in our society, so to reach those ppl. Am I close to understanding that this use of “missional” means whatever we do that is with another person? Doesn’t necessarily mean talking Christ to another person with the intent of conversion?
Also, would you explain what these mean? Under the missional movements vs Institutional religions – what does number 1 mean, I follow it till the “autocratic” part; and 3; and 7 – how is loyalty involved in organization? and not knowing really what missional means, in 8 how does it get elitist and exclusive? and 9, I understand the first part, but not the “vs” part; and all of 11.
I know I’m asking for a lot to be explained, so I understand if you don’t tackle it all.

BeckyR,
Check my “Bloglossary” to your right in the Sidebar. Look up “missional.”

Sam, #12, I agree with going with one on one relationships that take time is harder today because success is measured in numbers.
Andy, #16, if I read you correctly, I agree – I think organization and policy, plans, need not be the problem, the anathema. I think one can have organization and policy, plans, if it is held with an open hand, that is, not clutched onto tightly, that is, willingness to let the organization and policy and plans shift with the Spirit.

“I think one can have organization and policy, plans, if it is held with an open hand, that is, not clutched onto tightly, that is, willingness to let the organization and policy and plans shift with the Spirit.”
I totally agree with that..I think that the problems happen when the plans and policies which should be the servant of the mission, morph into the lord of the mission- D

John #18,
You are right…I don’t believe they viewed it as “offices” either…unfortunate choice of terms. I think I had in the back of my mind a lot of the ecclesiology literature that I have read, and they often uses the word, “office” retroactively in the debates over 3 offices versus 2 offices, However, I agree with you that the leadership function in the first and second generations was very light… and organic…not “official.”
Although I don’t always like his spirit or attitude, which can be caustic, I found Gene Edwards book and “Elders Revisted” (not sure the name is right) to be a very helpful book on new testament leadership. Edwards find evidence that as Paul gained experience, he was more and more reluctant to recognize elders quickly…he preferred to leave the young churches without defined leadership for as much as 2 years (possibly 13 years in the case of the Phillippians) in order to allow a sense of brotherly community to emerge, plus dependence on the Holy Spirit. After 2 years or so, it was very evident who the functional elders were, but they had learned to lead from below and behind, without squelching the gifts and initiative of the saints.
Edwards points out that Paul rarely directed his letters to the “elders”… especially Galations and Corinthians, Paul could have easily written his letters to the elders to instruct them on how to straighten out the mess… instead he directed the letters to the church…the saints.

Scot, maybe you intentionally left this extremely open ended for this purpose, but there appears to be a pretty large gap between missional and institutional. I may be slightly overgeneralizing, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that “institutional” pretty well describes “traditional” church, while “missional” is a key descriptor of “emerging” or “postmodern” church. What are we leaving out here…? Oh yeah, modern or pragmatic church. If you look at movements such as Calvary Chapel (see Christianity Today’s article last month), you’ll see a perfect example of a very missional church turned institutional. And even some missional organizations–Acts 29 Network, for example–come across as very institutional (I went through their church planters application process) in their strict guidelines and bootcamp approach to church planting.
Then you look at “institutions” like Willow Creek and their association, and Harvest Bible Chapel and their rapidly growing network of churches, and you see both a tremendously “others-oriented” approach to ministry and a lack of need for denominational ties. But once you get so big, there’s no fooling anyone… you’re an institution. I guess my question is (finally), at what point does a church or movement become institutionalized? Once it has paid staff, a hunk of property, and bylaws? Once it plants other churches using the same framework that appeared to contribute to its success? I’m curious about this.
On a different note, the inner city ministry & home church network I cofounded would be a prime example of bare bones organic. The other founder came from an AG background, and was skeptical about the same things I was about AG; and I came from a United Methodist converted Southern Baptist background, who was (I think) appropriately critical of both. We came together over a conversation which developed into a friendship, and decided “God was in this”. Later on in the process, I came up with the idea to have our planning meetings via blog, so that more people could participate on their schedule, at their pace, and to keep us accountable against any strongarming, stubbornness, or just plain irrationality. For us, it worked pretty well. And to this day, things are still evolving. Still no paid staff (although there will be as soon as it becomes possible), no building (although there will be as soon as the downtown storefront renovations are complete, and then it will not be for church services), and no set bylaws. In fact, what guidelines we did have down are in the process of potentially being loosened. Yet I would call us very right-leaning moderates, theologically. I would be MORE than happy to share our story sometime with anyone who’s curious about this type of ministry from ground zero (not here… email me, out of respect for Scot and the others).
Grace,

#24 Matt, this is really naive on my part but where is the necessity to have paid staff, church services in an own building, or bylaws? Seems you’re doing fine without these things so far!
I think one of the concepts that has really challenged me is to encourage smallness. Size demands resources dedicated to organising and handling. Planting can be based missionally on division and that’s an organic and biblical concept.

Good questions, Sam. No need to feel naive.
Actually, I wasn’t insinuating that we did need all of those things. We are leasing the building in order to open a social venue whereby we can host open mic nights, artistic exhibits and performances, and a coffee shop of sorts… a place for people to “belong, then believe” as George Hunter puts it. Ryan, the cofounder, to whom I’ve handed over full pastoral responsibility, is against having any sort of conceivable church service. “Open Mic Church” is the closest thing to a church service, except that it happens in a downtown art gallery, and the audience does the “preaching” and “worship leading” by way of poetry, songs, and thoughts. OK, so that’s nothing like a church service. Paid staff, on the other hand, is essential unless (a) the pastor is extensively, academically, and practically trained prior to planting the church, to the point where he knows the scriptures, history, culture, biblical languages, and contemporary issues (which arise daily) without having to study them in depth, and (b) he is pastoring among an intentional/monastic community. Otherwise, there is no way to faithfully exercise one’s responsibility to shepherd a flock, day in and day out. The role of pastor requires more of a man than does the everyday demands of Christian discipleship (which are tremendous to begin with). I see the role of pastor not as authoritarian decision maker, but of burden bearer and protector, similar to the way a husband is not authoritative toward his wife, yet he is called her “head” and called to “purify her” by his sacrificial love for her.

I was interested to see the discussion here, having been in the discussion at Alan Hirsch’s blog since hearing him speak at Neil Cole’s Organic Church Planting conference in Long Beach six weeks ago. It would be an interesting thing for any of you all to check out Alan’s site.
That being said, I have two comments and a suggestion:
Comment to John #4: I think Alan tracks back many of the “being the cause” issues to Constantine and the “marriage of convenience” beween church and state, where the sheer number of Christians began to demand that something be done to control the chaos. But, by then, the church had already begun to lose its missional edge and look for “ease and comfort” rather than sacrificial discipleship. People were being “born into” the Kingdom and becoming “observers” rather than being “born again” and becoming disciples/disciple-makers.
General comment: To say that this chapter has too much in it might suggest that the other chapters are just right…but I would argue that reading this book is more like trying to take a drink from an open hydrant! Example: I had already been convinced that God was asking me to walk away from large, institutional ministry to the smaller, organic kind. Then I read “Organic Church” by Neil Cole, which was the wierdest experience–this book was exactly describing the vision of what I had been trying to share. Not knowing anything about Alan Hirsch before I went to the conference in Long Beach, I had no way to know that his basic context is very similar to where I have come over the past 30 years. So it was very interesting in his sessions to watch the faces of people trying to come to grips with what he was saying…you could tell by their questions…which began “Are you saying that…” “Am I understanding you…” Whereas, I completely followed his train of thought, just like Cole. What a total God thing and completely confirmed the vision I had received.
All that is to lead to my suggestion: you must get and read the book completely before you will really understand what Alan is saying. It is a very intense work that cannot be skimmed or read out of sequence. I tried both…and found that he builds and defines terms in a very precise manner and timing in order to bring the reader along in an appropriate way. I laughed at all the blogging we had done at his site when none of us had finished/started the book. He was patiently helping us identify our preconceptions and questions in order for the answers found in the book to be really helpful.
I hope to have time to sift through the earlier chapters you have discussed here, Scot.

Hmm, Matt. How about people involved in the group rising up who do what is traditionally thought as what a pastor does, and those doing what is needed for the group to function, rather than looking for paid people to do it?
Ok, ok, ok, I am 29 yrs in a house church where that is how we function.

Ahh, Becky, how about that?! You’ve been in the house church for 29 years, or you’re 29 and in a house church? I’m 25 and launched a house church about a year and a half ago, which I “led” for a year. I say “led” because I spent (volunteered) 5 – 6 hours a week preparing for our weekly Bible study, and several more hours each week “visioning” with my friend and cofounder, Ryan. There were some huge positives in my experience, but not enough to forego more “corporate” manifestations of church. To me, a Christ-honoring church/fellowship/community is one that does the best possible job at making disciples–increasing the number in the Kingdom, and increasing the breadth and depth of Biblical and Spiritual knowledge of each of those disciples, all the while guarding against doctrinal error (heresy). In my experience, house church’s strength is intimacy and degree of participation, and subsequently, belongingness. I believe those things are absolutely necessary to any healthy fellowship. However, I discovered many weaknesses as well. First, its “invitation only” nature was prohibitive of exposure to very many people (according to my definition of an effective church, this is a negative thing). Second, its small, intimate nature was prohibitive of the exercise of some of my pastoral gifts, such as preaching and drumming (I played hand percussion, but it’s just not the same as a kit). OK, so drumming isn’t a pastoral gift. But it IS a gift! Third, there were several small children (under age 5) among us, which made it nearly impossible for anyone, let alone the parents, to concentrate on anything. A year is a long time to “get used to it”, and we never got used to it (ours was a baby). Our goal was to do both house church and larger group gatherings with all the house churches meeting together for corporate worship and preaching. Why preaching? For one, because “without a vision, the people perish” and Ryan and I were the ones with the “vision”. Two, the Bible commissions elders to preach. Not that others can’t teach (I know of no churches who prevent everyone but the pastor from teaching).
But regardless of my experience, if yours is more positive, then by all means, keep it up as long as God is blessing it with fruit! Best wishes to you and yours.

Hi Matt, again. Man, how I wish this was email and I could insert comments into your context. So I will make this long by copying your post and inserting my comments :
Matt – You’ve been in the house church for 29 years, or you’re 29 and in a house church?
Becky: The house church has existed for 30 yrs, we have participated in it for 29 yrs.
I’m 25 and launched a house church about a year and a half ago, which I “led” for a year. I say “led” because I spent (volunteered) 5 – 6 hours a week preparing for our weekly Bible study, and several more hours each week “visioning” with my friend and cofounder, Ryan.
Becky: For 99% of the time, we have gone through a book of the Bible by various “teachers.” I suppose they do spend different amounts of time preparing for it. As for “visioning,” we had meetings where all were welcome to come, and we hashed out (read : discussed) what our group was all about. Somewhere along the way we just let that go and took what came, that is, ride the tide of what God has for us to do, brings for us to do.
Matt : To me, a Christ-honoring church/fellowship/community is one that does the best possible job at making disciples–increasing the number in the Kingdom, and increasing the breadth and depth of Biblical and Spiritual knowledge of each of those disciples, all the while guarding against doctrinal error (heresy).
Becky : Wow, a lot said there. To me, making disciples is teaching soundly those in the fellowship. As for increasing the number of converts, the way ours has worked is we who have grown from being soundly taught (and from more than the “teachers”, as there is freedom for all to make comments, bring comments, interact) go out to the span of what our life area covers and living our life is our witness and what comes of that, comes of that. If some convert from our influence, great, but we are not out there to preach conversion. To me, “making disciples,” is soundly teaching those in the fellowship. I agree with the rest of what you say there.
Matt: In my experience, house church’s strength is intimacy and degree of participation, and subsequently, belongingness. I believe those things are absolutely necessary to any healthy fellowship. However, I discovered many weaknesses as well. First, its “invitation only” nature was prohibitive of exposure to very many people (according to my definition of an effective church, this is a negative thing).
Becky: See, I don’t see that as a negative. I think the nature of bringing to church, believer or not, and someone coming to conversion, is about one on one relationship. So if I am in relationship with someone, I end up talking about my house church and letting them know they are welcome to come if it sounds good to them. I think one on one relationship is crucial to what it means to be a christian in all things.
Matt : Second, its small, intimate nature was prohibitive of the exercise of some of my pastoral gifts, such as preaching and drumming (I played hand percussion, but it’s just not the same as a kit). OK, so drumming isn’t a pastoral gift. But it IS a gift!
Becky: I see more possibility of gifts able to be used because all people are encouraged to bring what God has given them and put them in to form what the church is. Whereas, in my time in established church 29 yrs ago, there were many who just went to sunday school and sat there and listened to the sermon and didn’t even think there was more for them to do.
Matt: Third, there were several small children (under age 5) among us, which made it nearly impossible for anyone, let alone the parents, to concentrate on anything. A year is a long time to “get used to it”, and we never got used to it (ours was a baby).
Becky: Some parents complained of difficulty being part of what was going on because of the demands of their kids. That is, in our weekday small groups. It wasn’t what was hard for me. One of the things to come out of the experience was this – it takes a village. It wasn’t unusual for any adult to attend to a kid or correct a kid.
Matt: Our goal was to do both house church and larger group gatherings with all the house churches meeting together for corporate worship and preaching.
Becky: Yeh, we did the weekday small groups once we grew large enough to have a weekday small group of 6 to 12 people. (6 was not a rule, once it got above 12, it was a rule that we split to make a new group. Also, in the small groups, there was no group hopping allowed unless there wss irreconcilable differences.) These groups were to build commitment and knowing each other, the place where “love one another” got to the down and gritty from being able to know someone closely. We would say it was a blessing and a curse. A blessing cuz it was good to have the support and closeness, a curse cuz you got to know someone well enough you brushed against the thorns and had to work out your “stuff” that made the thorns to brush up against. I use past tense, because we are 12/14 people now (I’m not taking the time to count ppl on my fingers.) Oh, and then we would have the weekly corporate meeting where there was formal teaching, worship, sharing and prayer. There’s always been time allowed for people to participate by bringing what God has for them to give, and this was true even in the large gathering. We go from 2 to 2 and a half hours in the corporate gathering. Also, in the corporate gathering, we ended up taking the kids out after the first parts were done. We rotated who took care of what group of kids, as we decided to split the kids in age groups.
Matt: But regardless of my experience, if yours is more positive, then by all means, keep it up as long as God is blessing it with fruit! Best wishes to you and yours.
Becky: And one thing we held onto from the beginning is we are not a blueprint of how to do house church. There is no blueprint of how to do house church. The establishment of a house church must be God breathed, and what happens in the house church unique to who is in it and what part of the city culture it is in. The people in the house church must work to decide what they will be and who they will be. They must work to figure out what God has them to be, in the beginning, for the formation. For us, who has come and who we have ministered to and what we are and the shape of what we are has changed and changes as God brings different people to our group. We started with some coming who were giving the church one last shot. Now we have ex-cons from a prison Bible study coming. It changes to shape of the group.
Becky: Hope this has been a good exhange/convo.

Hi guys, not sure if you’ve all veered off by now and I am now way out in commenting now, but I thought I’d try anyhow.
Just a quick point to say that I am not neccesarily proposing that we all adopt ‘house church’ models or that we fully abandon larger corporate gatherings. That has all to do with forms. We need to go deeper and ask the questions as to whether these forms best serve the missional purposes of the church. And we also need to be aware of how they hinder these kingdom purposes. My feeling is that the institutional forms tend to lock down the missional as well as the incarnational impulses that must drive movements. Clearly the most remarkable, world transforming movements did not have them and they were far more effective than we could ever be. Strange eh?

Alan,
Have you read Hunter’s The Celtic Way of Evangelism? He doesn’t even have to assert the point that Imperial Christianity stifles movement. HOW FITTING that I should be saying this on none other than ST. PATRICK’S DAY!, but the story of St. Pat’s evanglization if Ireland and his efforts having been cracked down upon by the Roman “Church” speaks for itself. Hunter’s telling of the story has left an impression in my heart, mind, and soul that will never recede.

Becky,
Sorry, did not mean to skip over your response. That’s cool to hear that you’ve been a part of the movement before it became fashionable (it still isn’t fashionable in the Midwest, where I’m from). Glad it’s been a great experience.
With regard to disciple-making, I’m sure you’d agree that one cannot become a disciple apart from being converted. Conversion is the first step in Christian discipleship. What annoys me about the whole purpose-driven thing is the dichotomy between discipleship and evangelism. You came very close to saying this, but I think you meant it, so I’m going to agree with you in saying that evangelism is utterly impossible at worst and ineffective at best if post-conversion discipleship is not happening. The Church cannot hope for the world to be attracted to Christ, if we are not being conformed to His likeness. What do we have to offer those who “accept Christ as Lord and Savior” if we are not ourselves living in the Way of the Cross and truly delighting in Christ, day by day? Nothing! Which is why, as a matter of ecclesiology, I stress discipleship before (but not over) witnessing. You have no business calling others to lay down their lives for Christ (which is the requirement of receiving Jesus as Lord) if you yourself do not have a surrendered life. So I think we’re in complete agreement here. However, the way we “do church” should always make it optimal for people outside of Christ to take that first step (conversion) into our fellowship…optimal.
Regarding the exercise of gifts, have you ever tried preaching to people sitting 10 feet away from you on your couch? It’s relational suicide. Trust me, I’ve tried. Teaching, yes. Facilitating, yes. The Socratic Method, yes. Preaching, no. But preaching–or stump-speaking–is a biblical mandate for elders and evangelists, contrary to Pagitt’s view. Is it the be all, end all of corporate ecclesia? Hardly. But it is necessary, in certain contexts and for specific purposes. So, to make a long story short, there are lots of gifts that are encouraged in home church, but preaching is not one of them. And if just so happened to be inclined toward certain types (most types) of musical expression (i.e. rock, folk rock music) home church makes this impossible. Let me know if you all have whipped out the electric guitars, amps, and drum kits in your living room. One of the values of emerging church is creative expression, and living rooms impose significant (often insurmountable) restrictions on numerous expressions.
All this is why I favor house church (home groups) as an indispensable part of a larger, corporate context. That way you are not neglecting the intimate fellowship and opportunities for everyone to utilize their giftings, nor are you neglecting the mandate to “preach the Word, in season and out” or contextualize your faith creatively. And, by the way, the church I am a part of now (6,000 member) has virtually limitless opportunities for service, and they insist (it is a requirement for membership, I believe) on every one who attends to be involved in serving in some ministry or another. They’re constantly pushing for it, as well as for home groups. Being active in a home group is also a requirement for membership (although you don’t have to be a member to join one). All in all, I think the either/or mentality excludes huge numbers of people, which is why I favor “hybrid” churches.
Thank you as well for the great dialogue.

Hi Matt. I think we are the only ones still using this blog thread to convo, but what the heck!
I guess from my 29 yrs in the house church I don’t see what the difference is from opening a book of the Bible, going through it as “teaching,” and, “preaching.” Our group meets in a circle and depending on the house sometimes quite, shall we say, an “intimate,” circle, that is tightly packed. The teacher sits wherever he/her is in the circle, sometimes with a chair in front of him/her to hold the notes and Bible, and goes at it. I’m not sure what you mean by preaching. One characteristic of our church is during the teaching and afterwards it is open to make comments, either bringing in more info on a point or telling the teacher he/her is off their rocker ( hehe)
As to instruments used in worship. No we haven’t used electric guitars and amps and drums. But at one point we had an accordion! Which I say with great laughter. At the time I had to work hard not to laugh out loud. Singing hymns and choruses to an accordion! It was an experience lol!