IS THERE A SHAPE FOR THE CHURCH TO COME?

There is a lot of discussion going on about church at the moment. Recent books by George Barna[1] and James Rutz[2] have stirred the pot once again by making credible challenges to the idea that the shape of church in the west is in good hands and in good shape as it makes the presence and Lordship of Jesus tangible to western society. In defense of their critique it must be said that the bottom line doesn’t look good in any of the major western nations. If the increase of believers against overall population is any measure (and it should be) then neither the UK, nor the US, nor the nations of Europe, nor Australia have much to say. The truth is it is either lagging behind or maintaining the status quo. Compared to the church in many non-western nations it must be a re-run of the song that topped the charts late in the 11th century BC that went, “Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands” That is if you take Saul to represent the western church and David to represent the non-western church.

One of the things that interests me about the reaction to Barna in the US is the defensive venom that characterizes it. Articles such as the Charisma magazine editor, J. Lee Grady[3], evidence the length to which representatives of the largely failed western institutional model for church are prepared to go There’s just one phrase in that article that says it all. “What George Barna wants to do is to reinvent the church without its Biblical structure.” You have to assume that the institutional model to which Grady refers is Biblical. You would have to read the article to see whether my observation is correct; but I think he gets leadership and institutional structure mixed up. He more or less assumes that if you have small groups of people becoming church that there is no anointed leadership.

I welcome the debate. I feel strongly that it is not warranted either to condone or condemn a particular model for doing church. I find venomous defenses of failed church models extremely toxic. I also find quixotic platitudes about the flawless ultimacy of “free church” a little hard to take. When you read James Rutz, the early chapters of the book are exciting, stimulating and informative. When you get to the last chapters and see that what has gone before emerges as a polemic for house churches over against institutional churches I am disappointed.

The very term “free church” seems to be an invention necessitated by the fact that house church has largely been associate with “rebellious, self engrossed church” in the west. I am more than willing to be corrected but I can’t think of a “cell church” model that has produced enough fruit in Australia to be worth a second look. So many churches took up the “cell based” idea. Many actually foundered at some point along the way. The invention of the term is not the problem. The problem only appears on the radar when the model is put forward as the form of the “end time church.” At the point of this ultimacy a tool becomes a monument in my books.

The other problem I see when the alternatives suggested only include “institutional church” and “free church.” There are all kinds of churches. We need all kinds of churches. That doesn’t mean that every model of doing church is “quality neutral.” There is a post-modern demon lurking in the idea that every choice is of equal value. At the end of the day, the model of church must not be a matter of personal preference. It must have to do with what gets the job done. Church is a tool that Jesus invented to do ajob. He didn’t patent a particular model that’s for sure. Neither did he deliberately leave a few lines blank in the prescription to pander to our fallen ideas of personal preference. Personal preference is a product of western culture based firmly on the principles of this world rather than God.

Church is a tool. Its shape must be determined by the particulars of its redemptive mission. At the end of the day we will give account for the model of church we have chosen on the same basis as we will give account for everything else. It will have to do with whether we have done the job that Jesus wanted done with the tools Jesus has supplied.
So what church model you should prefer should be the one that most effectively does the job that Jesus invented it to do. In that there are all kinds of models. A model is a model is a model.
If Jesus doesn’t get to be the head of the way your model works you have a decapitated model.
If someone or something else is the head you have a monster model.
If members are allowed to be attached but non-functioning we have a paraplegic or quadriplegic model.
If your idea of church is not bashing down the door of some demonize stronghold and rescuing its incumbents you have an anemic model or a comatose model (take your pick).

Unlike the human body, the effectiveness or health of a certain idea of church can never be measured by internal calculations. This is one danger of doing the NCD (Natural Church Development) questionnaire. It only measures on the basis of people inside the church. I think we should ONLY measure the effectiveness of the model we choose by people who are in the community. We could start with Graham Cook’s great question: “What would it take for the people in the community to be thankful that your church is there?” It’s a valid question. It is also a Biblically valid question. If that question had been asked anywhere in Jerusalem, Judea or Galilee referring to the only true model for church (Jesus of Nazareth) the answer would have spoken for itself. When we receive the same answer in our generation we can THEN say something about the model. To speak about the model short of than reality is like the disciples arguing about who was greatest when Jesus has just chastened all of them for having no faith.[4]

Let the discussion roll on as far as I am concerned. Lets be careful about focusing on models as models. Lets focus on doing something that places the presiding presence of Jesus in the faces of every aspect of our society that claims any authority but His.


Brian Medway
[1] “Revolution” George Barna, 2005
[2] “Mega Shift” James Rutz, 2005
[3] http://www.charismanow.com/01-17-06/
[4] Matthew 9