“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of death will not overcome it.”
- Matthew 16:18 TNIV
“Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater. The assembly [ekklesia] was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there.”
- Acts 19:30-32 TNIV
“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.”
- Quote on Facebook
If you have been attending church for long enough, chances are you will have encountered various opinions on what constitutes a church, and what a “real” church looks like. Even if you haven’t had such discussions (or if what I’ve just written is completely new news to you!), you don’t have to look terribly far to realise that opinions on church abound, in the form of denominations. For their own historical reasons, church denominations have been born, shaped across the years, and continue to exist. And it’s not too difficult to envision that differences do exist (Catholic vs Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Baptist et al.) Even for the most seasoned of believers, the question is begged: What does it mean to be church? What does that actually look like?
By chance, I stumbled upon a neat video clip that addresses some of these points. John Coles, of New Wine, covers some key points about being church; specifically new ways of being church that empowers believers to go out in their communities and effectively live as salt and light. Feel free to Click here to check out the video. This post is basically my thoughts in response to Coles’ clip, and also with reference to the following two images.
Responses to ‘Rethinking Church’
While it is noted that Coles’ video focuses on the UK, the lessons that can be gleaned can readily apply to any church situation, regardless of geographical location.
“…so if people are to come to know Jesus, it’s only ’cause Christians leave the security of their churches to go to tell them.”
It should come as to no surprise that, in any study of the Gospels, there are replete examples of disciples (and others) going out and sharing the news of what they have seen and/or heard. This is also in vogue with the Great Commission and is really the building block of the Gospels themselves. While the Gospels tell us about Jesus, it is His disciples that tell others about the Gospels.
“Jesus said, ‘This Gospel is for every tribe and tongue and people and nation on Earth.’ And all around our country are little tribal groups, who have ways of relating to each other, ways of celebrating life…”
If the language throws you off a tad, think of tribal groups as groups of people meeting together for a common purpose. Inevitably, taking the Gospel to others exposes us to people who, by and large, may not quite do life in ways that we are used to. This is what I think is implied here in Coles’ analysis of tribal groups: There is an inherent flexibility in encounters with Jesus, although these tend to be only as flexible as the worldview of the missionary. This can have good and bad consequences, which will be explored in a later point. For now, I’ll leave the following as food-for-thought: Recall the two images. Here we have two examples of tribal groups meeting together, yet their purposes are distinct from each other – or are they?
“Once earthed in that community, learning about that community, then begin to rethink ‘What would it mean for these people, and how do I communicate the Gospel to these people; what would it mean for them to…engage in bible study? Does bible study have to be done differently with this group than it is in traditional church? Does singing, or worship, have to be done differently with this group…?”
Here we start to explore some issues that may get some believers backs up. Succinctly, I define it as an issue surrounding Form versus Content. By content, I mean the Gospel (specifically Jesus, whom our faith has its meaning.) and all that it stands for. By form, I mean how each believer, be it individually or as a group (including institutional church groups) interprets and subsequently lives out the Gospel and all that it stands for.
Now, I will readily assume that the issue of content is largely small (e.g. Jesus, Humanity-Deity, Resurrection), and instead focus attention on the form Christianity takes, as this has a large influence on our specific Christian worldview, and consequently will affect our views on mission and Gospel encounter. Exploring form is important because numerous forms abound, not only in church denominations, but also in the thoughts, views and actions expressed by Christians themselves! If you believe that form is small issue, then I would invite you to take a non-church friend along to a Catholic service one Sunday, then a Pentecostal service the next, and listen carefully to what they have to say (for an excellent treatment of this, check out Jim and Casper go to Church.)
“When you go to a new group,…there should be no expectation that people will necessarily come back from that tribal group into the Mother church.”
This reinforces the previous response beautifully, and actually raises the question of what constitutes church. More specifically, it raises the question of the purpose, or motive, behind any missionary endeavour: Is the goal to build up the body of believers (e.g. the Kingdom of God), or is it to build up the number of people that attend a particular church? Apropos many people get twitchy over the prospect that converts do not necessarily end up attending the church that sent the evangelist – that is a different set of issues altogether (and one that may get raised in a future post.)
“The church can never exist without mission. If mission stops, the church dies.”
This is a brilliant point, and one that – let’s be honest – speaks for itself.
“One of the interesting things I am learning personally through engaging in a new form of church, namely house church rather than traditional congregational church meeting in a traditional building, is to realise that the name ‘church’, or the word ‘church’, is appropriate and genuinely applied to almost any group of Christians, however big they are numerically, and wherever they meet.”
Obviously, Coles is reflecting personally on his experiences as evidenced by my quoting personal pronouns, but I touch on this point because here some key points emerge. Firstly, the English word ‘Church’ is derived from the Greek word ἐκκλησία [ekklesia]. But secondly, and a point that a purely English bible misses, ekklesia also denotes a gathering or an assembly of people in general. If you recall the two biblical passages I quoted, the Greek word for ‘church’ arises in both passages, and yet their contexts are very different from one another. In one passage, Jesus identifies the origins of what would be gatherings of people with the express purpose of worshipping and following Jesus (that is, what we would commonly identify as church.) In the other passage, crowds of people have gathered, and are apparently confused and at odds (with no mention of any express purpose(s) of following Jesus.)
Here, we revisit the issue of form and combine it with our ideals of church. Namely, what does church actually look like? What form does it take? Or as some would frame it, is Christianity specific to a particular form…or does it transcend that? Coles goes on to say, “In England, up until now, we’ve associated the word ‘Church’ with a congregation meeting in a particular consecrated building.” This, I dare say, is the most common – and most accepted – definition of the word in the Western world, to the point where it is unthinkable that there could exist a gathering of Christians apart from a “particularly consecrated building.” Coles’ next point presents a polemic, but it is one that cannot be ignored.
“But all around the world, ‘church’ is used to describe all sorts of different sized groups meeting in all sorts of different places. And so I think that most of us who have been worshipping for a long time in a traditional church building, need to expand our understanding of what the word ‘church’ means.”
Personally, if there were ever a way to properly sum up the central point of this entire issue, this would be it. In order to put most of these polemical arguments about what constitutes church (and by definition what doesn’t constitute church) to rest, we need to broaden our understanding of ekklesia. Regrettably, this is not as easy as you might think – to properly accommodate a broader horizon, a sacrifice of power and vested interest must be wholly surrendered. Within Christendom of a bygone era, to not be part of the institutional church was to be one of two things: You were either (a) a seeker, or (b) excommunicated.
In that historical context, it would have been unthinkable to gather together with the express purpose of worshipping Jesus outside of the institutional church. But fast forward to our present era, and people by their tens of thousands are doing exactly that. In other words, the Kingdom of God continues to grow and advance, and it is not necessarily matched with comparable growth rates to church pews. That is why I include the two pictures of two different contexts of gathering. One is quite clearly of people raising their hands in worship of Jesus. The other is the raising of hot (or cold) beverages, again with people gathering. Now, by the so-called ‘proper’ definition of the word ‘church’ the first picture obviously fits the bill – the cafe picture does not. However, could people meet in a cafe with a purpose to honour Jesus? And if that was indeed the case, would that also be ‘church’? Depending on your worldview, you will either like or loathe the idea of doing church within a cafe setting. Or to widen the scope even more, what about meeting in a park? In a picnic area? In a pub?
Concluding Thoughts
The journey of traditional forms of Christianity are, quite clearly, at a crossroads. While stories abound of established churches losing numbers, the growth of Christianity as a global movement continues in upward motion. A corollary of growth is usually change, something that makes many devout believers nervous. As Christians, we can either do whatever it takes to resist this change and thus make every effort to choke out these ‘other movements’, much like our predecessors of Christendom. Or we can open our minds and broaden our understanding of what it means to be ekklesia, and seek to encourage those believers who are indeed connecting with Jesus apart from the traditional church.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the team at New Wine for their permission to respond to John Coles’ video message.
The book’s title piqued my interest for a few reasons. The obvious is its title. A book that explores the reasons why people – particularly young people – leave Christianity in their droves, gives an insight into things that perhaps Churches are potentially oblivious to, and thus provides some lessons for those perplexed. Another reason is that many of us, not just I, have known people who for whatever reason have left Christianity. So for many readers, there are personal reasons why a book such as this holds certain attractions. Still another reason is that, unlike most books that explore issues of faith-leavers, this book does not attempt to jump through any bible-prooftexting hoops, nor does it seek a one-size-fits-all theology or “magic formula” for getting people back into Christianity. Instead, the author employs an all-to-often ignored technique for his audience, and it is surprisingly simple – he listens.
