Big C, Little c, and Barna’s Metaphorical C(c)hurch.

This is a long post, but I want to begin to respond to a few of the biblical issues that are raised in George Barna’s book, Revolution in regards to his understanding of the church.  Indeed, for Barna, “capital C” Church, that mystical communion of all believers as the body of Christ is the point of the New Testament and never the pedestrian “small c” church of people who gather, worship, commit their lives, minister and live together.  The first, though “invisible” is what matters.  The local church is optional at best. 

I will offer my own understanding of the difference and juxtaposition of Big C and little
C(c)hurch, but first I want to examine Barna’s own words:

“…when the word church appears in the Bible, it refers to people who are called out from society to be the full expression of Jesus Christ on earth.  That reminds me of what being a revolutionary is all about: rejecting the norm and paying the cost to stand apart from the crowd to honor God.
“In fact, when the Bible admonishes us to gather together it does not imply that that should be a church service of congregational event [Cites Hebrews 10:25].  Such interaction could be in a worship service or at Starbucks….”
“In fact, there is no verse in Scripture that links the concepts of worshipping God and a ‘church meeting.’  The Bible does not tell us that worship must happen in a church sanctuary and therefore must be associated with a local church.  It simply tells us that we must worship God regularly and purely, in spirit and truth…
“…the Bible never describes ‘church’ the way we have configured it. The Bible goes to great lengths to teach us principles for living and theology for understanding.  However it provides very little guidance in terms of methods and structures we must use to make those principles and insights prevail in our lives.  It seems that God doesn’t really care how we honor and serve Him as long as he is number one in our lives and our practices are consistent with his parameters.  If a local church facilitates that kind of life then, it is good.  And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of the congregation-based faith, then that, too is good.
“True Revolutionaries agree that being isolated from other believers—i.e. the Church (note the capital C)—is unbiblical.  However, while they may not be integrated into a formal church congregation, they are not isolated from the Church.  They may not belong to a specific collection of saints that engages in routines and customs at particular location and under the leadership of a specific individual or group.  However, neither are they spiritual untouchables who have no connection to the global Church.  Every Revolutionary I have interviewed described a network of Christians to whom he or she relates regularly and a portfolio of spiritual activities which he or she engages on a regular basis.”(p. 113-114)

Let me state at the outset that I intend to show that this is woefully deficient ecclesiology that is both dangerous to Christians and an inadequate exegesis of the Scriptures.  (Again, Barna’s not entirely to blame here, most of us have been taught this kind of ecclesiology over the years.  Indeed, I was, too.)

As I have said before, I’m a product of the success of mid-20th century evangelicalism that rightly restored and reignited the popular idea that God wants to not only save us from hell, but more than that, passionately desires to have “a personal relationship” with us. Unfortunately, what I (and most of us) heard in those kinds of messages is that we can have a personal and private relationship with Christ.  And I wanted that.  Not church, but Jesus.  Shortly after I committed my life to following Christ, I bought a T-shirt that said “JC and me.”  It was my not-so subtle way of sharing my faith and it described my new found belief perfectly.  This wasn’t my parents’ religion, this wasn’t about tradition or ritual, it was just about “JC and me.” A sentiment that always sounds good until you start reading the Bible.

What is the earliest result of the very first Christian sermon?  Peter preached the gospel and Acts 2:41-42 says “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”  Not much “just JC and me” there.  The earliest believers trust the good news about Jesus and join—through baptism—the fellowship of people who also trust this message. 

Notice also that the first “spiritual disciplines” were all communal ones.  They did not race home, have a personal quiet time and give up smoking, but instead, “devoted themselves” to “the apostles teaching” (shared beliefs), fellowship (shared relationships), breaking of bread (shared meals) and the prayers (shared spiritual life)” all expressed in a communal life together—in a specific group of people.  Being a Christian did not mean committing to some “principles”, a “network of relationships” and a “portfolio” of practices that each deemed would personally help them to make God “number one in their life.” 

Instead the passage goes on to demonstrate just how quickly and how completely the personal conversion experience reoriented a new convert’s whole communal life—with a specific group of people.

43 Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.

It’s really difficult to find anywhere in the Bible where, someone just “accepts Jesus” and then goes merrily on their way, seeking to live for God by themselves in whatever manner they see fit.  It just doesn’t happen.  Yet that is what so many of us do and what Barna is endorsing.  We think that salvation consists of intellectual assent to the right statements and a desire to clean up one’s act.  Well meaning Christians relegate the church to “support” and “assistance” for the individual journey of following Christ.  Personally, it took nearly a decade of being a committed Christian before I realized how inextricable to Christian faith is the Community of Christian people. 

Consider a couple of other things:

• What we could call a “non-churched Christian” today was considered in the first century to be a person “turned over to Satan”. (1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:18. Admittedly this was a matter of church discipline that removed the believer from the fellowship, but the point is still the same.  In the first century, to be outside of fellowship was considered a qite serious and even dangerous affair--vastly different than today.)
• 1 Peter 2:10 equates receiving God’s mercy with being part of the people of God (again, not just some mystical metaphor, but being part of the community of God’s people to whom they joined their lives) and NOT being part of the people of God with NOT receiving God’s mercy.
• The discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t address questions about how to be the “Capital C” body of Christ, but instead how Paul instructs a specific group of people how to celebrate the sacrament meal without alienating anyone or leaving anyone behind.  He doesn’t tell the Corinthians, “If the way they are doing this meal isn’t helping your personal walk with Christ, eat at home or find some other supper (In fact, he says just the opposite!)
• Lastly for now, the biggest issue of the New Testament is the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in one Church.  That was not a metaphorical question, but practical, applicable and experienced in specific communities. 
  
  While Revolutionaries today “may not belong to a specific collection of saints that engages in routines and customs at particular location and under the leadership of a specific individual or group,”  the most revolutionary thing about the first Christians is that they—both Jew and Gentile—did.

Comments

[Derek Simmons]

Tod:
In deconstructing “REVOLUTION” for us, you wisely started with Barna’s own words. Following that example, let me start with yours:
What we could call a “non-churched Christian” today was considered in the first century to be a person “turned over to Satan”. (1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:18. Admittedly this was a matter of church discipline that removed the believer from the fellowship, but the point is still the same. In the first century, to be outside of fellowship was considered a quite serious and even dangerous affair--vastly different than today.[end quote]

Let me suggest that not since Kirkegaard “leapt” has there been a greater jump than the one you make in first connecting a “non-churched Christian”(your term) with the first century person “turned over to Satan.” Not resting on your laurels, you outdo yourself and leap again and further by claiming that the cited removal of a believer from the
1st Century fellowship is the same—or to use your words—“the point is the same”—as one who today self-selects herself out of the local congregation. Tod, you are a careful expositor so I can not assume you misspoke and must therefore take you at these words of yours. If you are not singular in this belief—and your use of “we” not “I” in calling out the category “non-churched Christian suggests you know the company you keep—then it is less of a surprise than I thought it would be at the start of your series to now learn that Barna after having studied it so closely so many years has given up on the local church. You have provided a clear example of just why he--and perhaps other Revolutionaries--have given up on the local church, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ESSENTIAL. Since Barna has moved from true descriptions to false prescriptions, perhaps a false description of our ills by inapt analogy to Scripture will mutatis mutandi give us your true prescription to work with later in this series.

[James]

Barna wrote "It seems that God doesn’t really care how we honor and serve Him as long as he is number one in our lives and our practices are consistent with his parameters."

This statement is puzzling and seems to show an inconsistency in Barna's reasoning. On one hand he is saying God is not concerned with our practices, but in the same breath says our practices have to be consistent with what He wants from us????????

This inconsistency aside, I think what Barna is seeing and praising are Christians who exalt themselves above the body of Christ and refuse to submit to God's authoritative design for his church. Can Christians meet in a house church? You bet because the New Testament shows us that early Christians met in homes. Can a Christian exist apart from the community of faith? No, and usually when Christians try they end up returning to the ways of the world so that one cannot distinguish them from an unbeliever. The church is supposed to be an outpost of God's kingdom in this world, and rather than run from it Christians should run to it for support, instruction, guidance, and help.

[Tim C]

Tod,

It would help me think through your cirtique of Barna if I had a better definition of definition what traits define a "small c" church? Versus what isn't one.

Clearly traditional forms of church are highly defined, less so House churches, even less so para-church fellowship groups. Even less so are Christian 12-step groups. Even less so are two Christians committed to getting together every two weeks to study the Bible and pray over at a shared meal.

I'd place the line between house churches and para-church groups in that list, but I must admit don't have a great rational reason why.

I'd guess it would be because one is more potentially short-lived, or less deep?

(Tho, sometime I can imagine the 12 step meetings being more "deep" between individuals, more committed to one another, and many of my Christian freindships have lasted much longer than some of my past Chruches did)

You used the phrase a "pedestrian “small c” church of people who gather, worship, commit their lives, minister and live together."
From what you've said those seem like the key ingredients, rather than specific form or models of church.

If I got that even close to right, I'd love to hear more in upcoming posts on how this definition of small c-church can flesh itself into different forms or models of doing and being the church to a watching world.

[Dean Goneau]

Acts 2:46-47 clearly ties the worship in the temple (church)and home together. More importantly, I do not believe the first position of the temple is an accident. Within that context, the church, at least to me, seems to have a very pivotal role in worshiping God. I suppose we could take specific verses to prove our points, but the overall context of the Bible itself shouts loudly and mightly against the "home church" movement that isolates itself apart from a local church.

[Mike]

Tod:

Thank you for pointing out the emperor's nakedness. How Barna got to be an authoritative voice on matters of ecclesiology is totally beyond me; personally, I've never been that impressed with his methodology regarding polling.

As for Derek's emotional reaction, it is just that: emotional. He does not refute you exegetically or theologically, but merely scolds and accuses you of being the type of person that has driven the "Revolutionaries" out. He says that Barna has studied this for a long time; that proves nothing: I have studied the brain for decades, but that doesn't make me a brain surgeon or even an authority in matters of neuroscience.

The church was patterened on the Jewish synagogue, as you know, and it was Paul's practice to go first to the synagogue and then secondarily to establish a local church. The history of the early church reflects practices that closely resemble the order and ritual of the synagogues.

Paul, although hoping to come himself, writes to Timothy "so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." Paul, it seems, assumes that a believer will be a part of a local church, even as he assumes that every believer will have been baptized and will partake of communion.

If non-affiliated Christians are acceptable - and I do not believe they are: I think it is a reflection of American individualism, not biblical community - then several passages don't make sense to me. Why would the writer to the Hebrews instruct us to "obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." Who gives an account for the non-affiliated? To whom and obedience and submission rendered?

Paul says that God gave pastors and teachers (or pastor-teachers) to the church. Who are they supposed to pastor or teach if everyone's running around independently? Furthermore, he says "we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." To suggest that this is not meant for the local but rather the universal church is an exercise in eisogesis.

When Paul explained to the Ephesians that through His sacrifice Jesus Christ "made both groups [Jews and Gentiles] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall," he was alluding to an actual, physical, gathering place of believers. He was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem, where the Court of the Gentiles was separated from the Jewish courts by a wall - and the penalty for ignoring the separation was death for the Gentile.

If we are not involved in a local church, how do we demonstrate the breaking down of all barriers between all believers? Left to ourselves, we will gather with like-minded people only - hardly an opportunity to demonstrate love. Christian love is demonstrated to the world as we love one another, despite our differences, because of our common faith.

The non-affiliated Christians wish to be their own authorities, answerable to no one. I must confess, however, that such a situation does have biblical precedent: it was practiced in the Book of Judges, where there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Mike,

It seems to me that you have made an inaccurate assumption if you think all of the non-affiliated are non-affiliated because they wish to be their own authority. I’m sure some of the non-affiliated are exactly as you describe, but I am just as certain that some Churches, even some very large Churches, are being led by Pastors who also want to be their own authority, and a whole sanctuary of enablers willing to let them have it.

As a believer who struggles with Church, I recognize some of my struggles are my own sinfulness that needs to be battled. I just wish those of you in the Church would also see it as your problem due to your sinfulness. As long as there are Churches that don’t want all of their body parts, there will be body parts without Churches.

[Mike]

David:

Actually, you have made an inaccurate assumption: I am on the outside looking in (although I am a member at a local church) mainly because pastors don't know what to do with me! I am an obedient but very outspoken sheep. I don't like church - it hurts to go and see what the church is and isn't - but I also know that my spiritual life suffers because I am not active or attending as I should be.

And whether or not a person desires to be his or her own authority by being unaffiliated, they are just that.

I know how screwed up the church is and I know how screwed up I am. Or, sinful, to be more accurate. But I'm not going to change my theology or responsibilities just because it's hard - which is what I think Barna is promoting and what Tod is arguing against.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Mike,

I’m sorry. I did make a wrong assumption. I shouldn’t have said “you” because I’ve known you are struggling as well. Good point too about the effect of un-affiliation even without the desire to be unaffiliated.

I think I’m a little tired of all of the posts and comments here and at other sites pointing the finger at those of us who are struggling without making an effort to understand and then also taking some of the responsibility.

The problem is a problem for both those in the Church and those outside the Church. Those outside the Church need help from those inside the Church in order to solve this problem. You and I shouldn’t be the only ones who are doing what is hard. Those inside the Church should be doing what is hard and right as well.

[Mike]

David:

I can't such much more than "amen" to your comments. But too many churches - but not all - are comfortable and do not want to be disturbed. Since my motto in life is,

"Comforting the disturbed,
"Disturbing the comfortable."

I'm not always welcome in some circles; some of the elders view me with suspicion because I stir the pot. But the people who are serious about being a Christ-follower, whether they are themselves struggling or not, have never broken off the bruised reed or snuffed the smoldering wick. They understand - but they seem to be few in number.

I have not given up on the church but yearn for one that doesn't amputate the unseemly or troublesome part of the body. Why that is so difficult to find in churches, I think, can ultimately be traced back to the pastor's and elders' hearts: if they are compassionate and caring toward the spiritually needy, the church seems to follow suit.

Have you also noticed that, by and large, the people who seem to spiritually struggle the most are those who take their faith very seriously? I know I wouldn't struggle if I just stopped caring and did what I wanted instead of what I needed. But glorifying God in and through my life is important to me, and so I struggle with sin in myself and in the church. Just give me a church where people struggle and wrestle with God, not giving up until they get an "answer," and I'll be happy. That, I think, is a church that's going to make a difference: evangelism will be compassionate and honest, discipleship patient and challenging.

I know of such churches, and I believe my own to be headed in that direction. But for now it is difficult. Perhaps, like Frodo, "the Shire will be saved, but not for me."

[Tim C]

Hi Dean:

You wrote:

"I suppose we could take specific verses to prove our points, but the overall context of the Bible itself shouts loudly and mightly against the "home church" movement that isolates itself apart from a local church."

This is exactly the sort of discussion I'd hope Tod could address and we discuss here....

And don't read the following as "proof texts," but it does seem that Paul talked about home centric models as well:

Rom 16:3-5
"Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house."

Col 4:15
"Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house."

And in Phlemon: "To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home..."

I'd think it's safe to assume that few of these "Home Churches" Paul referenced were run by Jews -- Priscilla, Aquila, Nmpha, Agrippus just don't sound Jewish to me -- so it would seem unlikely that they would have a dual Temple/house worship experience like the "God-fearing Jews from every nation" did in Acts 2.
And Paul seems to have called the "churches."

Food for thought.

[Tim Thompson]

David and Mike,

I have enjoyed your comments and discussion with one another over this important issue. While I have yet to fully make up my mind on some of the thoughts being expressed here, I would fully agree that there is a need for community, preferably face to face (as opposed to this community we engage in online.)

Mike, you said that you know that your own spiritual life suffers because of your inactivity and this is surely something that I experience and struggle with. It is what motivates me to read books and blogs and there are some areas that have opened up to me more since I left my church than there seemed to be time for when I was involved.

The difficulty that finally drove me away has to do with accountability, something that Mike mentioned as an issue with those who don't attend a church. But there is a problem when pastors and leaders are not accountable to anyone but expect their flock to be accountable to them. I believe we are all to be accountable and even pastors must have leaders over them who will hold them to account. Too often, even though those leaders may exist, they do not perform this important duty.

And that causes some of us to push off from the safety of the shore and flounder around in deep water on our own. My hope is that I find the shore again before drowning.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Tim C.,

I think you have made some good points and asked a good question. Where do we draw the line?

I don’t know any Revolutionary now with the Stature of Martin Luther, but in practice, aren’t revolutionaries following in the tradition of Martin Luther? Didn’t Martin Luther see a Church where Christ seemed missing? Didn’t Martin Luther make valiant attempts to transform the Church of his time? Didn’t Martin Luther eventually leave the Church of his time in order to reform the universal Church? Are revolutionaries any different? Will we someday view one of those branded as revolutionary by Barna as a second Martin Luther? Will the revolutionaries reform into a second reformation?

Then again, is it possible that the Body of Christ quit being complete when the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church split in the Great Schism?

Tod,

It seems like most of the comments agree with your position on the Church as a Community that forms the Body of Christ. The principle is clear, but the application of the principle is muddled.

[Eric Wilbanks]

Tod said:

Notice also that the first “spiritual disciplines” were all communal ones...“devoted themselves” to “the apostles teaching” (shared beliefs), fellowship (shared relationships), breaking of bread (shared meals) and the prayers (shared spiritual life).”

and earlier used the phrase:

"covenantal relationship with God and each other..."

That's good. That's a step in the right direction. Now we're getting to the core of things. But David Smith hits it right on when he mentions that "The principle is clear, but the application of the principle is muddled."

When I read Barna's book (admittedly with claws RECOILED, not extended), I did not come away with the impression that he disagreed with the principle of covenantal relationships at all...merely the application.

Having said that, I'm wondering when we will start wrestling with the following questions:

1. At what point does the "church" cease to be the "church" and must it be downgraded to some other description, be it fellowship or another?

2. What elements or characteristics are necessary to make covenantal relationships qualify as "church?"

For example, in college (many years ago), I lived in community with believers and shared much: Beliefs, Relationships, Meals, Prayers (Clothes, CD's, Money, Food, and a whole lot more...) Did that qualify our experience to wear the title "church," or was something else missing? Is their enough within Scripture itself to set the guidelines for us, or is it necessary to rely on the IRS (http://www.t-tlaw.com/cf-14.htm) or religious history?

It seems to me that until we settle these basic questions, every other question may simply be held hostage to our personal and very individualistic take on the issues at hand.

[Derek Simmons]

Tod:
At the following website,
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2006/06054.htm
our denomination has a take on why the young reject the local church, together with some strategies for reaching them. The PCUSA prescription offered there reminds me of the old saw from the Vietnam era--we had to destroy the local church in order to save it (for the young.)
That prescription might save the local church as an organization for the young; it certainly won't save it as the organic Body of Christ. Perhaps we who see the local church as both the problem and the answer will learn in Eternity that it was the "Revolutionaries" who were the remnant that He used to "save" His Church.

[Tim C.]

Wanted to point to another review of Revolution, from the website Allelon's web site.

(Allelon is a group put together to support missional church leadership, and "emergent church" leadership; allelon is the greek word meaning "One Another")

http://www.allelon.org/articles/article.cfm?id=233&page=1

The crux of their cirtique sounds very similiar to yours:

"Another weakness of the book is that Barna seems to lift up the individual as over against the community. For Barna being the church means primarily a personal encounter with Christ. It seems to me that ultimately spiritual formation is not about my own personal growth but is primarily about God’s interaction within me for the sake of others. It is not only about my own personal salvation but is about all of us growing together as the people of God. It is not about getting saved so I can go to heaven, but about all of us getting there together. My personal transformation enhances our ability to be community.

Barna also lists house churches and the Emergent church movement as nothing more than a repeat of the traditional local church model. If his observation is true then this revolution, this individualistic religious fervor, is doomed to fail. The call of the gospel is to be changed but this change is to be lived out within communities of caring, faith-based followers of Jesus. Individuals have impacted the world and been great change agents but long lasting change has always grown and matured within communities. While Barna encourages revolutionaries to be part of a community it seems more like putting on clothes than a significant life-changing encounter with others. One puts on a community but it is not the community that affects our faith. Our faith is all up to the individual, according to Barna.

While I agree with Barna’s description of the hopes and aspirations of a revolutionary, I am disappointed that it is so individualistically based.

The hope for the future in my estimation is found as we stumble heavenward together, supporting one another, encouraging one another, and helping to guide one another."

[David M. Smith]

Hi Derek, Tod, and others,

I wonder how many of the young adults who now need to be reached are the children of Christians who have been in Church most of their life.

If the mandate of the Church is to protect, nurture, and grow the lambs as well as pursue the goats, why have we arrived at a time in history when so many of the goats are former lambs?

Perhaps our emphasis on the benefits of a belief in a Savior have had the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of believers in Christ denying themselves and taking up the cross, believers have indulged themselves and ended up just as empty and lost as the rest of civilization.

Perhaps if the Church returned to a sacrificial understanding of holiness, and perhaps if the Church was more obsessed with the truth than the Church is obsessed with feelings, more lambs would grow up to be sheep and less would grow up to be goats.

[Zeke]

Seems to me that critics of Barna routinely waste their energies propping up and knocking down the straw man that "Revolutionaries" are individualists who avoid community and accountability. Neither are true, but rather than deal with the real premise of the book--that there are increasing numbers of devoted believers who are seeking alternate forms of community outside the institutional church--we keep talking about Barna's Revolutionaries as unaccountable egoists. What a boring distraction, when we could be talking about how local churches could be connecting with these groups without expecting them to give it up and come back full time.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Zeke,

The discussion of “Revolution” on this site so far has been an attempt to gain clarity and understanding between those on the outside and those on the inside. Turning the discussion into a fight is unnecessary. Both sides do and will make wrong assumptions. Could you make an effort to counter the wrong assumptions without accusing others of being devious?

[Zeke]

David, I appreciate the call to moderation, and rest assured I was not accusing anyone of being devious... just misguided. :)

But I do hold to my assertion that the argument that Barna's Revolutionaries are ego-driven individualists is just a straw man. Barna himself has denied that, in the book and in interviews. He's got an interview available for download at Steve Brown Etcetera (http://stevebrownetc.com/) that makes this clear. He responds to other criticisms as well. I recommend it to those who are interested. Peace!

[David M. Smith]

Hi Zeke,

There probably are some ego driven Revolutionaries just as there are some ego driven Pastors. I agree with you that anyone who labels all Revolutionaries as ego driven individualists isn’t making much of an attempt to understand and fix the problems in the local Church.

Individualism can be a strength and it can be a weakness in a local Church. I sometimes think Tod focuses too much on the weakness of individualism and doesn’t give enough credit to the strengths of individualism, but I don’t for a second think Tod is trying to deceive anyone. I (we) need to know and understand his perspective as much as he needs to know and understand our perspective in order to reconcile those on the outside and those on the inside.

The term “Straw Man” implies intentional deceit. It is a debating tactic used to win an argument against a position that is not even advocated by an opponent. I don’t think believers who want a strong local Church are misguided either. A strong local Church seems to be the Biblical ideal. However, I think this discussion is about whether or not it is better to be part of a local organization that claims to be the local Church as it rots from the inside out or is it better to abandon the rotting local Church in order to reform in a way to make the ideal possible.

[Zeke]

Thank you for that David, and I withdraw the Straw Man comment for the reasons you state. Also, let me clarify that I don't feel that the underlying point is local church reform. The underlying point is that the big C Church will manifest in changing ways in different places in different times. Our institutional little c church model is one manifestation. So are other forms of fellowship. Let sincere Christians find fellowship as they will, without trying to guilt them back into a local congregation. I apologize if that sounds like a strong word, but that's sure what a lot of this dialog feels like sometimes.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Zeke,

You are right, I probably expressed my need in the discussion more than I expressed the underlying point of others. I want to be reconciled with the Church, but only if Christ in present.

Most of the Churched don’t think the Church needs reform while many of the un-Churched, including me, believe reform is exactly what is needed. Tod seems to be going in your direction in terms of fellowship and away from you in terms of oversight and accountability. I think Tod has a point, but I’m waiting for the details.

I have trouble when Church is described as fellowship or when relationships are elevated above purpose. I think relationships and fellowship are the by-product of a purposeful Christian Community, but should not ever be the prime focus of a Church. I want to hear goals, plans, progress, failures, baptisms, and commitments, when I attend Church, but all I hear is small groups, marriage seminars, and picnics. It’s not my cup of tea and I also don’t think it conforms to the teachings of Christ and the rest of Scripture.

However, I think there are many people who do leave Church because they aren’t getting their relationship needs met. This probably sounds counter-intuitive, but I believe if Churches would quit focusing so much on relationships, the believers in Church would find more contentment and better relationships. I’ve noticed there are some people for who relationships are like a narcotic; they always want more and better, but are never satisfied.

Ultimately, you and I and every other believer has to pray, read, listen, study, interact, and make our decision about how we will live Church and be Christ to others, but we also need to submit. What is your plan to submit? How do you think other Revolutionaries should submit?