March 16, 2008
Organic Church?
Posted by Mark Cork under Christianity, Church | Tags: Church Growth, Evangelism, Holy Spirit, house church, Organic Church, Worship |Recently I sat in a room with about fifty pastors (which is an interesting thing in itself and should probably be its own post) to hear a presenter talk about the Organic Church — this particular presenter’s label for house churches (not to be confused with the Neil Cole book by the same name). I went not knowing what to expect really, although since it was a denominationally sponsored meeting I had some pre-conceived assumptions. In simplistic terms the concept he presented was one of taking the church to neighborhoods and gathering in small groups of people as opposed to the large singular gathering each week.
The presenter was very quick to point out that this was not a replacement for church as we know it but rather a new form, or a new alternative to traditional churches or church planting. Some of the people in attendance weren’t tracking too well with his presentation but most were in agreement with him. That was until he began talking in terms that made it sound like this organic movement somehow needed to be harnessed, strategized, systematized and institutionalized so the denomination could support it and be able to jump on the house church bandwagon.
The presenter spoke in terms of a system for training, accountability, reporting and multiplying. In short, he seemed to be taking something organic (his word) and turn it into a church growth strategy. In the meeting I voiced a concern that should we try and denominationalize house churches we might kill them before they ever got started. I believe in the concept of house churches and believe they will be a significant part of the church fabric of the future. I even applaud the denomination’s desire to understand them and give blessing to those people who prefer to gather in that type of setting. However, if they’re going to truly be organic then let them evolve organically and not strategically.
Although my thoughts on the subject haven’t fully crystallized, here’s my take on things right now. I like the concept of house churches and believe having a small group of people extending the love of God to others around them (and even around the world) can be a very powerful thing. I also believe it’s a very Biblical concept and should the Holy Spirit choose to bless it through multiplication that’s fine, but I don’t see that as the goal. While I think it’s fine for house churches to affiliate with a denomination I’m not sure it’s all that beneficial.
It seems to me that house churches have the opportunity to “be the church” without having the requirement of keeping church machinery grinding forward. House churches don’t need to focus on increasing their numbers and can instead focus on increasing their love for God, each other and the world around them. I believe there is a place for the traditional church and the house church, and believe they can even co-exist within a denominational framework if people so choose.
So having said all that, what’s your take? What’s your preference?
March 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I agree with your final appraisal of the situation Mark. One of the critical misconceptions that Christians have unquestioningly picked up from the global free trade movement is the notion of unrestrained exponential growth. It’s as if no one questioned this from a Biblical sense at all. When one looks orginizationally at unrestrained growth it seems to make sense (until you take into account the cost of the lives that said growth affects and destroys) but at an organic level it no longer computes. We call such unrestrained multiplication unsustainable at best and cancerous at worst (both of those I am pulling from a “living” perspective).
In a family–long after the decision was made to cease having children–the growth aspect still is expected but growth of a different nature. Unfortunatly pastoral ministries and corporate styled churches have failed to understand the spiritual formation and apprenticeship to Jesus in the 21st century is the missing link. “Growing up into full stature”…not growing fat and unusable as we overconsume, overproduce, and overextend.
March 17, 2008 at 9:32 am
I think Brittian is right on target in observing that “pastoral ministries and corporate styled churches have failed to understand (that) spiritual formation and apprenticeship to Jesus in the 21st century is the missing link.” For me, the primary reason to invest time and energy in a house church mode is because larger gatherings are simply not suited to effective spiritual formation or apprenticeship. If you think about the “one anothers” that should characterize Christian community, things like encourage and admonish, you can see that those are things you can’t really do in a large group setting. That realization is what led me to resign my call as a pastor and begin seeking ways to serve the Kingdom by supporting house church expressions. (If you like, you can read about that decision here: http://feralpastor.blogspot.com/2007/04/welcome.html. Especially the part about “flipping the pyramid.”
In the same way, however, there are valuable things for the Kingdom in larger Church expressions that a pure house church mode wouldn’t readily provide. Sometimes you DO need a building, or someone with extensive theological training, or a large organized network of people who can work together on big projects (which is what a denomination could function as.) So I’m also intersted in a partnership and synergy of modes rather than pitting them against each other. Part of what I’m thinking about these days is what forms that kind of partnership could take.
March 21, 2008 at 10:19 am
Good reflections! If our church planting efforts are driven from the sent/missionary nature of God then there will be a true organic movement; one that can have structure, but as I think Cole states, it needs to be an endoskeleton rather than the typical exoskeleton.
March 27, 2008 at 11:52 am
First of all, the comments made above are great. There is much that stimulates my thoughts but let me respond to just one comment made by Mark.
“That was until he began talking in terms that made it sound like this organic movement somehow needed to be harnessed, strategized, systematized and institutionalized so the denomination could support it and be able to jump on the house church bandwagon.”
That to me is the crunch. I’ve been a so-called ‘house-churcher’ for many years now and have gone through a series of understandings about what it is all about. What I have become convinced of is that we need to carefuly guard against what the speaked that Mark heard is suggesting should happen. It will be the death knoll. Organic/house/relational/whatever name church cannot become a movement that is harnessed, strategized, systematized and institutionalized. What I understand God is doing at this time is just what this will prevent - it must remain organic. It is just this which is causing people to move out of conventional church structures. Let us keep it organic.
March 28, 2008 at 10:17 am
Anyone got the updated link to Tim’s blog?
What denomination sponsored this presentation, if I may ask? Very interesting - I hope common ground can be found.
March 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Des & Zane — thanks for your comments. The denomination that sponsored the presentation was the Church of the Nazarene and they are really wanting to do what is right and not just the same old way things have always been done. While I applaud them for that my fear is that they’re trying to make a program out of what should be a movement. I too hope common ground can be found.
April 4, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Zane asked for the updated link to Tim’s blog and I don’t know if he’s referring to me or someone else, but just in case, my blog can be found at http://www.feralpastor.blogspot.com.
Most recently I’ve written about how conventional churches might send “missionaries” to plant house churches here in thei US, and about why I’m drawn to the HC form of congregational life in the first place.