If We Could Do Church

December 5, 2005 - 11:43am

In the Spring of 1999 I was sitting at my favorite table upstairs at Viva Books here in San Antonio. I started out working on a sermon but began to doodle and daydream after a time. I was thinking about church a lot in those days, specifically about the ways we do church in our culture. As I recall, I was staring at a McHarp Celtic Cross, admiring the beauty and mystery of the Celtic knots when a crazy thought came to me.

“What if we could do church any way that we wanted?”

I’m serious about this. What if a few friends sat down at a kitchen table and decided that they were going be a church? There certainly are no laws preventing this, at least not in my country. The witness of the New Testament does not speak against such a thing. On the contrary, much of the New Testament is made up of the stories of small groups of people who gathered in such a manner.

I let this thought roll around in my head for a few moments.

“What if these people decided to cast off any preconceived, cultural ideas about what church ought to be and instead tried to whittle Christianity down to its essentials? Instead of allowing church to become ever more complex, what if they sought to make church ever more simple, simple enough to be written on a thumbnail or even on a heart?”

Suddenly excited, I ran into the upstairs office and found a discarded piece of 11 by 17 computer ledger paper. I closed my eyes, tried to forget everything I ever knew about church, and wrote down my ideas about what such a church might be like.

First of all, we probably wouldn’t call ourselves a church. That English word is rather tired, I think. It really doesn’t communicate very well, and it’s not a biblical word in any case. We might call ourselves “A Gathering of Friends,” or perhaps, “A Community Living in the Way of Christ.” I don’t know what we would call ourselves; maybe we wouldn’t have a name at all.

I don’t think we would concern ourselves very much with what individuals in the community say about Jesus or even believe about Jesus. It’s not that what we say about Jesus doesn’t matter, but this community would begin with real living. There will be time enough for pretty Jesus words later on.

We would begin with between five and fifteen people who are committed to following in the way of Christ, confessing their weaknesses and turning their lives over to God as they understand him or her. We would make certain commitments to God and to each other:

  • We would meet once or twice a week to worship together. This meeting would be a very high priority in our lives.
  • We would make these friendships intentional ones and make it a point to spend time together.
  • We would agree to pray and study the scriptures together and on our own.
  • We would nurture each other and care for one another, especially if one of us was hurting or in need.
  • We would simplify our lives to the point where we could give 10% of our income to the community. Some who have been on the journey longer might give more.
  • Each of us would find a personal and fulfilling way to serve God by serving the world. Finding your joyful place of service would be a central part of being in this community, for we would agree that Christianity is a way of living more than a set of doctrines.

We would never pay anyone to be a professional Christian. There would be no staff, no paid ministers, no salaries, and no overhead. If there were even ten wage earners among us, our collected offerings might be between twenty and fifty thousand dollars. With no salaries, buildings, or other administrative costs, almost all of this money would be used to do good things in the name of Christ.

Maybe once a year we would sit around a kitchen table and say, “What do you want to do for God this year?”

There would be a little money left over to buy coffee or even a guitar if someone wanted to play it during worship. Maybe twice a year we would all go on an extended retreat together. Those with limited funds would never have to worry about being able to afford that sort of thing.

If there were children among us, they would sit on our laps and worship with us. We would not have children’s classes. We wouldn’t need them. We would teach the children ourselves and let them be a part of everything we do.

We would never purchase or rent a place to worship. Homes would suffice. If and when the gathering became too large to meet comfortably in a living room, we would divide into two groups. Perhaps the two living room churches would meet together once a month at a park or in some borrowed space. We wouldn't worry about what will happen someday. These things will work themselves out. I’m of the opinion that there is far too much planning in churches nowadays.

We would never advertise our faith community. Advertising tends to cheapen things, and I think we wouldn't want to start going down that road. We would bring friends with us as we felt led. I’m sure some would find us in very mysterious ways. We would trust that those who are ready to find us would find us. Anyone would be welcome to meet with us in the living room, of course. Some might join the community when they felt ready to embrace our commitments.

If there is preaching, it would be done by everyone. All who feel ready to share would take their turn. You would have weeks or even months to read your passage of scripture prayerfully. Then you would simply share the wisdom you found in the scriptures with your good friends.

The best news of all is that we would lay down the terrible burden of planning and strategizing for the business of church. Large budgets, buildings, and programs require business plans and outreach strategies. But you see, the big picture would not be our concern. The future would be left in the hands of God. We would content ourselves with our simple lives of service and devotion. What happens beyond that would be God’s business and not ours.

It sounds refreshing, does it not? And vaguely familiar. Even if you’ve never been a part of something like that, your heart knows that it would feel like going home.

When I finished writing I looked at the paper for a few minutes. On the front is a dot matrix printout of Viva’s inventory, along with the date - March 29th, 1999. On the back is the outline of a faith community that I would love to be a part of someday. I put the paper in a safe place and never forgot it.

Every so often I find the paper, look at it, and wonder what I would have to let go of to make this vision a reality.

rlp

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 12:05pm.

Ooooh.... This reminds me of one of my favorite essays of yours "How to find a church" I love the question at the end that you "wonder what I would have to let go of to make this vision a reality" Reminds me that so many times that walking down the right path is not a matter of ability, but of setting one's intention a certain way, and making it happen. If one of these gatherings ever start in your area, I'd come looking... and I'd start by checking all the local laundromats :)

Jtbug

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 13, 2005 - 11:38am.

hey-
have you evere read "shaping of things to come" by Alan hirsch and micheal frost? wow, that is an incredible picture, and it seems like you use a lot of the language employed therein...

my wife and i are moving to portland in mayish after i graduate lord willing so she can finish her degree at multinomah, and we have sensed a call to be missionaries and open a organic local cafe in that area. we are currently part of a house church/gathering at my campus, and have been praying that God would connect us with a missional Jesus community in portland- so, thanks. looking forward to meeting your community, and seeing how we might fit in and serve.

jay

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 12:28pm.

This post blew in like a breath of fresh air!

This time of year especially, young Pastor's hearts turn to things frenzied and plastic.

Oh to be able to be real all of the time without feeling like you're letting someone else down if you take even a moment for yourself!

peace,

Submitted by spidey on December 5, 2005 - 12:42pm.

what a beautiful picture! 

Submitted by practitioner45 on December 5, 2005 - 12:44pm.

CM This is exactly what I would love to be a part of.  Worshiping with works rather that words.

Submitted by Anonymous User (not verified) on December 5, 2005 - 12:55pm.

"When a young preachers' thoughts turn to things frenzied and plastic.."

I love that. In the secular community, too, there are issues just such as this- it's getting harder and harder to get in the mood, the spirit, the spiritual space for Christmas. I mentioned to my mother that this was the time of year I least liked church and I least liked children, that there seemed to be something WRONG with both of them, and everyone looked cranky and miserable. And I was cranky and miserable.

She responded the way she always does.

"They need to make something. No-one ever does that anymore. And not a million cookies,either. When kids have ten minutes and they come into the library full of the "I WANTS", I sit them down next to glue and paper stars and a box of glitter. It usually works. It worked for you, when you were growing up."

SOooo we finished putting up the $27 tree, and the gazillions of glass ornaments and the 19 dollar garland went on the fireplace, and the 10 dollar adaptor when into the light socket on the porch, and the icicle lights we need to replace were hung by the window with care, and we decorated the little conical rosemaries that we rescued from Home Depot and placed them in the window, next to the 30 dollars of christmas cards, and then I swept up the wrappings and the cardboard and the plastic, and I made something. I took some clay and I worked 3 hours on three wise men for a creche- I had liked the holy family- unlike a lot of the nativity sets, they looked like a real family, but the rest of the bits weren't on the shelf, so I made them. And the last wiseman's face was so happy I couldn't bear to have it bow, so he's on his knees, beaming at the heavens, arms outstretched, really and truly joyous and ready to receive what he's been searching for and finally found.
The camel even turned out nice, which is difficult because camels aren't easy to make, and they are rarely nice, so it's difficult to visualize.
Mom was right. It's not Christmas until you've made it Christmas. You can't buy it or pay for it. You have to make joy.

Submitted by notarev on December 5, 2005 - 2:14pm.

I could have written that! (In fact I have written something remarkabley similar!!!) That image of church has been tugging on my heart and mind for several years now, I just haven't had the guts (or faith??) to step out and make it a reality. Maybe in '06...

Submitted by WonderSheep on December 5, 2005 - 2:45pm.

Dear Mr. Preacher-Man:
Please give me my brain back. :D
 
______________________
SWS
Ecclesiastes 7:13

Submitted by Bigtombowski on December 5, 2005 - 2:49pm.

i think that you have pretty much summed up my heart for church in this post. It took years for me to resign myself to the fact that the "biblical model" for church is the house church model. I hate all of the hierarchical system. Of course church is supposed to be a network of relationships - not some "business-like" organisation ... how about this ... not an organisation . . . an organism!! ;) Just call me the cliche man!

But yes, i have studied the idea of church for some time now and the house church model is the best, spiritually, relationally, physically and ... organisationslly!!!

It's beautiful!

Thank you for popularising it!

tom

Submitted by scout on December 5, 2005 - 3:00pm.

What you would have to let go of is legitimacy...or, at least, perceived legitimacy.  It may not be that important to you, and I suspect that it isn't.  Still, there is something about that forboding facade plastered with crosses, a pious moniker, mahogany pews, and blood red carpet that reassures the weak that there is something there - authority, certainty, even comfort.  We don't trust ourselves and we don't trust our neighbors.  How could we trust a small gathering of these people?  I think its human nature to need something bigger than just "us."  After all, that's what belief in god is all about, isn't it? 
 
Not to be flippant, but it if a "church" like this is legitimate, then what about a church of one?  Is a church of one still a church?  I think you're sliding down a slippery slope there. 
 
Wow.  I think I just made a pro-church argument.  Will wonders ever cease?

Submitted by rlp on December 5, 2005 - 3:14pm.

Scout,
 
I expect to get a lot of raised eyebrows and comments on this. I want to begin by saying that I do not want the organized church to go away. Even if I did want that, it isn't going away. It is here and has been here a long time. That said, perhaps we could simply admit that the institutional church model is not working for everyone. The only thing I would ask of my brothers and sisters in institutional churches is that they agree that house churches are a part of the legitmate spectrum of church models.
 
I don't like the slippery slope argument. If you think about it, everything we do is on a slippery slope. We live on slippery slopes. Once you start using the slippery slope argument, you can't stop. Soon you can never do anything without worrying you will slip into extremes. (I am aware of the irony in that statement)
 
I say that a church of 15 people is legitimate and even a good thing. I am not bound now by some rule of logic to say that a church of 1 is a good thing. Each model may be evaluated on its own merits. The slippery slope argument is only valid when those involved do not have the freedom to evaluate every specific idea.
 
I'm not making any statements about other church models, be they of one or a million people. I'm saying, "doesn't this sound nice? I wonder if we should consider it."

Submitted by scout on December 5, 2005 - 10:23pm.

Ok.  Fair enough.  I still take issue with you on the "church of one" notion.  If there can be a church of 15, there can be a church of two.  If there can be a church of two, there can be a church of one.  I think the rules of logic do apply.  I don't know how satisfying it would be, but it's a possibility.  And, hey, now I can tell people that I do attend church...of which I'm the founder and sole member.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 2:53am.

I don't think that logic holds at all, actually. One would certainly be justified in requiring that a church, in its function as a social activity, must contain two or more people. (I believe there's Biblical support for this as well, but I'll leave confirmation of that to the Christians in the audience, who can speak on it with more authority than I can...)

I think what you must mean by this argument is that fifteen is such a ludicrously small number to you that once you've gone that far, why not go farther? But it ... doesn't sound ludicrously small to me. In fact, there exist organized outside-the-house churches with such numbers -- I'm sure of it. I believe the Milwaukee church that was made famous for a gunman tragedy earlier in the year was about that size.

One could also turn your argument around and ask, What is your minimum N for a "legitimate" church? Why not N-1? Why not N-2? Etc.

Another thing worth mentioning: this type of argument hinges on the assumption that the number of people in a group has no systematic relationship to the kind of group you have, and thus numbers are arbitrary. In my experience, this is not the case. There seems to be a cut point right around 10-11 people where it's no longer possible to have casual conversation such that everyone feels he can participate comfortably. At this point, it's often less awkward to break into 2 or more smaller groups, but this doesn't always happen on its own until there are about 14-15 people. I'm sure that other factors (personality of group members, how well people know each other, size of the room, etc) have an effect on which particular numbers are the relevant cutpoints, and with a moderator the dynamic is altogether changed, but the point holds -- group size really does matter.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 3:12am.

Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them.

No room here for a church of one.

I am a member of an anglican church core attendance of which is about 10 - 15 small churches do indeed exist.

Scog Blog ( I forgot to sign in)

Submitted by mrushing on December 12, 2005 - 3:24pm.

I am with you on the two or three...we have started just such a church.  There are about 14 adults now, two are leaving for El Paso (is this a dispersion by God's hand?) and the rest of us are thinking and praying about going to three groups with two couples each to "start over."  We call ourselves Quorum Missional Communities...the quorum being the two or three that Jesus said draw his presence.  I have been in church since I was old enough to leave in the nursery and am having the most fun that I have ever had in church.  We have seen one person become a follower of Jesus and others get connected to God in a way that has refreshed them beyond the abilities of an institutional church to do so.  Quite a journey we are on and having fun making things up as we go. Mark 

Submitted by scout on December 6, 2005 - 1:22pm.

Hey, I'm not the one advocating for a specific number that would constitute a "church."  All I said is that, in this context, a "church of one" is a legitimate notion.  What do two people offer than one doesn't?
 
I do like the "church with agnostics" idea.  As an agnostic, that fascinates me.  I think we generally feel marginalized in the faith community.   Some of that is welcomed, I admit.  But, perhaps we have more to offer than we think.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 7, 2005 - 7:21am.

what do two people offer that one doesn't - relationship, some one to serve, some one to love, some one to be serverd by, loved by how can 1 person be a community? 2 people can be a community

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 7, 2005 - 12:59pm.

Mutual support, encouragement, example. An opportunity to think things over, discuss questions, have one's assumptions challenged. Discipline, a reason to "turn up," to make the space, to keep the commitment.

Many things. One person can be as devout and thoughtful as s/he wants, but that's not a "church"...

acm

Submitted by paulythebull on December 10, 2005 - 9:08am.

My greatest spiritual growth has been made in the last 14 years meeting in groups of as little as 2 and sometimes greater than 100, mostly in homes, but the for the larger groups in the past we have rented a banquet room at a hotel, or met out at the lake.

Legitimate? Only when our meeting/fellowship meet to glorify God and build the faith of those in attendance. Have we done that with only 2 people present? yes. Have we missed it with 50 people present? maybe. Maybe it was just me. The point is, that wherever 2 or more are gathered in Jesus' name, He is there. And when we know His presence, and we honor that with our words, deeds, and worship, we've had church.

We don't have a paid pastor, but rather, a plurality of leadership. Worship is open for anyone to participate and offer a song, psalm, a word of encouragement, a prophecy... even a sermon, if that's been led by the Spirit. In short, we have adopted the "priesthood of the believer," and recognize, even encourage the use of whatever gifts God has given someone. Is it always a perfect service? No. But we're open to allow the Holy Spirit change us, admonish us, and even correct us.

A church of one? Well, that may be pushing it, since the purpose of a church involves "the assembling of yourselves together," and corporate worship is intended for the glory of God, the edification of the body, and the teaching of doctrine. The five-fold ministry is not intended to be present only in the pastor, or leader of the group. It was given to the body of believers for prophecy, evangelism, aposotlic ministry, pastoring and teaching. It requires a body of believers to carry out the "perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ." So one person, although said person may be able to have a powerful worship time alone with God, is not a church by himself. We are designed for relationship, and the body of Christ is fashioned to be dependent on interdependent relationships with God and each other.
Just as I believe that the institutional church has legitimacy, so I believe that the smaller fellowships such as home churches, be it 2 or 100, have the same legitimacy...as long as the body is functioning as the body of Christ, and not just meeting for the sake of meeting, or to meet the overhead.

Pauly the Bull
Beer, Barbecue, and Bible Study

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 3:30pm.

Once you start thinking about a slippery slope, you end up on a slippery slope!

I think there are rooms for many types of church models in Christendom. I also agree that you can't be an "Army of One" for God.

I am fascinated by small groups of people living in community in neighborhoods where they directly help the people.

God has called us to walk many paths in His service!

peace,

Submitted by mattman on December 5, 2005 - 3:57pm.

I like the small scale approach of what you pose. I've never been drawn to McChurch, size for its own sake. But ministering in a connectional system, I do draw on resources that might not be available to me otherwise. It sounds like you have tried to incorporate the intimacy of this vision within your own ministry. Sometimes I think this is harder, but more necessary than scrapping institutional models and starting out of whole cloth. Guess that gives me away as reformed, always seeking reformation. There are things we can teach one another in small setting, there are also things we can learn from the saints who have gone before us.

Submitted by Jonas on December 5, 2005 - 4:01pm.

I truly wish things were as you envision. I believe the world would be different, then..

Submitted by see through faith on December 5, 2005 - 4:02pm.

This is SO uncanny. I've been blogging about unity this week, the possibility of church in "noble /worthy homes"

and then for seminary I'm starting to investigate the Eucharist - as a sign of unity (or not)

It's so cool the way God works. You give me hope for the Kingdom rlp!

Submitted by Regina CA on December 5, 2005 - 4:32pm.

I loved this piece, but it made me think of one of my favorite of your articles, "You Ain't Jesus, Preacher." Trying to create the perfect church, by whatever name, seems to be one step down the road of thinking that one is Jesus. Instead we're left to muddle through with our imperfect, messy churches, worshipping Jesus and loving each other quite vigorously and quite inadequately, enjoying our mistakes as opportunities for God to break in to our wonderful structures and remind us of who's really in charge.

Submitted by Regina CA on December 5, 2005 - 4:33pm.

"It’s not that what we say about Jesus doesn’t matter, but this community would begin with real living."

I'm curious -- how could we begin to understand "real living" unless we begin with Jesus?

Submitted by rlp on December 5, 2005 - 6:13pm.

Let me clarify what I said. I didn't say we wouldn't begin with Jesus. I said we wouldn't begin with what we SAY about Jesus. Instead, we would begin by trying to live in a Christ-like way. To me, that's the best way to begin with Christ.
 
In my opinion, the American church is marked by people who make theological claims about the nature and work of Christ, but who often make no effort to live like Christ. Indeed, most churches only require some doctrinal agreement to join. What I am about to say is VERY radical, but I believe it. I would rather do church with an agnostic who wasn't sure if God existed, but was willing to give his life to the service of goodness in God's name and to live with Christ as a model, than with someone who said all the "right things" about Christ but lived no differently than anyone in our culture.
 
The former will find his way to God through Christ, I believe. The latter will only find less and less meaning in his religion until finally it means nothing at all.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 7:36pm.

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father."

Submitted by sanityman on December 6, 2005 - 8:28am.

"rather do church with an agnostic who wasn't sure if God existed..." I seem to be in this position. Don't think I'm doing a very good job at even trying to live with Christ as a model, though. Not sure if I need grace or antidepressants.

Thanks for writing it, anyway.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 12, 2005 - 3:31pm.

Beautifully put.

However...

...the problem I see is that you seem to be somewhat ignoring the New Testament Church models that you claim in your article to be in support. Things like the fact that Paul went around preaching against false doctrine as well as against false behavior.

That said, given a choice between the vision you paint here of a church based solely on action and living, and the mainstream Evangelical churches that preach ideas but seem to have forgotten that excommunication and a focus on proper living are important to the church ... I think I'd probably choose your church. Then try to subtly refine it to have a somewhat more cogent explanation of theology....

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 13, 2005 - 6:31pm.

new testament wannabe's.

often you hear folks with hearts of action like rlp who are painting a beautiful picture of a church focused on the incarnational action of the real Christ as opposed to falling back on the institution of a church, and it is based on the claim that we should "do it like they did it, as if the new testament church's mode of gathering/ministry/leadership is somehow more relevant then anything we could grow. i appreciate rlp that you in fact make no such claim as a basis for your forthtelling.
in fact, there is much i think we could learn from what those brothers and sisters did, but to ask to start a "new testament style church" is naive and as uncreative as biting off of another rick warren handout.

"Things like the fact that Paul went around preaching against false doctrine as well as against false behavior."
i believe we forget that when paul et al would preach against false doctrine, it was to groups who had established what sound doctrine was. they had swam the genesis of genuine community hermeneutic and created a language of 'christ among us' by which definitions could be made.
most churches start backwards, having established first what the gospel sounds like, they then attempt to make the soil in which it plants that gospel understand it, using relevant forms of commuication, pop music, "relevant preaching". there is no genuine way to communicate something like the gospel without it growing from existing language.

"Then try to subtly refine it to have a somewhat more cogent explanation of theology...."
exactly. this is what i think rlp is saying. as the commuity loves eachother, they develop a theology of love. as the community deals with its sin, it develops together a theology of sin. the distinction is fine between growing a theology from a local hermeneutical community and importing a theology from a foreign community, but the implications i believe are tremendous.

i believe a significant factor in the fallout of "decision-makers" is that they are communicated the gospel in an imported language, rather then the language of a local hermeneutical community .

i am extremely passionate about what i am to do as someone who claims to know christ and his mission as i enter the 'real' world. i have worked as an associate pastor in a church with a large denomination for the past year, and resigned because it just wasn't vital. i guess i long for something vital. anyone feel me?

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 12, 2005 - 3:38pm.

Oh, also -- "let not many of you seek to become teachers..."

Submitted by high baritone on December 5, 2005 - 5:49pm.

Prepare to geek out: Open source theology

They talk about a post-evangelical, emergent church. You might like some of the ideas.

Submitted by shadow on December 5, 2005 - 6:06pm.

This sounds similar to the Bahai' Faith, at least from what I hear from my friend of this faith.  They don't have a church, but gather in living rooms of the "community" and worship together.  I don't believe they have any grandiose leader, but simply discuss the Bible as a group.  Again, I'm not to knowledgeable about the Bahai' Faith, but from what she tells me, they do practice some of the things you mention here.
 

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 6:35pm.

My heart sings "YES!!".

I have heard of some groups of people who do something along these lines, having church meetings in homes, but I haven't heard someone propose the leaving behind of ALL the trappings. That sounds blissfully brilliant and perfect. Kids on laps, all of that. My vote: Do it!!

Submitted by Leslie in CA on December 5, 2005 - 8:01pm.

Church with agnostics reminds me of this: "There is more of faith in honest doubt than in all the creeds."
I have seen church be choked by business models.  I once worked two summers on a day camp program that had reached hundreds of children over the years.  Every year it provided scholarships to the children living in the local homeless shelter for all four weeks of camp.  Preschool through 6th graders were the campers, and junior high, high school, and college students, along with adults, ministered to them and discipled each other.  Folks from all over town, from other churches, and from no church, had been sending their kids for years to these camps.
But the church's leadership decided that the day camp program could not continue unless it was completely self-funding.  This was a church with a budget of a million dollars a year, but they could not see their way clear to subsidizing this ministry that, more than any other of their many ministries, most completely and explicitly fulfilled the church's mission statement of winning the lost and discipling the found.  And all those homeless kids?  What's that you say, suffer the little children?  Sorry, we wouldn't be good stewards if we underwrote your coming here.  And that, of course, is more important than their mere immortal souls.
To this day, it angers me, and I cannot understand how these decent, well-meaning men could be so concerned with their bottom line that they lost their sense of mission.  I still remember the kids I met at camp those two years, and wonder where they are, and my heart hurts.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 8:28pm.

Paging George Fox!

Submitted by CaDan on December 5, 2005 - 10:01pm.

You beat me to it!

Congratulations, Preacher! You just invented the Religious Society of Friends!

--
We are called brothers. We actually are brothers. We share a common destiny in this life and the next. Why, then, do we act as though we are foes and enemies?
Good Pope John XXIII ~ Ad Petri Cathedram

Submitted by reverendmother on December 5, 2005 - 8:39pm.

Good post. It occurs to me that a healthy and vibrant congregation (even within a denominational hierarchy) will have many if not all of the elements you mentioned--the key difference is what would be *missing* (paid clergy, etc.). So as someone who personally values the connectionalism of a denomination, as well as treasuring the call to a paid ministry of helping "equip the saints for ministry"--I am led to ask how I can live faithfully within that structure and not make an idol of the Church (capital C).

Because I resonate a great deal with the vision you put forth. (And would echo whoever connected this with the emergent conversation.)

--reverendmother

Submitted by rlp on December 5, 2005 - 9:58pm.

It should be noted that I receive a paycheck and work at a Baptist church. So I'm right in the thick of things. We people in traditional churches can sometimes get a little defensive (not that you were at all, but you got me thinking) when people begin to bring up new models for church. Some of the questions I get are: 1. Who will pay for seminaries to train people? 2. That's fine and dandy for you, Gordon. Your little house church would have someone biblically trained to help them. What about little house churches filled with biblical illiterate folks? Who will help them? 3. Without tradition to help, might every one of these little cells have to relearn everything and repeat all the mistakes of history?
 
My response has been to point out that the institutional church has all the power and all the money and the seminaries aren't going away. Neither will Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and the rest. Surely there is room for some crazy dreamers in the church. And it may be that with some of the body of Christ liberated to cast off a lot of the organizational "junk" that we carry around, we might actually reach the very large segment of our society who will have nothing to do with traditional church. Surely there is room for many expressions of what it means to be the church in our world.
 
I would also say that given the outrageous abuses of the institutional church through the centuries, don't we have more to fear from organized Christianity than from the crazy dreamers? I mean, can the house church experimenters do worse?

Submitted by reverendmother on December 5, 2005 - 11:29pm.

Right there with you, rlp. It seems like the Body needs both "models" if you will (although I suppose the house church thing is not a model per se). But they need to interact with one another in a gracious, hospitable way. The emergent conversation has begun to permeate the mainline denominations but there's a lot of mistrust coming from the latter--you're right about the defensiveness. At the same time, new models of ministry want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some traditions and practices persist because they are hardy, having weathered the test of time.

The closest most mainline churches get is to dip their toe into the whole small group concept. But that's just another program, tacked on to everything else the church does--it's not a radically new way of "doing" church which is what you intriguingly put forth here.

--reverendmother

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 13, 2005 - 6:52pm.

"My response has been to point out that the institutional church has all the power and all the money and the seminaries aren't going away. Neither will Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and the rest."

actually, i would argue that by and large, the major denominations in north america likely will 'go away' in the next 20-30 years. who pays for those things? it is an older generation. the heirarchical, bureaucratic model of church is based on a modern scheme of business that depends on "unlimited growth potential," something that in turn depends on "unlimited resource potential." of course, the emerging generation probably won't for the most part get behind the 'pseudo corporations' that are the major denominations and provide the outragious amount of resources necessary to keep them going. and that is just keep the GOING, not growing. it takes something like $100,000 to get one "conversion." the exact figures are staggering, but i do not have them on hand for how little our major denominations have grown (in fact, they have mostly shrunk) over the past 20 years. we should be thinking multiplication (woman took 1 piece of leaven, and placed it in 3 pieces of dough) but are having trouble with addition, which our models of church are inclined to facilitate. the resources are just not as abundant as is necessary to continue on in the direction we have been going.

i am not advocating the trashing of the major denominations, they certainly have a lot of very important work to do. i do believe that it will be difficult if not impossible for them to make the changes necessary to continue on, mostly because the very things that need to occur would abolish most of the things that distinguish the 'christendom' model of church, with us since constantine.

if the ship is sinking, it is not time to change course; rather, it is time to get a new ship.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 9:25pm.

It has elements of the Amish, elements of the Quakers. It sounds lovely.

Submitted by SQJTaipei on December 5, 2005 - 9:33pm.

Have you ever thought about working overseas? We are planting churches like you talk about here in Taipei! If you'd like to join our team, we would love to have you... but you might have to quit swearing. ;-)
Actually, d*mn would be OK if you are really mad and you could say b*tch if someone was chewing you out... :-)
Blessings....

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 9:38pm.

This sounds like a "small group" or a "life group" as I've heard them called. I lead a small group in my home each week. It is the most important thing in our lives - a time when we feel more as the Body of Christ than a body of a congregation. Christ gave us the model. He rolled with a dozen people and accomplished great things! I hate to call our time "Bible Study" because we go deeper than that and we move beyond the common barriers of a Bible Study (one person talking...the others listening...little interaction...no impetus to reach out person to person and go deeper into one another's lives). Small groups are about building community and becoming the hands and feet of Christ. The power in them is amazing and I encourage everyone to read up on Small Groups and start one!! --- Danielle, California

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 10:01pm.

RLP,
I am involved in a housechurch movement that is modeled solely after the early church.. we are a group of about 12-13... and about to divide into another church... we are a group of college aged christians who decided one day that we wanted to live life together for Christ.. We meet weekly and spend the rest of the week interacting in one another's lives.. It is a beautiful thing...

More is required

Submitted by goatmeal on December 5, 2005 - 10:24pm.

I've been asking myself that question for ten years.  Well, I used to ask it more.  I guess I've been forgetting about it recently.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 11:16pm.

rlp: I've been in prayer for the past few months for a fellowship just as you described here in San Antonio. God willing, in His time, I'll find it. You have a great ministry here, thanks.

Submitted by Clueless on December 5, 2005 - 11:28pm.

I'm in one.  We call it small group.  Its not precisely the model you dreamed about but its close enough and we're working on that.  We meet in different members houses.  I got some training on how to lead a small group,  put out the word, and the coolest people showed up.  We have 12 members at present.  Our church is full of small  groups. One of our pastors keeps up with us to keep us honest.  You want that kind of kitchen-table fellowship?  Just start one.

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 6:36am.

I don't know who you are,  but I know of such a church that is forming even now in San Antonio. If you come back and see this, send me an email and I'll tell you about it.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 11:23pm.

The wiseass in me wanted to quip "Sounds like an AA Group"

Then I noticed there were a couple of areas where the language is almost verbatim from AA "God as they understand him". Or where that concepts are mostly similar "We would never advertise our faith community. Advertising tends to cheapen things" sounds an awful lot like "Attraction rather than promotion".

Even the actual service sounds like a meetin' "All who feel ready to share would take their turn."

So now that the inner wiseass and the outer serious guy are in agreement....

Sounds like an AA meeting. Minus the folks who're there because the courts tell 'em to go.....

-SuperTroy

Submitted by truecoloursfly on December 6, 2005 - 1:04am.

That isn't so wiseass ... I thought the same thing, assuming it was deliberate.  Eh, Preacher?  I'm very inspired by this conversation, which resonates for me on several levels: the first time I was in a room with a bunch of people where I felt the Spirit vividly PRESENT -- was an AA meeting.  (my 20 000 Vancouver U2 friends don't count as "house church," exactly)  Well into my 30s after a lifetime of deep commitment to Christ -- in that room I understood "church" really for the first time.  Ten years later I'm in seminary where I learn about John Wesley's original method of meeting for fellowship -- and I think, all aflutter, "Sounds like an AA group!"  I simply have never been moved by denominational worship -- drives me crazy!  So I finally resigned myself to identifying as a "non-denominational" Christian.  Most folks are genuinely perplexed when I say I'm studying for ministry ... but I don't go to church.  I DO church all the time, I think (i pray), but I don't go to Sunday worship.  ??  Yet, here in this conversation you started, rlp, you all make it sound just as sane as it's always felt to me.
a post-script on the "church of one" -- in my blood and bones I feel that "wherever two or more ..." -- you know the pitch -- we know Christ in relationships, in the mystery of the Other.  Imagining God in the privacy of our minds is a breeze compared to encountering God in the life of another human being.  Just my two bits.

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 6:42am.

"God as you understand him" Yes, I took that from AA. Also the no advertising thing was probably stuck in my mind from my experiences with recovery treatment programs.  Almost 20 years ago I was a chaplain for a time at a substance abuse clinic. 30 day intensive course in AA philosophy.
 
I have a great respect for the tradition, and think it has some key elements that the church has lost. And, by the way, the founders of AA, got their ideas from the Methodist church, so your connecting this with Wesley is right on the money.

Submitted by LWS on December 8, 2005 - 10:19pm.

my time in AA over the past year is what sent me in prayer to find a fellowship like it. I never expected AA to bring me back to Christ so strongly. I want a worship experience very much like the AA model. I'm in touch with the fellowship rlp mentioned above, and I am going to visit the Quaker friends "non programmed" meeting here as soon as I'm in town on a weekend after the holidays.

Submitted by Chris on December 5, 2005 - 11:25pm.

I too echo the comments that it sounds like you are describing "the church that is emerging".  That's what drew me into the blogosphere - the wonderful, messy, not-perfect-and-polished world of emerging church blogs - people who want do do church understanding that we might not have a perfect understanding of truth, but that we are seeking to follow in the way of Jesus and live missional lives.  There are many people around the world attempting to do just that, and I love listening in on their conversations - I learn much, I'm encouraged that I'm "not the only crazy one out there", and am stretched out of my box. 
Chris(tine) [TatteredThoughts blog]

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 5, 2005 - 11:32pm.

This sounds suspiciously similar to traditional Quaker practice. Similar enough that Pepsico might be sending you cease and desist letters, since they think they own the word "Quaker". :P

Seriously, though, it's very familiar.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 12:33am.

This sounds like the original Vineyard movement experience (I think it was based loosely on a Quaker model of worship). People met in home cell groups (kinship groups). It was really good for a time.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 7, 2005 - 9:18am.

I had the same thought -- parts of RLP's wish list match up with the PB tradition. I grew up PB and am still part of it. You're right on both points, Jen -- great community, but relevance problems. We're working on that.

Submitted by amyjoy on December 7, 2005 - 9:43am.

Oops, I didn't mean to be anonymous on that last post :)

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 1:57am.

I went to a church like that for 5 years while I was a child (7 - 11). I'm convinced it was the single most important thing for me to be a part of when I was young. The impact of those years has been huge and I crave to be a part of something like that again.

Submitted by Anonymous User (not verified) on December 6, 2005 - 3:21am.

Wasn't John the Baptist a one person church?

I was part of a group that called themselves The Sharonville Bible Club. The number of members seldom exceeded 12. I recall noticing once that there was eleven people present and I commented then that Jesus makes twelve. We kept the group together for fourteen years.

We met everyday at lunch time while we were at our jobs in a manufacturing plant. We did so with managements permission. We were allowed a space up over the boiler room. We referred to it as The Upper Room. There were times when I thought I heard the sound of a rushing wind. I know there were times when the Spirit moved among us so powerfully, it could have manifested itself in the form of a tongue of fire but no one ever saw such an image.

We took up an "offering" at each meeting. That money was used for several purposes. Bibles were purchased and dispensed as needed. Cards and flowers were sent in the event of anyone in the plant losing a loved one. We received many prayer requests from co-workers. We saw several men receive Christ as the results of our good works and living "the life" before everyone daily.

We studied our way through the Bible cover to cover at least six times that I can recall during that time. Our numbers fluctuated daily as salesmen and truck drivers became aware of our meetings and joined us whenever they were present at the plant during lunchtime. Many times, during the summer months, we would meet outside under a large Catalpa tree sitting at a large picnic table.

We were faithful to that group until the day the plant closed. It was an amazing experience. I'm so glad for the opportunity to share it with all my Brothers in Christ.

Today, I do not attend any organized church but am once again a member of a home group I call "The Good Old Boys Club." It serves as "Church" for me.

I love your vision Preacher. Never give it up or forget it.

Submitted by EasleyJack on December 6, 2005 - 7:57am.

Unfortunately, the 1st thing you would have to give up is the web site.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 8:42am.

It seems that all of this could easily be transposed on Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or Mormon faith--really any community at all of any kind. So, what makes this distinctly Christian...after you 'set aside' Jesus in step two? (And you might respond that you're not setting aside Jesus...but anything distinctly Christian disappears from your gathering. Offerings and Scripture are held by all major religions and most non-profit organizations.)

Secondly, it seems that even if you want to give up being a 'church' you still want to hold on to the idea of being a part of the universal Church, right? I assume this would be a pretty ecumenical bunch (no problem with that, I applaud it)...but aren't you going to have to believe that you are 'in the boat' with all these other people in the Body of Christ? And won't it be a little awkward when a visitor asks if you're a church, and you say you're not, but you are part of the big 'Church'? - Ryan

Submitted by mattman on December 6, 2005 - 9:12am.

Ryan, I don't really need to talk for Gordon. But this notion of "setting Jesus aside" is really a misreading of what was offered, I think. Maybe setting the Jesus lingo aside, you know all those catch phrases that let people in your church know that you have the "right" theology, would actually be a very good thing. I have been drawn to the emergent conversation for this very reason, the notion that what we say about Jesus is meaningless if it isn't somehow reflected in our lives. I think about that New Testament directive to be prepared to give an account of the hope that is within you. You have to live this stuff FIRST before anyone is going to ask you, "what's up with you?" Then you might be able to talk about Jesus in an authentic way that is more than marketing and catch phrases.

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 9:59am.

Ryan, we would be a distinctly Christian community. We would celebrate the incarnation as well as the resurrection. But in order to become a part of the community, we wouldn't require you to recite some words about Jesus. Instead, we would invite you to live for Jesus. Read Jesus. Find me one place where he encouraged people to talk about him. You will not find it. You will find numerous places where discipleship is defined by giving your life away.
 
The question isn't whether or not Jesus is involved. The question is, what does it take to begin the journey?
 
And given the thousands of people filling pews with their inactive bodies and sleepy minds, people who would say all the right things about Jesus, I should think an alternate model would be refreshing.
 
While some are worried this church model might not lead people to Christ in the end, I would say that the traditional model has a danger of losing Christ along the way.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 12:43pm.

To understand you here...you are saying that community should not be about adhering to certain doctrines or statements about Jesus but rather living out Jesus in our lives. I don't know if any minister from any denomination would disagree with you on that point--this is the point of preaching.

"Find me one place where he encouraged people to talk about him." Do you want to say this? The fact that we "read Jesus" is the Gospels, which is people talking about Jesus. And the Gospels weren't written merely to show Jesus as a pattern for living--but to tell about the particular person of Jesus and his significance. We also don't want to pose the same point to Paul--"so, Paul, when did Jesus encourage you to talk about him?" Paul fights for his church to live like Jesus--but Paul certainly didn't separate practice from theology about Jesus as Christ.

At first you made the point that we need to live Christ vs. speak Christ. But I don't think that you want to make this a dilemma--you want to point out that we need to live out Jesus' teaching along with talking about it. Your position is a corrective to a problem...you think we need to set aside the 'Jesus talk' until we get the living down. (Am I understanding you correctly?)

I don't see the divide between thinking, speaking and living Christ. The only reason we get together is because something has happened. Jesus happened. We aren't waiting for it to start. And if we are sitting around lazily reciting words, we have not yet understood the magnitude of those words. - Ryan

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 6:05pm.

I suppose if you push me, I would acknowledge that the real goal is living for Christ and trusting in what Christ has done. Yes. But I think I will stand by my model.
 
Look, when a community forms, it will always have some priority. I for one am tired of a propositional faith that often - not always -  leads to something that I don't even recognize as Christian.
 
I think it is absolutely valid to allow people with doubts to practice Christianity as a means to work through that doubt. What I intended to say is that such people would be welcome. If you welcome people as members who are struggling with exactly who Jesus is, but are seeking to be disciples, then you have allowed practice to come before theology.
 
The truth is, people do this all the time. They attend church and become a part of things, and begin to practice faith. Sometime along the way they grow as Christians.
 
Your comment about the gospel is well taken. The truth is, that Paul is gospel, as is James, and the communities/individuals that gave us the gospels. Paul is older than the oldest gospel, in fact.
 
And yes, this is something of a reaction. So what? What else can we do if not react and correct?

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 8:28pm.

Thanks for your reply. That it is a reaction was not a criticism--simply that a tug in one direction doesn't exclude the need for the other direction (if there really are two directions), we've simply lost balance. Thanks again. - Ryan

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 10:30am.

It makes me a little sad that such a gathering would be based on a teaching I can't accept, because the rest of it sounds great.

That aside... I don't see why you'd have to let go of anything but your dining room and a few ounces of Folgers once a week. As with writing or any other practice where something's made out of nothing, it seems to me you simply start by starting.

Submitted by notarev on December 6, 2005 - 11:12am.

I'm curious - the anonymous poster said, "It makes me a little sad that such a gathering would be based on a teaching I can't accept "
What is the teaching you can't accept?

Submitted by Keith on December 6, 2005 - 11:49am.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be anonymous.

Pretty much anything with Christ in it.

Submitted by Anonymous User (not verified) on December 6, 2005 - 3:47pm.

********Comment deleted by RLP

Submitted by Keith on December 6, 2005 - 5:15pm.

I wish you peace, Scott.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 10, 2005 - 3:56pm.

Thank you keith

I pray for your salvation.

Scott

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 15, 2005 - 5:03pm.

Scott, I've been mulling how best to answer this, and didn't come up with anything worthwhile. But in glancing over here again, I saw RLP's comment: Tell us what you believe. Tell us YOUR story.
.
So I'll give that a shot.
.
I believe there may or may not be a creator of the universe, but I don't worry about much because my actions will be the same either way. I also believe the question of God's existence--and, by extension, his/her/its wishes, if any--has very little to do with the current forms religion takes.
.
I also believe that there is such thing as bad behavior, that it's good to help people when possible, and that these things can be held as deep convictions without needing to answer to any deity or tradition.
.
As well, I believe religion has been a net negative for the human species; that community, charity, and purpose could be accomplished without it; and that dogmatic irrationality, guilt, and divisiveness are served as well by no other human invention.
.
I don't mean for these to be fightin' words, but rather an sharing of my point of view--one that, since this is largely a Christian place--makes me feel a little vulnerable. And I don't honestly expect you to hear anything of value in it, because you've got an absolute in your mind, and absolutes don't have room for anything else. If I don't hew to your absolute, I'm going to hell--that's what you've learned, and that's what you believe.
.
Okay. I don't believe it--and I see no reason anyone should. I don't see much reason to believe that Jesus was anything more than an insightful guy who said some insightful things. Son of God... miracles... risen... sorry, I just hear stories--stories that are too clearly traced to previous stories (and previous stories, and previous stories) for me to see any one of them as the one that's true. I see them as stories--all of them, including the one you believe.
.
Could I be wrong? Sure. I'm often wrong. But I don't see any reason to think you're right.
.
So when you say you'll pray for my salvation, I hear not any kind of sincere wish for my well being, but an attempt to hammer on the rightness of your story and subject me to your will, despite my preferences or convictions. In my younger days, I'll pray for your salvation would have been fightin' words itself; now, maybe, it's the opening of a dialogue.
.
And please--please, I mean no personal attack. My respect (or lack of it) for people of religion is unrelated to my opinion of religious teachings, and based entirely on a combination of a person's individual nature and my limited ability to discern what that might be. I'm not here as a stealth agent, waiting to drop bombs on the faithful. I'm here because RLP is a good and interesting writer, the fact of a community centered around that is very cool, the people in the chat room are interesting and intelligent, and the questions raised by faith are interesting. If I offended anyone, I apologize sincerely; it was not my intention.

Submitted by paulythebull on December 17, 2005 - 8:47am.

I wish many Christians would think like you do. Humility is sadly lacking in the Christian community.
Pauly the Bull
Beer, Barbecue, and Bible Study

Submitted by Keith on December 17, 2005 - 10:02pm.

I appreciate that--though it's probably the first time anyone's ever accused me of being humble.

Submitted by spidey on December 6, 2005 - 5:36pm.

Because statements like that have great potential to draw someone into genuine faith...

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 10, 2005 - 2:17pm.

Exactly why were my comments deleted from this post?

Interesting policy, not tolerant of the truth? Can't accept the inerrancy of scripture? Jesus talked about the consequences of not believing and they are clear. I guess deleting comments is the precurser to the "gnashing of teeth"

Scott

Submitted by rlp on December 11, 2005 - 7:03pm.

I deleted your comment because you told someone he was going to burn in hell. You can think what you want and believe what you want, and even express yourself here as long as you aren't judging someone else this way.

 

Spare me your explanations. I know that if you truly believe people are going to hell, you feel you should tell them. Fine. But not here. Do it on your own nickel or on your own blog. This is my blog and I get to set the rules. This one is non-negotiable.

 

If I feel you are attacking someone or spending more energy passing judgment on others rather than telling us what you belive, I reserve the right to delete. It's my call to make.

 

Tell us what you believe. Tell us YOUR story. People will hear you better anyway. People tune out someone who tells them they are going to hell based on something read in comments on a blog.

 

As for tolerant...I'm not. Not about this. Not here.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 12:07pm.

as a minister, i can't tell you how much my heart longs for something like that. to be done with "business meetings" and focus on stuff that matters. maybe someday...

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 12:55pm.

I've gone through this thought process myself, and come up with almost exactly the same sort of church ideal. The only thing I would add is that the church would have a meal together once a week, as a central part of the church service. This meal would be understood to be communion.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 1:26pm.

It sounds nice if it was inclusive of all. As a single woman in her 40's who did not grow up a christian I find churches are like exclusive clubs that I am allowed to visit but not join. I went back to visit a small baptist church I had been attending but left out of frustration, their main sunday message was about going to christian camp and how important it was to send you kids there (to pass on the faith) and go as a family. A young married guy even said he went as a single guy with his christian parents (that must be nice). Yet... the multicampus church I have been attending in minnesota said they has no need of a singles group. Having been in the midwest now for 8 years I have no christian single friends. My married friends are not much of a friend. I have found you can not count on them when you are in need. I have given up on 'christian friends' and am now hanging out with nice heathen types some of who have tried church and were not welcomed. Also... In the churches I have visited I have found very few 'pastors' will even try and asked how you are doing. This small church does indeed sound nice if it included everyone. If a single women shows up (will she be handed all the babies to care for in the back room)? Society has changed..... will the divorced single mom be welcomed?

stuck in the land of minnesota ice
shosh63@yahoo.com

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 3:23pm.

Well who can say how an actual group like this would react? That said, most the issues you describe are only a problem with larger groups who are attempting to divide the church up along lines of interest, gender, or age. "What do we do with singles?" "What do we do with toddlers?"  The community I dream of is very small. There is not need to put people in categories when there are a handful of you. All share equally.

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 3:49pm.

Sorry typo - should read - you think you're sad now...

Scott

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 6, 2005 - 4:18pm.

If you're interested in groups whose history reflects "church" just like this, and who still continue to practice it to one degree or another today, check out the Pietists of 17th and 18th century Germany (Philip Jakob Spener), the Anabaptists (Mennonites), or the Church of the Brethren, which combines the two movemements. Amish and Quakers get a lot of attention because they're the most radical, but Mennonites and Brethren are a bit more mainstream and have an ecclesiology is theologically similar to your vision - if not always so in practice.

Submitted by Little Green Friend on December 6, 2005 - 11:48pm.

Awesome thought RLP, and in some ways I believe that's a little closer to what heaven will be like, only minus the preaching. :-)  Although I am curious about one thing. You said that in this church there would be no professional Christians. Given that we live in a world that requires an income, have you thought about what you would do instead if you weren't getting paid for preaching?  I've actually been curious about that for a while now.
 
Come check me out at http://littlegreenfriend.blogspot.com or my movie reviews at http://littlegreenreviews.blogspot.com 1 John 4:19-21

Submitted by rlp on December 6, 2005 - 11:51pm.

No one person would carry such a burden that they needed to be paid. I would write and design websites. I would work a job. I would do whatever people do. Right now my church pays me roughly half a salary. The other half I make on my own. If I wanted to do this, real live preacher better sell some Christmas CDs pronto!
 
Seriously, it was a daydream/fantasy. I had it so I wrote about it. Sometimes something good comes from a dream. you never know.

Submitted by Little Green Friend on December 7, 2005 - 3:59pm.

Well, from what I've read about your church it looks like your little group is already doing something pretty great. I'm still determined to drive down there and witness it for myself. Perhaps sooner than you think.
 
Come check me out at http://littlegreenfriend.blogspot.com or my movie reviews at http://littlegreenreviews.blogspot.com 1 John 4:19-21

Submitted by Anonymous User on December 7, 2005 - 9:57am.

i've been to a church like this...in Cambodia. it's made up of college students who have committed their lives to Christ, withstanding ostracism from their family and friends. they meet together 6 days a week. they have small groups. they come together to comfort one another when one student is distraught over his motorbike being stolen. they make decorations for christmas and hang them up in their "worship room" in their dormitory. there's only one child, but she dances in the middle of the circle that everyone sits in on sundays during worship. the sermon is 45 minutes long, but the weekly testimonial time is an hour or more. and all the students who come have all come to this "church" by word of mouth from other students whose lives have been changed...i've been there, and it's beautiful.

Submitted by JoKeR on December 7, 2005 - 11:04am.

I think that this is a wonderful ideal, but would only work haphazardly.  There could form such small gatherings of honest, supportive people (other commentors have mentioned finding such groups), but as such gatherings come together there will sometimes also be problems such as people who wind up leading the others (think Jim Jones) or betraying trust (endless examples).  One of the advantages of a larger organization is that it can help to provide guidelines and oversight to help avoid such problems which otherwise might not even be recognized until problems had become very serious and people had been hurt. I also think that the social and political nature of people will lead many such groups to become more structured with specific roles for different people.  For example, as monies are collected someone might be chosen to serve as treasurer so that it is clear how to participate in the group mission projects monitarily and so that transparency can be formalized in order to avoid misappropriation of funds (one of the ways in which trust is frequently betrayed).   As the groups grow and split there will still be an interest in continuing association with friends from the different groups.  So a larger facility will eventually be needed (unless this is a group with at least one person of sufficient wealth to have such a facility available as one of the homes).  Such larger gatherings need additional resources: chairs, possibly tables, possibly sound amplification if multiple small groups are gathering so that there are more than a couple dozen people in attendance.  Eventually this could lead to a desire to have a larger, permanent common facility to make it easier to organize these gatherings. Even among friends, disagreements and hurt feelings can occur.  With only an informal arrangement these conflicts can lead to disruptions which could shatter the group.  Even with clear guidelines this can happen, but at least there is a better possibility of being able to recognize and deal with the problems before they destroy the group (IMHO). Another factor is that large groups can manage activities which a small group cannot manage.  I love to sing in small groups, but I also enjoy both attending performances of and participating in larger choral groups.  Intimate worship with a few friends can be wonderful, but so can larger, more formaly structured worship.  A large group can pool resources to bring in guest speakers which a small group likely would not be able to afford on its own.

 Thus, while something good could be found and encouraged in such a small, informal community, I think something would also be lost and there would be a great many failures in attempting such groups.  And those groups which succeed will tend to grow and become more structured.  I think it is the nature of people for this to happen most of the time.  In a way, I liken this dream to my adolescent flirtation with the idea of socialism.  It sounds great: "Each gives according to their ability, each receives according to their need."  However, in practical terms it is very difficult for this to work due to human nature.  Some people will try to get away with doing no more than they have to and some people will want more than they strictly need.  I think that this small group idea can work if the right group of friends (and they would have to be friends) gathers and commits to making it work, but I think there are many risks associated with simply assuming that it can be tried and will succeed by the power of the spirit.  My guess is attempts to form such independent small groups would fail more often than not, and those that succeed would grow beyond being small groups.
Peace,
JoKeR