May God bless you as you press on in Jesus’ name.

And a shot in the dark here, but why not… any relation to a Julie Ross? If so, I think our wives may be part of the same female, simple church think tank.

Marshall, I’m glad you’ve had a chance to check it out. May the Lord give you people to walk ahead of you, to walk alongside of you, and to walk a few steps behind you as well for the journey that lies ahead.

4.) Steve, you also said:

You made a comment in point #1 of your post,”On the recommendation of one of my seminary mentors, I read Organic Church by Neil Cole, and my structured, organizational church world began to crumble.” I believe we should not let secular books structure our lives…I believe the one True Book that answers all life situations should do that–the Holy Bible.

Steve, I love the heart behind your statement but I think it’s more complex than what I think I hear you saying. For one, is a Christian book (like Organic Church) that talks about God’s mission and teaching on making disciples a “secular” book? I guess in my mind I don’t see it that way. If I use the same sword to cut that you’re using now, then I would say that all your and my and any pastor’s sermons on Sunday are also secular because they are less than what the Bible says. Do you see? Doesn’t God speak truth through gifted teachers? We would be foolish to disregard them, or else there is no Reformation through Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the rest. These are the prophetic voices that reminded us of Grace alone! Faith alone! Scripture alone! Cole is among those I would say are reformers of (not doctrine but) church mission and structure. If we whole-scale choose to ignore them simply because they are not the bible, then we do so at the risk of staying trapped in our traditions that culturally shape our lenses and filter what we think SCRIPTURE is saying.

But let’s grant the heart of your point that we should stick with Scripture and not listen to human teachers. As you mentioned, we are sinners who come with our presuppositions and, in our case, that looks like reading into Scripture what we want. The same problem teachers struggle with is the same problem WE ALL AS INDIVIDUALS STRUGGLE WITH. That’s why Southern plantation owners AND Southern Baptists of old quoted the bible to justify slavery. That’s why Baptists and Presbyterians read the same bible but get different baptismal modes, why pre-millennialists and post-millennialists also arrive at different eschatologies. The problem is not with the bible, but with us — WHICH IS WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES! We all read in different points of view. So we need to proceed with humility and an openness to being corrected. AND we need to be more intellectually honest about the role of our culture and our presuppositions in affecting our hermeneutical lenses. Wouldn’t the reading of alternative Christian voices like Cole’s be worth testing our current traditions and beliefs — especially if they help us get back to what Scripture is saying?

I guess I share your heart but feel that it is important to test our preconceived ideas often through varying voices over the ages and across the world.

=======

5.) You also said:

Just a reminder…not all pastorial ministries fall into the application you have provided in your posting. I disagree with your statement, “Clearly,leadership provided by the Pastor and the Teacher in the church has not gotten the job done in the West; the church reflects this over-focus on inside-the-walls relationships (Pastor) and on orthodoxy and accumulating more theological insight (Teacher) that both have brought to the table post-Reformation.” How do you know this? Have you spoken with ALL individuals whose lives have been changed because of the OTHER teachers and pastors that are faithful in obedience to God’s Word and their service through the church? Or… are you basing this comment on the consistant downfall of mankind due to sin in this world?

Steve, thank you for reminding me that not all pastors and teachers are contributing to the malaise of the West. I accept your point/correction and sincerely hope that I get counted by God among those who have helped more than hurt the Kingdom cause!

While I accept your point, I do not believe the metrics you counter-offer are standard or even necessary. I don’t believe we need to talk to every pastor or parishioner to know what the health of the church in the West is. There are enough studies and measures of the health of the church along different vectors. Lifeway does some. So do universities like Baylor and denominations like the Southern Baptists. Christianity Today, which I read, often has many contemporary statistics. The Pew Center and various newspapers like USA Today also have conducted surveys tracking the state of Christianity in America over the last 10 years. Everything that I have seen has shown reasons for anxiety from impending judgment on the church for losing our way and reasons for intense re-evaluation of methods, strategies and structures.

I will list some now, so you know where I’m coming from:

++Our youth are leaving the church and faith in Jesus en masse and not returning after college. Anywhere from 50%-94% (depending on which study) of them are turning their backs on the church and not coming back. Isn’t this reason to weep? (some are here http://www.onenewsnow.com/Journal/stories.aspx?id=75927)

++The Pew and Baylor University studies show the continuing trend from 1990 to 2008 of people leaving organized church. Here are the opening lines: When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers. The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely.”

++There are entire states in America (like Vermont) where less than 10% of people go to church. Didn’t Christianity come to America through the New England area!

++ 15% of the US population defines themselves as belonging to no religion. Here is an excerpt from the American Religious Identification Survey—conducted by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College.
The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent. Given the estimated growth of the American adult population since the last census from 207 million to 228 million, that reflects an additional 4.7 million ‘Nones.’ Northern New England has now taken over from the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent ‘Nones,’ leading all other states by a full 9 points.
‘Many people thought our 2001 finding was an anomaly,’ [Ariela] Keysar said. We now know it wasn’t. The ‘Nones’ are the only group to have grown in every state of the Union.’
In addition, every single Christian group has decreased in terms of percentage of the US population–and most have declined in raw numbers as well. In regards to atheism, the study says:
‘Only 1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic. But based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God). The number of outright atheists has nearly doubled since 2001, from 900 thousand to 1.6 million.’

Here is [missiologist] Alan Hirsch’s summary on this study:
In sum, the findings show or lead to the conclusion that:
1) Religion and Christianity are on the decline in the US;
2) Protestantism is doing worse than Catholicism due to Catholic immigrants;
3) Mormonism is keeping up with population growth, and Islam and New Age/Wicca are exceeding it;
4) Atheism, while still a small percentage of the population, is on the rise; and
5) “Spirituality,”–or non-organized belief in God–is still vibrant in the US.

++Last I checked in 2,000 (before I did church planting) there were more churches being shut down than started. I’m not sure if that trend has changed.

++Even hearing Willow Creek admit on “Reveal” that they have wasted millions of dollars on programs and not on making disciples speaks volumes about the failure of the Western church if one of its flagships has already evaluated their disciple-making ministry as a failure. Does it not?

++And I’ll end with the Southern Baptist study that is most likely emblematic of all U.S. denominations: International Mission Board (the cross-cultural missionary wing of SBC) has just reported these figures (got this from Guy Muse):
The SBC scene in America in 2006:
- 151 new church plants
- 394,321 baptisms in 2006
There are 44,223 SBC churches in America –> meaning:
- In 2006 an average of 0.0034 new church plants per church.
- In 2006 an average of 9 baptisms per church

9 baptisms per U.S. church per year. No wonder we’re not keeping up even with the population rate!

I think I’ve made my point, so I’ll stop listing statistics. I believe one does not have to do comprehensive qualitative analysis to achieve the pulse of the church. Regardless of who is running the study or what they have to gain from it, the numbers are all low and show decline that — if not addressed — show the West to be in some serious trouble.

Contrast this to what is happening in the Global South and East where there is 10th generation church planting happening in India, where 300,000 people were baptized in May of 2009 in Madya Pradesh, India, where an estimated 100 million have multiplied in the Chinese House Church movement, where Bangladesh has doubled in the amount of Christ-followers just over the last 10 years — stats like these in contrast to what’s happening in America heighten the fact that we are in decline and approaching the trajectory of post-Christian Europe where, in France, only 20% of people have ever seen a Bible before. Could we be heading towards a fate like France’s?

I believe we have enough data from which to make fairly accurate generalizations about the state of the church in our country. I also don’t think any of us are happy to see/hear these stats, especially because these are real people who are dying without Christ and spending eternity away from him. It pains the heart of God, and it should pain us too out of any sort of apathy and over-attachment to tradition that simply is not working.

You probably agree with me that status quo is not an option. The harvest remains plentiful here, but the workers few (Luke 10:1-2). And if only there were MORE actual workers in the harvest field that were being sent out from the barns of all the churches in America.

What are some of your thoughts on how that could happen more using the current resources and paradigms we have?

==========

6.) Steve, you said: ”May God continue to bless you and lead you into a wonderful and continuing ministry for His Kingdom.”

I really do appreciate your blessing, Steve, and your obvious heart to do good and rely on God. I hope that despite our differing points of view, we may both be faithful to what God has in store for us. I welcome any additional thoughts or clarifications you may have.

For the Kingdom,

Mike

Steve,

Thank you for sharing your differing perspective and the charity behind your thoughts. That is an important ingredient for any sort of dialogue of this importance. And I think we would both agree that there is much on the line when we consider that people are dying with Christ as we speak. In fact, by the time I have finished writing this sentence thousands across the world will have perished without ever meeting Jesus. This is a travesty that goes far beyond questions of form, structure and tradition.

As was evident from my post, I do come at this from a different point of view and feel quite passionately about these topics. And I also am prone to long-windedness, so … I would like to continue the discussion and respond to some of your points because I believe these are such important points we’re talking about that deserve rigorous thought and honesty. I will attempt to be true to my passion/conviction while also true to my call to love others as myself. So here goes…

1.) As for the topic of buildings, I do not believe buildings are bad in and of themselves. Nor do I believe that every Christian building is doing nothing redemptive within its walls. I do think, however, that buildings are tied/contributing to a very strong culture that is steeped in centuries of tradition beginning, not in the bible, but actually in history when Church and State were wed (If you want to read a historical analysis of some of our tried and true practices, read Pagan Christianity by George Barna and Frank Viola, but I warn you that it will be very polemic and irritating for most in traditional circles to read. I agree with a lot of Viola but just wish it was less hard-lined and combative). And I believe this culture is lethal to the growth and maturity of the church.

Part of this Christendom culture associated with buildings is attractional (come to us) instead of missional (go to them). You cannot have a separate building called a “sanctuary” and have “worship service” without communicating something attractional and something other-worldly/special. I believe attactionality stands against the practice of the N.T. – including Jesus’s. Attractional Christianity is an Old Covenant paradigm. Jesus models and teaches a completely different paradigm of GOING TO the lost and having us MISSIONARIES change OUR culture to adapt to the lost person’s. It’s no longer Jerusalem but the new Heavens and new earth; no longer a temple, but the body of Christ; no longer turning Gentiles into proselytes with half privileges, but all are equal before Christ. Even in early Acts, the church has a hard time going from the centripetal motion(directed inwards) to centrifugal (outwards); so that’s why God brings persecution and that’s when Acts 1:8 truly begins to unfold! Paul also carries this same missional Modus Operandi as evidenced in I Corinthians 9: to the Jew, Greek, Barbarian, slave, free, HE becomes like one of them to save them (i.e., incarnational, Jesus-style mission). It is OUR responsibility to change OUR culture — not the convert’s. That is the burden of N.T. mission teaching and practice, is it not? But churches since Christendom have not caught on. We still want people to come to us. But in our Post-Modern, Post-Christian state, they are not coming anymore. This is what so many of us pastors in the West are beginning to see (especially where I live in the S.F. Bay area). Easter and Christmas mean less and less to post-Christian people and provide less and less opportunity for attractional churches to “attract” newcomers. The world is changing, but have we caught the original missional impulse that launched Acts, drove Paul, Patrick, the Moravians, William Carey, John Wesley, Lottie Moon, and the rest who understood the missional heart of God? Buildings de facto communicate “come to” – not “go to.”

Sure, the proverbial saying says, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water,” but I’m not convinced that the building is the baby. I think buildings are the bathtub. It is the medium/container that houses the baby (the true church which is PEOPLE) and the scummy bathwater (the culture that prevents true disciple-making from happening). But doesn’t the baby need to live the rest of life OUTSIDE the bathtub? If we keep on feeding and playing with the baby in the tub, then it will never be equipped for life outside the tub. Sure, the culture is the problem, but the culture is SO tied up with the medium of building that it is hard to just teach or preach people out of it when the medium is also part of the message. You cannot have bathwater without a bathtub! Right? Something more radical is needed than just more teaching served within the building itself. Don’t you think? As Willow Creek concluded in their Reveal Study, they need to equip people to be “self-feeders” OUTSIDE of the church building and infrastructure.

A positive example of proper building use is when Paul (for a finite period of time) uses the Hall of Tyrannus for a few years in Ephesus for training in Acts 19, but they met daily and did something there that led to all the province hearing! Talk about good! Something tells me they weren’t “doing” conventional church there (especially since they were already rebuffed at the local synagogue), but that Paul, as a missionary who was learning the power of multiplication and farming with good not-yet-Christian seed, was doing intensive disciple-making training. How else does the message spread out to the surrounding areas since not everyone in Ephesus alone can fit in a lecture hall. If churches everywhere did this in their buildings and empowered lay people to be ministers and missionaries wherever they are, then job well done! But that’s not what usually happens, is it? How often do we check on people’s progress? Walk with them as we send them out? Pray for their progress as they minister? Permit them to start something else — even on a Sunday morning? Most of us don’t ”give away” ministry but hoard it for the talented few on Sunday mornings for the sake of quality control — not a desire to reach the surrounding area. And that is clearly not a N.T. paradigm where all are priests, all hear, all are under only one head named Jesus — not Pastor Mike. I think our parishioners are crying out to be shown something more than taught it. They don’t know how to interact with the lost and don’t even have many lost friends to boot because they are being told to spend most of their time with the saved! If we don’t break that, who will?

So, in my estimation, the blessing received from hearing a sermon and singing songs is not worth the high cost because that comes with the reinforced and unspoken counter-message the culture is telling them: you cannot read, grow, teach and minister outside of the church building context and unless you are educated and ordained. The building has become part of that inadvertent message because it’s only in the building that the “training” and “ministry” happen.

Complex, right?

============

2.) As for your example of Jesus in Luke 4:16 I’m really glad you brought that up, but I don’t believe that text and analogy reinforces the point you’re trying to make.

For one, going to the temple for instruction is limited to Jesus’ pre-ministry days (i.e., his culture as a Jewish boy). Luke 4:16 is merely a past precedent, not a future one. Examples post-Luke 4 provide the future precedent, which, in my study of the occurrences of ”synagogue,” show Jesus using synagogues for HIS ministry purposes. Once Jesus starts His public three year ministry, Mark 1:39 tells us that Jesus uses the synagogue as part of His ministry venue: So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons. Synagogues were one among many places where Jesus (as Paul also did in Acts) would do Kingdom MINISTRY — not sit through passive worship services. Jesus redeemed the purpose of the synagogue itself and injected His own mark. He drove out demons and healed the sick and taught about the gospel of the Kingdom in the synagogues — just like He did everywhere else to people not part of the religious system. So you’re right that it was His past custom to go to the temple for instruction… until this moment when he reads from Isaiah’s scroll and inaugurates His three year ministry. After that, synagogues are a place for proactive and powerful ministry.

So if we were to grant that churches are the modern day synagogues [which I'm still not ready to do], then let’s take it all the way! Let’s make traditional/organized churches the places where the gospel of the Kingdom is heard AND seen in power. If we’re going to make Sundays a performance or “show,” let’s make them the places where it’s JESUS “show” — not the bands’ or the preachers’. Let’s do the real deal, keeping it about Jesus and the Kingdom message and life He brings. This way, people will meet Jesus and be forever transformed in such a way that their entire networks seek Christ (another N.T. pattern). And on top of that, let’s not do it just every week, let’s meet every day! Because when Jesus goes to the Temple in the latter part of his ministry in Luke 19-21 (in preparation for death), He is there EVERY DAY. Let’s blow the tops off churches as we know it. And start to really engage in “one another’s” lives often.

One other reason I believe your point that synagogue/Temple = church today does not match is because my word study of every occurrence of “Temple” in the gospels reveals a different trend. Where synagogues were places for ministry, Temple was a place of rejection, judgement and confrontation. When I looked at the evidence, I saw that Temple had negative connotations to Jesus. Think about it: in Luke 4, Jesus is REJECTED by the religious people of his day from his hometown while in the religious place (”synagogue”) of the day, and the rejection trend continues in the biggest synagogue of them all: the Temple! Following the hometown rejection, Jesus’ ministry opens up to non-synagogue settings too (just like the Parable of the Banquet). In fact, in between the rejection in Nazareth and the rejection in Jerusalem (the beginning and the end) Jesus intentionally goes to the ones who are not inside the Temple on a consistent basis! It’s part of the rejection and judgment theme, is it not? So instead, we hear about him being a “drunken” and a “glutton” and eating at the tables of the scum of the earth: the Levi, Zacchaeus, Mary, the Samaritan Woman, lepers, tax collectors and prostitutes! His “ministry teaching” that he offers is more often OUTSIDE the religious institutions and buildings. Six days a week, He teaches on hillsides, on boats, during meals, in homes, while traveling — all the NATURAL places and spaces of life. This becomes more part of the norm and even shows in the life of the early church.

While this non-synagogue venue is opening up, there is a simultaneous closing up of the Temple venue. When we track occurrences where Jesus is in proximity to the Temple, often He is not even in it! Jesus usually only makes it as far as the Temple courts before He has a confrontation. The Temple after His Nazareth rejection becomes a place of judgment and confrontation — it’s where he has run ins with the teachers of the Law, where he drives out merchants, where He teaches against the establishment. Temple is not positive; it is negative. It’s a place of judgment that will be destroyed and torn in two — symbolizing the new bridge between God and man that does not require holy building or men. All this happens en route to the Spirit residing in the Living Temple. Do you see? So it is counterproductive to use a negative motif like the Temple that Jesus is intending to destroy (similar to infant baptism proponents unadvised reliance on circumcision).

So while I appreciate your quotation of and desire to rely on Scripture, in my reading of the gospels, I see a different pattern and example of Jesus and would not want to use an outdated and negative motif that Jesus permanently altered through the Cross.

=========

3.) As for your statement, “Worship in our local church should be a part of our lives,” I wholeheartedly agree but I just don’t share your definition of “local church” or your implied understanding of “worship” as a fixed event and time and place. Maybe I’m missing something, but can you show me in Scripture where worship means assembling and “going to church”? And doesn’t worship get stripped of its cultic senses through Christ? Hebrews is all about this: Jesus is better than sacrifice, priest, Temple, Sabbath, etc. Worship becomes less cultic and more natural life a la Romans 12:1-2 in what I read.

As for church, I realize these are not traditional points of view, but I still have to ask aloud: did Jesus have a local church? What and where was it? If he had one, it surely wasn’t the synagogue. It was most likely in company with his 12 and unlike anything we’ve ever done. In addition, one generation later, did the early converts in Jerusalem have a local church building? Where was it? It wasn’t Solomon’s Colonnade. It wasn’t even the Temple, for, in Acts, the Temple is sort of like the synagogue for Jesus. It wasn’t a place for free worship but a mission field filled with both seekers and hostile religious people. That’s why Peter preaches in it and converts many! It was not a safe and cozy place for the saved to congregate. The closest thing to a church building in Acts was people’s houses — which is the more natural and everyday life space for people as opposed to religious building. Again, part of the trend of decentralization where literally and figuratively “the church comes home.”

So as I take a closer look at biblical history, I see that not all these early forms carry over neatly to the forms we have of “worship services” in “local churches.”