In recent weeks we’ve posted a number of articles on Out of Ur debating the nature of the church. This is an interesting turn in the conversation. For a few years now church leaders and theologians have been debating the nature and scope of the gospel. It seems that conversation has now spilled over into a debate about the church-what is it and what constitutes a legitimate expression of the church?On Out of Ur, Frank Viola speaks against the notion that any gathering of two or more Christians qualifies as “church.” And an excerpt from a new book features arguments pro and con the validity of internet based congregations.Today I came across a blog post by Kyle Strobel that’s definitely worth reading. Based on what’s being discussed on Ur, Strobel unpacks what he calls “The Dying Church.” Here’s an excerpt:

What I am referring to as a dying church has happened in many evangelical circles long before any of this has come about. Somewhere along the lines, building upon the enlightenment obsession with self (only to be outdone by the postmodern uber-obsession with self), the church became about the individual’s growth and experience. We see this in the Great Awakening and the smaller early American revivals down through the history of evangelicalism.

An instance of this phenomenon can be seen in this quote from Bill Hybels, founding pastor of Willow Creek, “We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’” The church’s task, in other words, is to make people independent, in a similar way that a parents task is to help children leave home and exist on their own two feet. But is that the church’s task? What this is modeling, in my opinion, is the opposite of what the church needs to be doing – not to make people dependent upon a service for their relationship with God, nor to be turning them into “self-feeders,” an odd term if there ever was one – but for the body of Christ to exist as a people, and individuals to exist within that as individuals within the larger body.

Strobel makes an interesting point. One end of the spectrum seems to focus on making church members dependent upon pastors, teachers, and programs. They are fostering institutionalized Christians in the way the penal system fosters dependency among inmates. Once released into the world they struggle to survive and eventually return to the “safety” of institutional life. Of course this is wonderful if you goal is to grow a huge institution dependent upon the financial support of Christians relying on you for their daily bread. The error with this model is building the church around the presumption that it is a religious corporation where the people exist to grow and advance the institution.

On the other end of the spectrum are those pushing the “self-feeding” model that equates mature faith with total independence and individualism. The idea is to grow believers to the point of not needing the church the way a mother bird nurtures her young and then one fateful day pushes them out of the nest to fly (or fall) on their own. The error with this model is that it builds the church around the presumption that it is a family where the people are children on a journey toward autonomy.

The problem is that both of these models are right, and both are wrong. Is the church a corporation?-Well, yes…kinda. In our culture of tax laws, legal structures, budgets, staffs, and facilities the church does, in some cases, need to function as a corporation. Is the church a family?-Well, yes…kinda. It is a relational network that is trying to grow immature people into maturity so they can function, in some cases, as autonomous selves.

The problem is when we take either of these models too far. Which seems to be the issue of debate right now.

Rather than thinking of the church as a corporation (as defined by contemporary culture) why not recapture a more biblical term: ekklesia. This is the New Testament word for assembly usually translated as “church.” It is actually a secular word referring to an organized gathering of people around a common purpose. Surely this will require structures and form, but not necessarily the sort we see in modern secular corporations.

And rather than simply thinking of the church as a family (as defined by contemporary culture) why not recapture the more biblical term: oikos. This is the NT word for household. It’s not speaking of the nuclear family with the primary purpose of raising kids to independence. A household is a larger network of relationships…aunts, uncles, servants, and dependents. An oikos might be quite large, and there is a clear hierarchy of responsibility and authority. And the intent is not that children grow up and leave the household, but that they become mature participants who contribute to the shared work and calling of the group. In other settings we might call it a “clan.”

It seems the pendulum is swinging to extremes in the debate over the church. Turned off by systems of control and organization, some cry out for “self-feeding” Christians who can sit at home and listen to sermon podcasts or engage internet congregations. On the other end is the “command and control” approach of breeding institutionalized Christians completely dependent on the church for their spiritual lifeblood. Neither is the answer, but then again balance has never been a mark of the contemporary American church.

Popularity: 9% [?]