Encouraged by the response to my last post, I feel I should flesh out what I see as the future of interaction between Christians in an area, from a post-congregational perspective.
In this model as I’m envisioning it, there would be no congregations. There would be tons of gatherings of Christians for various purposes, but they would have overlapping membership and leadership, and would be part of a fluid network across the region.
Elders, pastors, deacons, and the like would all still have their roles, but without being split off into congregations. People who are obviously wise and godly will naturally be looked to as leaders, even without formal power or titles or money.
My bias is, clearly, toward forms of church that do not require staff, buildings, or a great deal of overhead. Most of what Christians want and need to do to live out their faith can be done without all the spending that goes on in the name of church today. Let’s consider some examples:
- We continue to hold film & spirituality gatherings on alternating Saturdays
- Matt & Colleen have people over for dinner and fellowship on Wednesday nights
- Gary leads a bible study at his house on Tuesdays
These are real examples, and I think they represent some of the most powerful possibilities for the future of the church.
Some types of gatherings, though, require more overhead and are not sustainable without a more congregational approach. For example, a worship service that requires a large venue and staff is not possible without a gathered, committed group of people who are supporting it financially as well as through their involvement.
Or is it? What if we started to treat events such as worship services for what they are, and started paying for them by selling pay-what-you-can tickets that reflect their true cost? What if their expense was removed from church budgets, or better still, what if churches ceased to have budgets?
With you 100%…this is exactly the kind of “church” I’ve been dreaming of…not house church where we replicate the problems of regular congregations on a smaller scale, but a different sort of network entirely. I think it’s important though that the “bible studies” and such gatherings aren’t simply in the home — we need to envision a “church” that is centered on the local community and meeting the needs of those outside it. No funding, no paid staff, just a bunch of people being genuine with each other and walking through life together with God, and inviting others along on the journey.
Sounds rather idealistic to me..
As long as your church has people in it, it is going to be flawed. I don’t think the structure or hierarchy is the culprit, it is the people.
A good church has leaders that have authority. This authority can and should be used to equip the saints and to keep the heretics from gaining influence.
Facilities are capital, not expenses. I am very happy that there are churches in my neighborhood that have the facilities to hold conferences and concerts and various other events. If the churches did not exist, many of these events would be much more expensive and impractical. I do believe that many of these ministries exist to exault the name of Jesus. And they do this cost effectively.
Spending is an investment. We invest to give talented preachers the time to refine their messages. We invest to give pastors time to visit the sick, and to provide council to those who are struggling. Yes, other people are capable of doing this, but without financial support, they will not be able to be devoted in the same way that a full time person could. I don’t think reaching people for Jesus is a bad investment.
9 women cannot make a baby in a month.
You say you’d like elders, but how can they “shepherd the flock” when there is no set flock? At some point there must be SOME structure, and ‘congregations’ provide that.
Justin - your thinking is pretty much the kind of thing I am concluding. In my town, Southampton UK, population 210,000 there are probably say 5000 people who follow Jesus. That sounds like a small proportion, but if you think of it as a mission team, all working together, each helping their friends to become disciples, all bringing the kingdom of God to their workplaces, homes, neighbourhoods then you can see a good chance of making a difference.
Problem that I see is that our current congregational model seems to mostly stop this form happening rather than help it happen. We spend all our time keep the machine going (budgets, buildings etc). And generally only a few people end up feeling they can use their gifts doing God’s work. I read a flier today headed “Are you considering doing Gospel ministry?”, the implication that you can only do that by being a missionary overseas or a paid church minister of some sort.
Until we have an environment that helps every single person to believe they are chosen by God to do things for him then we are missing out. We are all equal - that means that the “odd” people in our congregations are just as likely to do great things as the people we think will - worship leaders, preachers etc.
Josh, Andy, I don’t think we need structures to allow leaders to do their work. The Apache Indians, amongst other things, are an astonishing example of this. Check out “The Starfish and the Spider” for more. Good leaders will be followed regardless. What was it Jesus said again?
“Elders, pastors, deacons, and the like would all still have their roles, but without being split off into congregations”
You say you’d like elders, but how can they “shepherd the flock” when there is no set flock? At some point there must be SOME structure, and ‘congregations’ provide that.
—
I would look into Acts and the Epistles to answer this question. There were roles of leadership and such, but the structure wasn’t anything close to what we have today. Geography seemed to be the reason for separate congregations, but with travel being so easy in the 21st century I suspect we are not nearly as limited
Hey Justin (and readers)
Anyone here read Barna’a latest book, REVOLUTION? He is a researcher who has studied trends in the church in the USA over the last 20+ years and has a 90% success rate on his predictions.
He is predicting things that have a lot of similarity to what Justin is talking about. In fact, he predicts that by 2025 only about 30% of believers will be involved in a traditional local church - they will be doing stuff like Justin is talking about
So, radical is firing all the paid people? Well, I am not anti-intellectual! I want to hear from someone who has studied the Bible and its context because reading the Bible out of context doesn’t make sense. The more I read, the more I understand. And without this knowledge, it would be too easy to change the message.
Jesus turned the world upside down when he said go the extra mile, but it just sounds “nice” if you don’t know the context. Turn the other cheek is tame if you don’t understand the culture and what position you put the other person in by doing that. Jesus was a radical and we have tamed his message by not really knowing all the story and its context.
The easy way is to blame piad leaders. Maybe the change needs to come from the us as the people of God. Maybe we aren’t asking for paid leaders who know more than how to run an organization. Maybewe don’t really want to hear that the message isn’t about churches or networks or leaders, but about being in relationship with God and with community. Maybe we are the ones who need to learn how to be church…
Rebecca
[...] Baeder’s asking some very interesting church structure questions and coming up with some great ideas. Basically, he’s proposing a “church” community where there’s not a central [...]
Josh,
I would be very surprised if a church with an exclusive building used resources more efficiently than a community center that the church rents when it needs to. I’m not opposed to churches spending money to put on events, but property ownership is a bad idea for tons of reasons.
Josh and Andy,
The concept of a “flock” for leaders to exercise authority over is a bit off from the reality. If people don’t like the authority being exercised over them, they leave - it’s as simple as that.
What we need instead is leadership as influence - godly men and women who model upright living, provide wise counsel, and speak into the lives of those under their influence. This is just as possible under a network model of church as under a congregational model.
Chris - well said. I think there are great possibilities for what can be done in partnership and through networking rather than in the walled gardens of congregations.
Bruce,
I agree that there was a different breakdown in the early church, and that geography played a big role.
I think there were two senses of “the church”: a) The entire group of Christians in a given city, and b) the specific group that met in a given location (e.g. Jason’s house).
There are tons of things, geography included, that look different now. For one thing, we have the internet, and for another we have cars (though perhaps we shouldn’t use them to drive farther for church).
What I don’t think we had in the first century was silos - parallel, nearby groups of Christians who could but did not work together.
Hi Rebecca,
I certainly don’t blame paid Christian leaders, but I think we need to start developing alternatives. The current system is wasteful and unsustainable, but there is a place for paid experts.
I think the lack of biblical expertise in non-paid contexts is one of the greatest challenges, and is one of the weakest points of our church.
Like other matters involving money, such as facilities, I wonder if the best way to fund full-time leaders and experts is through other institutions, such as nonprofits, universities and seminaries, rather than through the local church.
I also think we need to do more to equip non-professional leaders for ministry throughout life. I’m saddened that it would cost me $20,000 to $40,000 to do a seminary degree, since I know I would benefit from it and could use the expertise to serve others. We need to move away from training models that assume a lucrative salary in ministry will pay for such advanced training.
I’m with you on this - definitely. I’m actually part of a “church” that sees things very much in this way.
A question: do you think there might be a place for more traditional paid-staff type churches within the broad network you are talking about? Could these be just one type of gathering among the many? I don’t go to a sunday morning church service, but I think there is still a place for it within this larger network.
The only thing that seems to be missing is accountability. The goal of ecclesiology ought not be to re-invent the church but to re-discover it!
Hi Adam,
Yes, definitely - I’m not saying any churches should stop meeting, just that I see this happening over the long term, as people start to think of a network approach to church as normal. I think there will be less support for the idea of churches as we know them today, and consequently fewer of them, but there is still definitely room for paid staff. I am advocating for the existence and expansions of alternatives, but not to the exclusion of what we have now.
Dad, I think you’re right, but then, I’d say my version is closer to the NT
I’ve been reading your posts about church and the Christian community and I am not sure I know how to respond. Until we moved to Raleigh, we had been in a church with full paid staff and that just seemed to be the way. The church we attend in Raleigh, until three months ago only had unpaid elders and deacons and a volunteer secretary who had a separate line ring at her home. We have always had a building since we started meeting (b/c they outgrew) the donated space a member had in his business. When we started a “paid” evangelist church I was angry…so was my husband. But we didn’t leave because it seems that our community has stuck to it’s roots of being community centered. But I can see where you are coming from. If ever I’ve known someone who is unafraid to question or buck trends, it’s been you. I believe even with our separate congregations there is a Universal church….just like in the days of Paul. The real problem know is all the other division among “Christians.” There are too many groups of “Christians” that have differing fundamental beliefs outside of the God head and belief and Christian living.
Just my thoughts. I hope you are still reading these.
sorry for the typos….I didn’t read until after I hit enter.
[...] Baeder talks about Gathering-Centered Ecclesiology, what he describes as a post-congregational expression of church that sounds a lot like a network [...]
Hey Justin,
I’m totally tracking with what you’re saying. The current structure is terribly broken and a departure from what Christ originally intended.
You need to have BOTH church as body and church as city. Paul planted both. Body churches meet in homes, are overseen by elders and require almost no overhead. The city church is responsible for training disciples (as Paul set up in Ephesus through the School of Tyrannus).
The “paid staff” is ALL itinerant and hold no permanent positions in the body or city church but are sent to begin new works or build up existing ones (for a temporary period). If one of these five fold ministers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers) wants to stay in one place they shouldn’t be paid or the church will begin to build itself around that one person’s gifting.
These three structures - body church, city church (discipleship training center) and the apostolic teams are simple and are all that is required (structurally) to see healthy churches, radical disciples and explosive kingdom expansion.
We all owe our Christian faith to Paul’s commitment to this structure. We should have never veered from it.
When I look at Jesus - I don’t see Him pursuing any particular form of community; I see Him pursuing individuals and calling them into more authentic relationship with Himself and each other.
As a leader in a local congregation, I’m very challenged by institutional forms of churchiness, yet long for opportunities to build up the individuals in their ability to receive all Jesus is and has for us.
I’d love to see increasing numbers of people encouraging each other towards Christ in any and every venue. Surely true love will empower formats that are most fitting for the individuals we reach out to. The problem may be that we are too tied up with any specific format of meeting together instead of being available for whatever is best suited to the both the Christ-following community and the surrounding community throughout a city at any given time. Surely, real freedom lies in a spirit-led flexibility and availability that makes every meeting truly useful for kingdom building. What do you think? Again - great discussion!