Bill Easums Observations

The Organic Conversations
The Organic Movement is a kissing cousin to the Incarnational movement and a distant cousin to the Emergent movement. Like the other two it doesn’t see as much of a need for the institutional church has had traditional Christianity. But unlike the Emergent movement it is more literal in its interpretation of Scripture and truth. Neil Cole has long been one of the leading voices for the organic church. In his view the house church is the primary form of church. I have no problem with this view because Cole doesn’t dismiss the institutional church. In fact, one of my partners, Bill Tenny-Brittian, has extensive roots in the house church movement. I see it as a kissing cousin to small groups that multiply.  However, a new voice on the scene is Frank Viola and his book (with Barna), Pagan Christianity. This book stands in direct opposition to the Emergent folks because it takes a more literal approach to the Scripture. His book documents the problems with the institutional church that functions more like a business than the living organism it was created to be. Pagan Christianity is not only a logical sequence to Barna’s recent book, Revolution, it also is an interesting and accurate account of the historic events that have shaped today’s counterfeit form of Christianity.  

Their major criticism of today’s church, other than it being totally non-biblical, is the passivity and the elitism of today’s Church. I agree the passivity and elitism of today’s church is deplorable and has to be addressed if Christianity is ever going be what Jesus wanted it to be. Every church leader ought to read this book and respond to its criticism of modern day Christianity.  Any positive movement away from these two sins of the church and this book has done its job.  Although the authors leave some wiggle room, the only really logical conclusion of their arguments is the end of the institutional church.  Whereas I agree the present form of Christianity isn’t biblical, I still question whether what they suggest can survive much less thrive within our context. Frank Viola’s Reimagining the Church is a logical sequel to his book Pagan Christianity. Like the former book, this one is a meticulous, interesting, disturbing look at the New Testament understanding of the early church.  What’s interesting is I agreed with much of Pagan Christianity but not with much of Reimagining the church. In this book Viola makes his true feelings known- the only legitimate form of Christianity is the house church. Toward the end of his book he compares the renewal of the institutional church to trying to repair a house whose foundation is cracked. 

Before giving my critique of his argument I need to say a couple of things. First, anyone who has followed my writings knows I have been a critic of most of the modern day forms of the institutional church for a long time. My books, Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers and Growing Spiritual Redwoods both point up the need for a more organic approach to the church, but without abandoning the institutional setting. I just don’t feel as if Christianity can reach its potential in an institutional and concert driven society without assuming some form of institution and large venue worship.

Second, we should all be endebted to Viola for his diligent and provocative work. Like the Emergents, Viola has revealed the naked truth – the emperor has no clothes.  Most of the practices of modern day Christianity, including our forms of church, are foreign to Scripture and are in many ways lethal to the development of the kingdom of God. We must hear his argument and apply the applicable implications without throwing the baby (institutional church) out with the bath water.  However, I find Viola’s basic conclusion about the institutional church to be flawed for several reasons: 

1. Viola sees the Trinity as the key to understanding the church (page 33 ff).  But nowhere in the Scriptures is the church described as the reflection of the Trinity. In other words, he uses a man-made doctrine (the Trinity) rather than Scripture to provide the meaning of a biblical term and to repudiate other man made doctrines. I’m not denying the Trinity. I’m just saying it is poor scholarship to use one man made doctrine to denounce another man made doctrine and call it The biblical position on the subject.
2. When comparing the institutional church to the organic church Viola always uses the best possible examples of the organic church and the worst possible examples of institutional church practices. Viola refers to the house church as if It is a panacea where everyone loves everyone. I’ve had enough experience with house churches to know they have as many problems and are as shallow as are most institutional churches.
3.  Throughout the book he totally ignores many of the new forms of church life emerging simply because it is institutional. And he encourages his readers to abandon the institutional church altogether.  I think this is a very deadly game he is playing.
4. Viola acknowledges the need for contextualization (pps. 37-39) when it comes to cultural things in the Scriptures but denies the need to contextualize the Gospel into our present culture.  It’s okay to rule out the need for women to cover their heads in public but it’s not okay to say that in an institutional and concert driven world an institutional church with a formalized worship service might be valid. To him that would be “overcontextualizing,” but who is to say where the line should be drawn? 
5. When it suits him Viola uses a literal translation of the Greek; when it doesn’t he loosing interprets the text to fit his basic premise. Consider his treatment of oversight in the church (Chapter Nine) and authority and submission in Chapter 12.  In both cases he either interprets a clear text into oblivion (pps. 168-176, ) or he totally ignores texts (p. 211) that don’t fit his theme. One of the most flagrant attempts to make the  Scriptures fit his thesis is on page 193 where he proof texts congregational consensus decision making by quoting from Acts 15:22 “with the whole church” and totally ignoring Acts 15:6-7 “The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them.”
6. His use of the term, “family,” to be the basic metaphor for the church goes against most  of  Scripture where the church is described as the “body of Christ,” or the “bride of Christ” (Chapter Five).  If Christianity has to be contextualized to the world in which it finds itself to be effective, then what Viola is advocating will be the death of Christianity in the West.  Without the institution and without large venue worship, the vast majority of people in this country will never experience Jesus. The house church movement has simply not shown itself to have long term sustainability.  I have no problem with the house church movement. I pray it flourishes; but I also pray the institutional form of Christianity can take the legitimate violations of biblical principles Viola points out and put them into practice.  And what would this look like?
7. Church planting would be the number one mission of all of God’s people and Apostolic church overseers would emerge as the most important role in the church.
8. The distinction between laity and clergy would be replaced by the priesthood of all believers and preaching and teaching would be based on affirmed gifts rather than on academic authority.
9. Leadership would always be a shared leadership (Chapters Eight and Nine). But still there needs to be a “first among equals” for Christianity to reach its potential in our society.  However, leadership must be earned, not taken. The primary roles of this leadership would be to servant (role model), motivate, and mold.
10. Christians would understand that church is not something they “go to” but is something they are wherever two or three of them gather.
11. Every believer would be a participant in a regular small group where all the pastoral care and edification would be received (Chapter Four).
12. The large venue worship would be solely for evangelistic purposes rather than the care and feeding of a passive audience (p. 49).
13. The Lord’s Supper would never be taken in public worship but would be experienced in the small group where there is complete unity and agreement and “friendship intimacy” (Chapter Three).
14. All authority would have to be earned within the congregation so most of the pastors and staff would be raised up from within the congregation (Chapter Nine).
15. Denominations would no longer be needed as people would understand that there is only one church in each city and our unity would be based on our acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Chapter Six).
16. The Church would understand that it is the Body and Bride of Christ and act accordingly which means unity, harmony, and a common purpose prevail (Chapter Five).
17.  Decision making would prerogative  of the Elders (shared leadership team) of the church as is demonstrated in Acts 15 (you should note that Viola interprets this text into oblivion with some strange story that brings the entire Jerusalem church into  the decision making process p.193). I find nothing in Viola’s writings that can’t be applied to the institutional church. Sure, it will cause much consternation in most congregations. But we still won’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Viola’s book would be far more appealing if he left room for contextualizing the church into our society and eliminating all of the bad baggage of established Christianity.

So here’s my question not so much to the Organic folks but to the Attractional and Reproductive folks: how can we take the unarguable truths in this book and apply them to our present day context?

My partner, Bill Tenny-Brittian, and I will be doing two events in October that are open to the public. It would be great to see you there. You can click on the graphic for details

Convergence Cleveland Oct. 17-18

Convergence Chicago Oct. 24-25

The Incarnational Conversations 

This is the third in a series of observations on some of the more significant conversations occuring within Christianity that will have a profound impact on the church. You might want to  first read the two previous posts on this theme. 

Alan Hirsch is the primary mover and shaker of the Incarnational movement. You can see his blog at http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/. You can also click here to see a book review I did of his book, The Forgotten Ways.

Alan’s primary message is the U.S. Christianity is only reaching 35% of the population and that number is shrinking. In order to reach the rest of the postmoderns we must go back to first century ways of doing ministry and that spells trouble for the institutional church.

Incarnational church leaders focus on going to where people are instead of attracting people to come to them. The incarnational church (most of which are fledglings groups) sends people out into the culture to spread the seeds of Christianity. Having a worship service and doing things to attract people to the church aren’t a concern. Relationships and friendships among the neighborhoods where one lives are their primary concern.  The Incarnational model is seeking to bring the church back to its historical roots and free it from its institutionally dominated understanding of what it means to be a church.  However, taken to its ultimate conclusion, the institutional church isn’t needed. Most of the incarnational churches exist apart from any form of institutional church and are more akin to house churches.

Alan’s first book, The Shaping of Things to Come, is a book that should be read by every Christian who knows something is wrong with today’s version of Christianity but can’t put their finger on what it is. The authors challenge every facet of Christianity today from ordination to the traditional creeds and offer a new, but ancient, way forward. It is well worth the read because it will open your eyes to some possible ways to redo or undo your ministry. 

Throughout the book I found myself saying “Yes, But!” On one level I envy the journey on which they invite us to join them. On another level I wonder what will become of the institutional church if what they propose is followed.  They are surely on to something, but following it might totally destroy the church as we know it. They go far beyond “reshaping” or talking about innovation as is found on the cover.  A better title for the book might be “The Rewiring of Things to Come: The Beginning of a Revolution.”

The authors are advocating a wholesale rewiring of Christianity back its 21st century roots. They actually show how to be the church without being institutional at all. They talk about a missional, incarnational, messianic, apostolic church that is found within the surrounding community rather than within the four walls of a church.

Although I agree with Hirsch about the church forgetting what it means to be the church, I feel it’s impossible for Christianity to survive without the institution in a society where institutions are part of the basic fabric of life. I know Christianity flourished under Mao in China without any institutions, but that was China in a day when public institutions were not part of the fabric of society.

So, here’s my question in the Incarnationalists: Should we downplay the importance of the institutional church just because the vast majority of them are ineffective and do not reflect the spirit of Christ or should we seek to return them to their biblical roots? Can a totally non-institutional church thrive in a society based totally on institutions? If you really hold  to your beliefs, why do you still leave room for the institutional church?

Next week I will take a look at the Organic Movement, which some might put in the same camp as the Incarnationalists, but I don’t. I will give special attention to Viola’s new book, Reimagining Church.
 

The Emergent Conversations 

(If you haven’t read the previous post you might want to do so for clarification)  Although no one person speaks for the Emergents, so far the primary mover and shaker of this movement is clearly Brian McLaren. His book, A Generous Orthodoxy, is a basic primer for Emergents. But recently Tony Jones, the National Coordinator of Emergent Village has become one of the most helpful voices for those trying to understand Emergents.  His book, The New Christians, is the best explanation of Emergents to date (although I don’t think the title helps the conversation.)  

If you have followed my writings the past year you know I have voiced some concerns about the direction the Emergent movement is going, especially in the writings of Brian. However, The New Christians has addressed many of my concerns to the point that I’m not quite as uncomfortable with their inquiries into the meaning of Scripture. I recommend anyone read Appendix B “A Response to our Critics.” It is worth the price of the book. Jones clearly states that Emergents believe that no one comes to God except through Jesus. That should put many questions to rest and cause angst to others, but it settles my primary concern.  

Emergents are hard to describe http://www.emergentvillage.com/.  The National Park world (prior to 1980s) was an “either/or” world. You either did it our way or there was the highway. The Jungle (today’s world) is what I refer to as a “Both/and” world. Emergents practice a “both/and” approach to issues which makes it very hard to pin them down. They prefer shades of gray, albeit deep shades of gray, to something that is clearly definitive. 

The best way to describe this movement is to start with their basic message: Emergents believe that it is no longer possible to hold on to the tenets and practices of modern day Christianity for two reasons; they are flawed and they don’t relate to today’s world. The postmodern world requires a new view of faith and new kind of Christian- a postmodern faith and a postmodern Christian.  

The Emergent movement is all about entering into conversations about what it means to be a Christian in a postmodern world. The conversations focus around a yet to be determined theology and new way of life. The more conversations the closer they might come to truth. However, to them truth is more beauty more than fact. Truth is messy and beautiful but never objective or eternally certain. Emergents will speak with passion and urgency but never with certainty. To them there is no certainty, only what one believes today, at this moment, in this locale. In addition, they seem to leave open the option of their theology evolving beyond what we know as Scripture as well as a total reinterpretation of that Scripture. The good thing about Emergents is they are a gentle people actively and graciously seeking dialogue with divergent forms of thought.   

The Key issue I have with the Emergent movement is this – Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language within the community of faith at this particular time in history in this particular place with this particular community? The emerging movement says we can never really know the reality of the Gospel apart from our communal language- that is our talk within the community constructs the gospel- which brings us very close to relativism. When accused of being relativistic in their thought they respond by saying everything is relative. Emergents remind me more of philosophers than theologians.
 
The Emergents want to change the theological dialogue so that it can have better conversation with the theology of the marketplace.  They are rethinking how theology changes in culture, a very dangerous approach to ministry. I don’t feel as if we have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to reach the postmodern world. That’s far too much compromise. We also don’t have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to address the issues raised by these emerging leaders.   

However, I do agree with them that we must adopt new methods of reaching the new world. Like we’ve heard many times- we must be in the world but not of the world. I agree with the authors that we can’t come on to postmoderns like gangbusters with an elitist attitude as if we have THE truth. I agree with them that the four spiritual laws no longer work. I agree with them that if we lead from the big story we are dead in the water. I agree with them (and with Viola) that the distinction between clergy and laity is not biblical and shouldn’t exist. I agree with them that the new world sees everything in shades of gray. But I do not agree that Christians must feel they have to be two steps removed from the reality of the Gospel in order to reach this new world. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. The clearer a leader is about the reality of gospel and the direction of their calling the more likely that person is to lead a growing and thriving community of faith.  

I still don’t feel the Emergent movement is going to be the primary shaper of the new Christian world. I think it will be a part of it, but only a small part. Look at most of the emerging churches-they are small and you seldom hear about them. That’s because they believe and live as if small is better than big. They don’t even believe in planting churches in order to reach more people, nor do they believe in doing things to get people to come to their church.  They plant churches only to save themselves, whatever that means.  

So here’s my question for the Emergents. In a world where so many people are searching for spiritual guidance from so many venues, can you offer to take the position that Christians have to become like them in order to offer the direction they are seeking? Isn’t the Gospel always counter to the culture? Do you really believe broken people are going to be satisfied with never being eternally certain about anything? Do you really think people can have a personal relationship with Jesus when they know all that relationship consists of is the construct of their communal language? Do you really believe that people will believe that words brought Jesus back from the dead? Do you really believe you can reach the bulk of the population when you take the conversation as deep as you do? Or are you really only concerned with appealing to philosophers? 

The Emergent movement is providing a marvelous conversation for all of us. They have revealed the naked truth- the emperor has no clothes. The established Christian church is basically dead and in need of A Second Resurrection. For that we can be grateful and enjoy the conversation to a point. It should continue to be a fun ride for those who are secure enough to question their own understanding of reality.

For an ongoing conversation on Emergents between Bill Easum and Tony Jones and others click here

Next week the Incarnational Conversations.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

Many who follow my writing know that two of my favorite metaphors for describing the signs of the times are National Park and Jungle (you might want to read this before reading on). Briefly what I mean by this is that prior to the 1980s we lived in what I describe as a National Park world. If you let your imagination run wild with this metaphor you will conjure up many images about the world that was, but for now just think of the world prior to 1980 as a tame, either/or world that played by a set of well known rules. Now change mindsets and think about the world since 1990 as a jungle and let you imagination run wild as you compare the two metaphors, but for now think of the emerging world as a wild and unsafe place of both/and that has no established rules other than the law of the jungle- survival.

In this wild, unruly world, a growing conversation is taking place that no Christian leader can afford to ignore.  The players in this conversation are multiplying like rabbits.  As we will see in a moment, much of the future of Western Christianity lies at the heart of this conversation. So we had better pay attention.

Here’s a list of the primary players as of now

The Emergent Folks
The Incarnational Folks
The Organic Folks
The Attractional Folks
The Reproductive Folks

Here is the where they fall on my continuum with the far left being a radical departure from traditional Christianity and the far right being the closest to third century Christianity.

Emergent —Incarnational — Organic — Attractional –Reproductive

Several books are shaping this conversation. Here is a list of some of them based on the above continuum:

Emergent

The New Christians by Tony Jones
Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, by D.A. Carson
Everything Must Change, by Brian McLaren
A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian McLaren
A Christianity Worth Believing, Doug Pagitt
Truth and the New Kind of Christian, R. Scott Smith
They Like Jesus But Not the Church, Dan Kimball

Not Emergent Anymore

Radical Reformission, by Mark Driscoll

Incarnational

The Shaping of Things to Come, by Alan Hirsch
The  Forgotten Ways  by Alan Hirsch

Almost  Incarnational

The Tangible Kingdom, by Halter and Smay
Pagan Christianity, Viola and Barna

Organic

The Organic Church, by Neil Cole
Inside the Organic Church by Bob Whitesell

Attractional

The Externally Focused Church, Rusaw and Swanson
The Purpose Driven Church, Warren
The American Church in Crises, Olsen

Reproductive

The Multiplying Church, by Roberts
Missional Leader, Roxburg
A Second Resurrection, by Easum
Unfreezing Moves, by Easum
The Sticky Church, Osborne (TBR)

The Conversations of Our Time

This conversation is primarily focused on the nature and mission of the church in the postmodern world as well as how Scripture is interpreted. Over the next few weeks I will try to shape each of these conversations and their implications.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

From time to time, I write about movements that I see emerging. The last three movements I wrote about were local churches establishing and staffing church planting centers within their churches, congregations with more than one location, and churches and organizations whose goal is to reach their city for Christ.  All three of these movements continue to gain momentum. Now, I want to focus on another movement that is having a profound effect on American Protestantism and I want to couple it with the three movements already mentioned. 

Three forms of church governance dominate the church landscape today: congregational, representative democracy, and apostolic or pastor led. Feelings usually run high as to which one of these is the best form of governance.  However, most of the churches using forms of congregational or representative democracy are leftovers from Modernity, and are either dying or on a plateau.  On the other hand, the vast majority of thriving churches are apostolic or pastor led.  We’ve also noted that the thriving churches using congregational and representative forms of governance have figured out how to circumvent as much of their governance systems as possible.   Over the past 15 years, I have had the opportunity to observe some of

  The rule of thumb of this new movement – the less democracy in the church the more authentic and effective the church is in advancing the Kingdom of

I just finished the first round of consulting and training with the Action Chapel International. It is a movement of Pentecostal churches out of Ghana that has gone world-wide over the past twenty years and is now in the U.S.  My role is to help them bring some order to the movement without turning it into a denomination- the archbishop is very clear on that point. We put a loose structure in place that will allow them to truly be one church in one location throughout the world. Now my role is to provide ongoing training.

The reason I’m telling you this is because of something that happened the last day that made my trip. Keep in mind that we were imposing order on a movement that for twenty years was allowed to run with the wind. I was a bit concerned how well this new twist would be received. When we finished unfolding the new structure and accountability system, the Archbishop led the group in another round of prayer-centered worship. When he finished praying, without any prompting the entire room broke into clapping and praise. All I could think of was, now this is the way it should be in the church- when the spiritual leader speaks, the church rejoices.

I’m sure you’ve been in meetings where radical change was being unfolded to a board or congregation and the response was vastly different.  Somehow in most of the U. S. churches, especially those that are declining, pastors are not considered to be the spiritual leader of the congregation. Instead, they are looked upon as the servant of the congregation who is suppose to take care of the congregation the way a caretaker of a museum takes care of the artifacts. 

How did we come to this when the Bible is very clear about the spiritual authority of the Elders (pastors). They are to be respected and their leadership is to be followed or they are to be replaced.  Somehow we have replaced biblical authority with a demonic form of democracy. But we have no written record of God leading through democracy. Yet most churches impose some form of democracy on their people.

But here’s the catch- democracy and Holy Spirit are like oil and water- they don’t mix, ever. Isn’t it time we owned up to our sin of replacing biblical authority with democracy, and throw the villain out?

I talked about this in the opening chapter of the book I co-authored with Bill Cornelius, Go Big: How to Have Explosive Growth.  Anytime you have an organization with meeting-layered Democracy and consensus building, you hamstring the power of the Holy Spirit and you reduce the effectiveness of God’s movement in the world.

See you at the chaos.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

I first wrote about movements in my book Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus into the Mission Field.   I described Christianity as an organic movement and compared it to modern day religion. God intended for Christianity to be a movement not a religion.  The problem is Christianity has been highjacked by our passion for democracy.

Movements only happen when an individual is free enough to take on the mantel of an apostle. Democracy hates an apostle with a passion- thus we have been free from movements in the U.S. for some time now.

However, over the past few years I’ve watched the emergence of a number of apostolic leaders who are changing the face of Christianity in the U.S.  In an article titled “The Apostolic Movement of our Time, I wrote the following about this new movement

• One quality stands out above all the rest in every one of these pastors – they pastor as spiritual leaders who listen to God rather than corporate leaders who lead based on democratic rule. 
• The rule of thumb of this new movement – the less democracy in the church the more authentic and effective the church is in advancing the Kingdom of God!

 You can read the full article here.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

This week I’ve been working with a charismatic movement of some 300 churches that were planted out of Ghana (Action Chapel International) led by Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams. They had pulled together several of their key pastors from over the world to work out a structure to allow them to explode throughout the world. The presently have churches in Ghana, Netherlands, U.S., London, Italy, Germany, Benin, Nigeria, Cdlvoire, Sierra Leone and Liberia and are opening churches in Asia and the Middle East.  Their goal is 150 new churches in 2009.

They are functioning like a multi site church- one church in many locations. Like many movements that take off explosively they have no way of holding all of the leaders accountable financially and missionally. Getting  hole or the  financial is the easy part- you just start tracking and holding each church accountable for a certain amount coming back into the movement. Getting hold of the missional is more difficult.

In the mind of the Archbishop, the movement exists to plant churches throughout the world. This means that each church has to be willing to assist in the planting of churches, both with money and with planters.

The problem is this mission has never been intentionally articulated and recast on a regular basis. It has been a practice but not a clearly defined mandate that could hold all the churches accountable.

So we had to nail down the vision of the movement- to make Christ known throughout the world through the multiplication of Action Chapel International Churches. Once that was done I had to say, from hence forth all churches that remain in this movement must be on board with financially and missionally supporting the vision. 

Movements have to have two things to survive – trust in the founder and team players throughout the movement.  There can be no deviation on the vision. They exist to plant churches throughout the world and everyone must commit to that vision.

The buy in during the second day was incredible. The Archbishop had embedded his church planting gene in his lieutenants. Now they are ready to move forward.

I’ve been thinking and writing about movements now for several years beginning with my book Unfreezing Moves. Lately I’ve worked on a paper titled The Anatomy of a Movement. History hasn’t been kind to movements. The only way they survive is if the founder leaves a fluid system in place that carries on his or her spirit and raises up an Elisha who is as charismatic as he or she is.

I have to say I’m having a ball working with this group and hope to have more opportunities to work with them and to learn from them. They are much different from me but they are on the same mission I’m on- to make Jesus known throughout the world.

I have one more day with the group and then I’m home for a three week vacation. I  normally don’t work in the summer, but this summer has offered too many rare opportunities to turn down.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com