|
 |
|
|
|
Since I left institutional Christianity twenty years ago, I have groped for language to communicate the kind of church experience I have lived in since that time. About fifteen years ago, I began using the term "organic church." Interesting, this word has recently become somewhat of a clay word, being molded and shaped to mean a variety of different things by a variety of different people.
T. Austin-Sparks is the man who deserves credit for this term. Here’s his definition:
"God's way and law of fullness is that of organic life. In the Divine order, life produces its own organism, whether it be a vegetable, animal, human or spiritual. This means that everything comes from the inside. Function, order and fruit issue from this law of life within. It was solely on this principle that what we have in the New Testament came into being. Organized Christianity has entirely reversed this order."
The phrase, "the organic expression of the church" was a favorite of Sparks’. I’ve yet to find a better phrase to improve upon it.
By "organic church," I mean a non-traditional church that is born out of spiritual life instead of being constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic church life is a grass roots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, open-participatory meetings (opposed to pastor-to-pew services), non-hierarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional Leader and Head of the gathering. Put another way, organic church life is the "experience" of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, it's the fellowship of the Triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings.
To use an illustration, if I try to create an orange in a laboratory by employing human ingenuity and organizational skills, the lab-created orange would not be organic. But if I plant an orange seed into the ground and it produces an orange tree, the tree is organic.
In the same way, whenever we sin-scarred mortals try to create a church the same way we would start a business corporation, we are defying the organic principle of church life. An organic church is one that is naturally produced when a group of people have encountered Jesus Christ in reality (external ecclesiastical props being unnecessary) and the DNA of the church is free to work without hindrance. In short, "organic church" describes a kind of church life that embodies the biblical teaching that the church is a spiritual organism and not an institutional organization.
To put it in sentence, organic church is not a theater with a script. It’s a lifestyle—a spontaneous journey with the Lord Jesus and His disciples in close-knit community.
The organic church can be contrasted with the "institutional church." By the "institutional church," I mean a church that is created by human organization, chain-of-command styled leadership, and institutional programs. It’s marked by a weekly order of worship (or mass) officiated by a pastor or priest. It’s controlled by a top-down hierarchical organization and sociological slots (called "offices") that people fill. The institutional church has often been called "the traditional church," "the organized church," and "the audience church." Congregants watch a religious performance once or twice a week, and then retreat home to live their individual Christian lives.
Leadership is hierarchical in the institutional church, and Christians are divided into "clergy" and "laity" (or their equivalent—"pastors" and "laymen"). Granted, some institutional churches have small group meetings outside of weekly church services where members get a taste of community life. But this community life is not the driving force of the church. And a hierarchical leadership structure is in place in the small group gatherings. Someone is always "in charge," and the group is ultimately under the authority and restrictions of the pastor or priest.
We can think of the difference between organic churches and traditional churches this way. When God's people assemble together on the basis of the organizational principles that run General Motors and Microsoft, we call it an institutional church. But when God's people assemble together on the basis of the life of God, we call it an organic church.
One of the common mistakes that is made today is to confuse all house churches with organic churches. The reason is simple. Not all house churches are organic. Some are quite institutional.
I have often been asked: "How does a house church operate?" That's impossible to answer because the term "house church" is about as wide an umbrella as the word "plant." To my mind, asking how a house church operates is like asking, "What does a plant look like?" There are countless kinds of plants -- weeds, shrubs, trees, bushes, vines, etc. In the same way, there are countless kinds of house churches. I've seen so many types and varieties over the years that it seems that the only thing they all have in common is that they meet in a home.
"Organic church," therefore, best describes the kinds of churches that I and many other Christians around the world have experienced, lived in, and enjoyed. And it's the kind of church that I believe the Lord is raising up in this hour. Add to that, the church that we find in the New Testament was above all things . . . organic. So it seems to me anyway.
FRANK VIOLA is an influential voice in the contemporary house church movement. For the last twenty years, he has been gathering with organic house churches in the United States. Frank has written eight revolutionary books on radical church restoration, including Pagan Christianity, God’s Ultimate Passion, The Untold Story of the New Testament Church, Rethinking the Wineskin, and Who Is Your Covering? He is a nationally recognized expert on new trends for the church, holds conferences on the deeper Christian life, and is actively engaged in planting New Testament-styled churches. His website contains many free resources designed to enrich the spiritual lives of God’s people.
|
Thank you for the contrast between institutional and organic church. I'm not 20 years, but only about 3 years, removed from institutional church. I hope it gets easier over time to identify and separate the defining aspects of the two. I have an issue with one statement made, "organic church is not a theater with a script". Does that mean that forethought, planning, and preparation are non-existent within the organic church? Is absolutely everything "spontaneous"? I just can't imagine even a spiritual organism without some guidance or "white noise" from some extraneous force, such as in a leader or mentor/guide in the case of a house church. Or does this statement perhaps intend to imply that what works in one place won't necessarily work in another, such as the same scripted play being performed by various actors in multiple venues. Anyone care to clarify?
Great article!
Scott- I wanted to echo your request for further clarification, specifically around what you called a "leader or mentor/guide in the case of a house church." I really would like to understand better how people accomplish this, because I'm honestly very interested in some type of "organic church"...
Scott, being quite familiar with Frank's writings, I think what he means is this: A service in the institutional church looks like this regardless of denomination (and probably nation as well, I'm in New Zealand but i suspect American services look very similar): 30 mins singing followed by notices, sending children to childrens church, maybe communion and then 45 minute sermon from pastor and then maybe some singing and prayer at the end. That is a script followed by many churches world-wide. An organic church will not follow a script like this. It will be slightly or completely different each time. Maybe one time only singing, next time only teaching from various people. Or a combination of singing, praying, prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting, healing, laughing, crying, teaching, playing. People are still to prepare for the meeting, but all will be doing this, not just those in leadership. As for leader or mentor/guide it is very important that the group does not rely upon this person or even group of people but on Jesus Spirit. For this reason Paul the apostle would remain in a certain town for 3-6 months and then move on, while staying in contact with the churches he had helped get started.
I really like Frank. I read a few of his books a few years ago and I feel he has some good things to say on some of the rigid structure the church has taken on.
However let us not forget a few things. First, man needs some order, God always had someone in charge from Old Testament to New. I totally disagree with the responsibilities heaped upon a pastor to be "superman," but there should be "teachers, pastors, prophets. etc" as Paul put it. Secondly, in the Acts 2 model (which we are pretty much talking about now, notice how we've already turned it into a business term?) the disciples called all the shots, yes people freely gathered, ate together, lived together, but also followed the "disciples teachings." I think some of us are so burned by all the ills of the church we've experienced that we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Should we put the focus mainly on the gathering in small groups as being the more important? Yes. Should living out your faith daily in your church community and the community yet to know Christ be of high importance? Yes. Should we forsake the gathering of all the saints to worship God at one time during the week? I don't think so.
In closing I say that letting more things organically flow in our churches should be of top priority, but lets keep Sunday, but maybe re-think the reason we are there. Just imagine 1,000s of organic churches be started by the people that just got saved a short time ago and have no idea what they believe yet, and then them teaching theology to people even newer to the faith, sounds a little scary to me.
|
|
|
|
(9)
Thank you for the contrast between institutional and organic church. I'm not 20 years, but only about 3 years, removed from institutional church. I hope it gets easier over time to identify and separate the defining aspects of the two. I have an issue with one statement made, "organic church is not a theater with a script". Does that mean that forethought, planning, and preparation are non-existent within the organic church? Is absolutely everything "spontaneous"? I just can't imagine even a spiritual organism without some guidance or "white noise" from some extraneous force, such as in a leader or mentor/guide in the case of a house church. Or does this statement perhaps intend to imply that what works in one place won't necessarily work in another, such as the same scripted play being performed by various actors in multiple venues. Anyone care to clarify? Posted by Scott Blankenship | Posted at 09/11/2007 11:37 AM
Great article!
Scott- I wanted to echo your request for further clarification, specifically around what you called a "leader or mentor/guide in the case of a house church." I really would like to understand better how people accomplish this, because I'm honestly very interested in some type of "organic church"...
Posted by curtis | Posted at 09/13/2007 10:31 AMScott, being quite familiar with Frank's writings, I think what he means is this: A service in the institutional church looks like this regardless of denomination (and probably nation as well, I'm in New Zealand but i suspect American services look very similar): 30 mins singing followed by notices, sending children to childrens church, maybe communion and then 45 minute sermon from pastor and then maybe some singing and prayer at the end. That is a script followed by many churches world-wide. An organic church will not follow a script like this. It will be slightly or completely different each time. Maybe one time only singing, next time only teaching from various people. Or a combination of singing, praying, prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting, healing, laughing, crying, teaching, playing. People are still to prepare for the meeting, but all will be doing this, not just those in leadership. As for leader or mentor/guide it is very important that the group does not rely upon this person or even group of people but on Jesus Spirit. For this reason Paul the apostle would remain in a certain town for 3-6 months and then move on, while staying in contact with the churches he had helped get started. Posted by David | Posted at 09/14/2007 5:01 PM
I really like Frank. I read a few of his books a few years ago and I feel he has some good things to say on some of the rigid structure the church has taken on.
However let us not forget a few things. First, man needs some order, God always had someone in charge from Old Testament to New. I totally disagree with the responsibilities heaped upon a pastor to be "superman," but there should be "teachers, pastors, prophets. etc" as Paul put it. Secondly, in the Acts 2 model (which we are pretty much talking about now, notice how we've already turned it into a business term?) the disciples called all the shots, yes people freely gathered, ate together, lived together, but also followed the "disciples teachings." I think some of us are so burned by all the ills of the church we've experienced that we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Should we put the focus mainly on the gathering in small groups as being the more important? Yes. Should living out your faith daily in your church community and the community yet to know Christ be of high importance? Yes. Should we forsake the gathering of all the saints to worship God at one time during the week? I don't think so.
In closing I say that letting more things organically flow in our churches should be of top priority, but lets keep Sunday, but maybe re-think the reason we are there. Just imagine 1,000s of organic churches be started by the people that just got saved a short time ago and have no idea what they believe yet, and then them teaching theology to people even newer to the faith, sounds a little scary to me.
Posted by Gerimiah | Posted at 09/20/2007 6:37 AM