Good thoughts. Came across a link to your post and resonated with the heart of what you’re talking about so thought I’d leave you a note.

I’ve been grappling with the same search to define the church, and after pouring over the New Testament, I’ve written down some (initial) thoughts on my blog if you’re interested in seeing them:

http://www.brumme.com/articles/EEuyuFEFFZmaqxQiVe.shtml

blessings as you seek after Him!

I didn’t take the time…kids were due back in five minutes… to respond to form/function. What you said is completely fair. I know a guy can get too hung up slicing hairs off the meanings of words, but as I have pondered “Why is it so?” about so many church issues I keep coming back to the family of believers needs to function more like a family, a living organism, and less like an organization. As function is left as a trust in the hands of an inspiring God full of goodness, then our focus becomes more of Him and of being children of Himtogether.

Yet what I see is large discussions about the proper functioning of the organization, which then dictates form must adhere to certain criteria to enable and push forward the organization.
People saved and unsaved end up not being served as a result.

It is a given, some organizations are keen and have well targeted programs that often do much good.
Here, I hear those most sobering words, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”

I am not anti-organization. Good organization is a very useful tool.
Should God expand the dreams of our hearts into a network of churches in homes across our county, we will have many organizational issues that need administration. No?

Sorry, I did not e-mail back. Yep, we’re coming. The e-mailing I have done was for the men’s group, I have been working on my wood pile–I’ll be glad when May gets here–and working some on my latest oil painting. I really should have let you know. I’ll be more responsible in the future. 8^)

1. Are you off work? You posted both yesterday and today at times that surprised me. Hope you’re not sick or anything.

2. Did you get my email last week (since our history is so bad with emails getting through to each other!!) about Sunday evening’s open house fellowship?

God bless!
steve

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about your “form vs. function” comments, and I think (as I explained to Ray in my reply on the other post) that is a big part of the discussion for me.

The function is to enable maturing believers to do just that — mature. The form does not have to be anything specifically institutionalized, but should not inhibit the function.

Is that a fair way of saying it?

steve (who’s about to start using SCS in response to ded and RDA….hehe)

rda, you are very right to bring into focus that example. This exchange highlights for me a fact with which we all wrestle. We each bring interpretation and rationalization to the Scripture.

Does an example in the NT Scripture equal a mandate to do the same? If so, then all women should cover their heads in public meetings to pray and prophesy, and slavery need not be condemned as a practice. These are examples for us since that is what was done then and recorded. What do we do with examples? Literal application or not?

Focusing more directly on Acts 1:1-6, should we assume that we must be meeting everyday in large groups which are sharing a meal before we organize and appoint deacons? Clearly, no. Rather, a more logical interpretation is that because their circumstance was meeting everyday
with a meal and a problem arose, they looked at the problem and came up with a solution. Their solution is an example of how to divide work when the size of the gathering warrants it. Perhaps it is more. I will not argue that it is no more, but I will allow myself the following interpretation (and feel no conviction from Him that the interpretion I give it must changed): though, the institutional church, in fact, has roots in this event and others in Acts such as the meetings to determine how to handle the problem of Gentile Christians not keeping Jewish law, it does not follow that the institutional church as it has evolved is a mandate from our Lord.

The reality, to which I am not blind, is that the larger the group has grown, the increase and complexity of associated problems demands administration. I can accept that. I can live within it, if that is my circumstance.

I am not surprised that you have had put into your life a godly believer who is a part of the institution. Anecdote: a pastor friend of mine felt God tell him to accept the pastorate of a small organized church which was extended to him. He did so not understanding why or to what end. He is a supporter of meeting in homes, but He obeyed God with much good fruit. Then after two years God told him to stop accepting the salary. Which he did. (A deacon openly asked him, “Then how will we control you?”) Finally after three years, he felt God release him and he resigned.

The institutional church will not be dismantled and I am not an advocate of such. God always works on the people who have a heart for him, and these people will find themselves in various experiences much broader perhaps than we would expect! (I do believe the day is not far off, when an open and visible institutional church will have to marry the state to be able to exist, but I believed Y2K was going to happen, also!)

Our call, it seems to me, is regardless of our circumstances (mysteriously a function of His will in our lives and our free will over our lives)to hold our hearts in the narrow way of the spirit of Christ which in-dwells us.

The narrow way is an inner reality not an outward practice. Thank you very much for challenging me! I appreciate your interest and tone!

In my opinion, limiting the definition of church to just a gathering of believers serves a useful purpose regarding the development of the indiviudals and the development of a particular group’s function.

My rationale is the nature of the balance between form and function. I believe it serves a useful purpose to recognize and develop our understanding of the body of Christ. In so doing, I find it beneficial to describe the form simply and then expand to functions. Consider an analogy drawn from history. George Washington died of illness but the weakness of his body was furthered by the doctors’ use of the then favored practice of bleeding a patient. The doctors understood the form of the circulatory system. They completely misunderstood its function. When believers make the function of church the issue, with what is intended to be a zeal for God no doubt, their decisions can become focused on the the outer condition of the group and the inner reality of being with God may be lost. I wonder if Pyromanias’ “loud and proud” appearance to alamar is not an excellent example of zeal focused on form missing the boat that has Jesus’ spirit of meekness and peace in it?

Further, if the function of the body, the church, is to fulfill all of God’s will on earth, then we must develop a view broad and sound enough to be inclusive of both the sum effect of a billion believers, the mutual experience of a “local” body which includes many personal relationships and the condition of each individual.
I admit I am a bit focused myself on only one part of the triple view. That is, I tend to be concerned over the condition of the one before I am concerned about the condition of the one hundred; since I believe that if you put enough truly healthy individuals together, then the condition of the one hundred will also be good.

Hence my motivation to draw this line between form and function. I believe the fullness of the abundant life of God rests fully on Jesus Christ. The expression of that life in a believer is a function of the believer’s faith.
If we insist on maintaining a form for church, individuals who do not fit the form may draw wrong conclusions about whom and what they are to God.

Think about what any of us experience inside a bureaucracy. Decisions are made for us, the full power and authority of the institution expects compliance, and we must comform or suffer the consequences. I teach kids. Testing is designed by the bureacracy to ensure that my students are progressing. Yet one standardized test represents their learning about like a set of encyclopedias represent a library.
The system justifies its decisons for the good of the group it serves. My students, human individuals lose on a variety of levels.

Unfortunately, a group of people focused on form, can be labeled a church because it can be said they meet for worship, prayer and fellowship. Yet, the individuals involved can be starved for the presence of God.

Therefore, if we leave the form alone to the individuals involved, I believe we position the group for the best possible growth in God. Is the risk present that the a small group may get off track? Yes. Is there opportunity for them to walk with God? Yes. Any group, regardless of size will gain what it seeks. Life is not without risk and neither is faith.
I accept the risk of being small because I believe the opportunity to spur individual faith is more direct in the small group.

I do not believe I am “right”, but I do believe that God has moved me to this place. I offer these comments to encourage the development of individual faith regardless of the context of the group. May God spare all of us from zeal labeled “church” that is a miry clay of pride and fear.