n May, 2006, I wrote a post called “The Danger of Arrogance“. It was a reminder to myself that passionate feelings about something can sometimes lead to arrogance. In that post, referring to the way I had spoken with someone during a lunch meeting, I wrote:
Here I was diagnosing all the ills of the institutional church, pronouncing the cure, and expecting everyone to just say, “Ohhh, but of course. You’re right!†And meanwhile, I ignored the voice of the Spirit of God prompting me to back off and humble myself.
Well, I still find it difficult to find the fine line between passion and arrogance. And I still find it difficult to know how to talk about some of the things I’m passionate about without it sounding like I am slamming anything different from my ideas.
Recently, a newfound blogging friend, Brandon (who has commented here a couple of times, and is married to Heather, who also comments here) wrote a post regarding the comments he has read on various blogs about “institutional church”. Brandon was wisely cautioning people not to criticize without offering solutions. He writes:
…I see…volumes of criticism (both constructive and otherwise) followed by no real solutions to the problems and weaknesses of the institutional church.
This concerns me, too, but not for the same reason as Brandon. I’m not as concerned about the other blogs out there as I am about my own blog. In fact, I asked Brandon in the comments section if mine was one of the blogs to which he referred. I asked that because I want so desperately to do something other than just criticize.
In a comment on a recent post, my dear friend Gordon Cloud gave me a gentle prod:
If I may put a bug in your ear, it would be nice sometime to hear you discuss how simple church is blessing you and enhancing your growth.
I understand what Gordon is saying. And I definitely would be remiss if I didn’t share some of the ways in which God has brought people into my life in a non-conventional church setting who have spurred me on to love and good deeds! If I didn’t share some of the things that have taken place in my life since stepping outside the institutional model, I would be telling only half the story.
But at the same time, I find myself just staring at the monitor, attempting to post in response to Gordon’s comment, and not knowing how to articulate all I want to say.
In an attempt to outline what I perceive to be alternative ways of accomplishing what Jesus intends for His church, I find myself with no other point of reference than the way things are conventionally done.
It’s what we know. It’s how most of us have grown up. I don’t know of anyone reading this blog who has been outside the institution for even 10 years. And for most of us, it’s either much more recent than that, or we’re still in the institution. More than a few of my most faithful commenters are not only still in the institution, but are leaders within that context! How that has ever happened, I have no clue!
So, whenever I find myself trying to describe what we pursue in a simple church setting, I find the constant frame of reference to be what we used to do in the conventional model. And quite honestly, because I’m sometimes responding to questions from people within the institution (such as my recent Q and A posts in response to Gordon), it seems impossible to respond in a way that doesn’t involve some form of comparison or critique.
How can I talk about multiple elder leadership without contrasting it with a senior pastor configuration? How can I talk about freedom for the Spirit to move within the body, allowing edification to come from and through anyone in the group without comparing it to passive spectators listening to one man preaching? How can I present passages such as Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 14 without showing how it compares to what we have been doing?
If there’s a way, I’m open to someone showing me that way. I guess I could just present my views and leave the comparisons up to the mind of the reader, but I don’t know how effective that is. Part of the reason I find this difficult is because I know how easy it is to justify whatever we’re doing by thinking that we’re being true to the principles of Scripture. I know I still struggle with that in my current context!
Brandon concluded his post with the sentence: “The institutional church needs help, but it’s not hopeless….” While I understand Brandon’s point, and I don’t really want to say that it’s “hopeless”, I also have attempted to present different ways of looking at that.
If the institutional church is still valid for some, I at least want to let others know that there are alternatives. Maybe some of what I write about doesn’t apply to people who are actually vocationally leading churches. But for the average Joe Layman sitting in the pew, I think there is a tendency to not even be aware that there is anything different they could experience.
I spent almost 35 years of my life “in church”, only about 6-8 cumulative years of that really involved in leadership. And I can tell you from that experience, that while I was sitting in the pews, mostly observing what the leaders were doing on the stage (since most of the experience in the pew is passive), I didn’t know there was anything else for me to do!
I never dreamed that there could be a more interactive, edifying, challenging way of meeting together. I never dreamed that I could be in a room with 5-10 or 15 other people and gain more insight into God’s word. I never dreamed that I could be sitting in a living room with others and worship deeply without having a professional band up in the front. Or that I could learn as much from the “ordinary housewife” sharing what God had been speaking to her as I could from the most gifted of preachers.
And when I did start to question why we were doing things the way we were, I never dreamed that there were others like me. I thought I was really going off the deep end. I figured I must be losing my mind completely. (Some of you probably think that actually is true about me! 
) Until I discovered that there are thousands of people like me, living this out every week, every day.
I recently received an email from someone who had stumbled across this blog. I won’t reveal anything personal about this person, and I hope they don’t mind me quoting a slightly-edited portion of their email, but I share this only because this is a story I hear time and time again. And it is my story, too:
I have been amazed that God is moving in such a way [of leading people into simple church] all around the world…. What shocks me even more is that so many people have made this step already. I thought [I was] somehow unique…. It is encouraging to see that many have gone before me.
It is primarily for this reason that I write about simple church. I want people to know that they are not alone in questioning elements of the institutional church. And I want to provide a place to discuss some of those questions.
In doing that, I think I sometimes cross the line into arrogant criticism of the church. This is never my intent! Please believe that.
However, I am grateful for these times when I am forced to step back and, once again, re-evaluate how I express my thoughts. And I will continue to try to find that balance.
To any who have been offended by what I have written here, I am truly sorry. If there is anything I can do to right that wrong, please let me know. And may God receive all the glory for any positive that comes from this humble endeavor.
Until next time,
steve
First of all, Steve, you need to know that you are the least arrogant person I know! I think I’m pretty qualified to make that judgment
I think your response as to how to explain the good about simple church shows your humble nature. To explain it in a way that doesn’t come across as pointing fingers is like walking a tightrope. In my opinion, you made it to the other side
It is a very wonderful thing to share this experience with others who see the same vision for the body of Christ and I am so thankful to God for allowing me to share it with you!
Steve,
I think you just became the master at intending to start a post with absolutely nothing to say, and little intention of saying anything, and then saying everything! Will you teach me how to do that?
More than a few of my most faithful commenters are not only still in the institution, but are leaders within that context! How that has ever happened, I have no clue! Simply, because there is validity in what you say and in how you say it.
I keep coming back because EACH TIME you challenge my thinking…not just what I do, but why. And not just in church, but as a follower of our Lord. That’s why.
Thanks, Steve.
Steve,
This is an excellent post, and a good reminder for all of us, whatever our understanding of the church. I love the church. Period. Show me a group of God’s people, and I know that God loves them, and works through them, and intends to grow them, and so, I love them too.
I am also always concerned that when I describe my understanding of the church, others within the church will misunderstand, and will assume that I am against them. Do I always express my love for the church… I don’t think it do it well, but that is certainly my intention.
I was going to comment on this statement that you made: “I figured I must be losing my mind completely.” However, I decided that some things are better left unsaid.
Thank you again!
-Alan
Well I am DEEPLY offended Steve. What can you do to make it right, you may ask….don’t ever use the term “ordinary housewife” again!
LOL! I’m just kidding. I’m not offended, but you really ought to know by now that housewives are extraordinary!
Funny…as I typed that I was picturing Rosy Riveter…the epitome of working gals.
Anywho.
Is “simple church” the same thing as home church? I’ve been a part of that kind of thing before. I’d go back to it in a minute if DH agreed. (Not that he has a problem with it, just no experience in that kind of setting).
Have a blessed day!
Trish
Steve,
I caught the “ordinary” comment also!! I know you were thinking that great insights on truth come from the ordinary folk gathered and women have not been traditionally considered in that sense.
‘O7 marks ten years out for my wife and me. I don’t have time to comment now, but thanks for this post.
(sigh) When I typed “ordinary housewife”, I meant it the way David (ded) figured above.
In the church, we so often view people in ranks of intelligence or biblical wisdom, etc. In that system, non-clergy are often viewed as just “ordinary” people, and women who don’t have a career outside the home are often viewed as less than others in status.
This was exactly the point I was trying to drive home. The playing field has been significantly leveled in the types of fellowships I write about.
Maybe I should just take that phrase out completely. I certainly did not mean it from my present point of view. I was trying to think of a phrase that would signify, in the minds of some, the least-probable contributor to the spiritual growth of a group.
Any suggestions for another way of saying that? I certainly don’t want those two words to detract from the things I was trying to say. In the meantime, I have edited the post to put those words in quotes.
Steve,
I appreciate the tone of your post. That’s one of the things that brings some of us who disagree (at least one
) back. To disagree agreeably is rare.
Due to various factors, I rarely am able to contribute to the discussions here. I usually arrive late to the scene and therefore have little to contribute. Let’s just say it’s a combination of slow internet, slow mind, and limited time.
I can certainly agree that the “institutional” church has problems. (Though I could almost be offended as being described as “still in the institution”.
)
I can relate to the benefit of a small group setting. (I’m sure that’s oversimplifying Simple Church, but I’m referring to the illustration you gave.) Some of the most blessed times of growth and blessing I have enjoyed have been in such groups. I also believe there is benefit in a large group of believers corporately worshipping and receiving the Word preached. Our congregation has the blessing of both.
Yes, the IC has it’s issues, but it is my humble opinion that they are not inherent in the strucutre. They are a result of abuse and misuse of what in many cases is effectively (though not perfectly) fulfilling the Divine purpose of the church.
I guess the best way to describe our differences on this might be a historical analogy: You’re a Pilgrim and I’m a Puritan. Similar in diagnosis, distinct in prescription. Both loving, serving, and worshipping the same God and Savior.
All the blessings of Christ,
Cameron
Steve,
I am the person who sent the email you shared. I certainly don’t mind you quoting it in your post. Frankly, I am impressed with your sensitivety.
I hear and understand your heart on this subject. Having just left the institution 6 months ago, I struggle with some deep emotions on the subject. But when I started this part of my journey, my heart was for the the “church” to be the “church”. For all of the members to love one another no matter what the differences. I don’t want to be beligerant, or arrogant, I want to love my brothers and sisters no matter where they are or what chuch they are involved in. I have even met a traditional pastor who likes to meet with me and talk, eventhough I think I am somewhat of a curiosity to him. I enjoy the idea of having positive relationships with people still in the institution.
Yet, as you and others have certainly experienced, the pain of making this transition creates strong reactions. I actully feel very hurt and decieved by my past involvement with the institution. Yet at the same time I have never been so excited and positive about the future and my spiritual walk. I know it is a process, it is good to know others out there.
Glad to be joining the trek
David
This won’t be brief by blog standards, but I want to comment on Steve’s latest post.
Finding the simple church experience has not been well…simple. Unless the slow passage of day by day is a simple experience.
It is ten years this April when I put down Gene Edward’s book, How Then Shall We Meet? (can’t begin to figure out how to properly punctuate that title), and astounded myself with the thought, “I don’t believe in a ‘head’ pastor anymore.”
“Head” pastor being a MAJOR doctrinal position of the group I was in!! The journey had begun.
The honest admission of the truth to my fellow elders precipitated the end of my 18 year relationship with a body of Christians. A year off, a year searching for a new church home, four years of attempting to build a group in our home, and a decision to let God put it together which has progressed along for four years into some very vital realtionships with a number of people who meet together and fellowship wonderfully according to no form I could easily describe here.
All IC folks who read this blog and need organization for whatever reason will probably be shaking their heads at this point saying, “Could have predicted this turn of events!”
But this really isn’t about forms. Allow me a brief side-track of a few premises I do not want to take the time to defend in order to make a point:
The common man is smaller than the milieux in which he finds himself. That is, he works hard to make his way in this confusing and cruel world without fully understanding why about most of it.
The milieux is largely overwhelming for everyone–no one fully understands the dynamics of their own existence, let alone the full complexity of the current world system overall.
The traditional church is part of that milieux and the many voices that articulate from a “boxed” perspective of a systematic or denominational theology often do not bring the common man to a place of peace and well-being in the soul…THOUGH THEY ATTEMPT TO, WISH TO, SEEK TO DO SO, AND WORK AT IT WITH COMPLETE INTEGRITY.
Ultimately, in seeking to understand his plight, the common man must begin to make sense out of three levels:
his individual experience and the meanings this has written on his soul. (nature and nurture)
His specific cultural group experience and the social expectations of the same. Said the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Why?
And the larger spiritual reality of all humans regardless of culture are alike in their needs and failings. We need food, shelter, clothing, love, companionship, development of our souls and intellects.
We are all capable of envy, greed, hate, fear, pride and so on. (not attempting to be exhaustive with these lists, just suggestive of level)
At some one of these level or combinations thereof, we attempt to connect with others around us through “being with” those who like the social structures we believe in and want to build, or those who will fight with us against the injustices that anger us, or those who identify as important the same symbolic meanings–beauty, altruism, humanism, religion, etc.
None of these will bring what people most need/desire
because all of these are functions of the natural world. The meanings we develop living within these levels are still a natural experience.
We need a supernatural experience of the spirit.
A human must make the jump from the natural existence, the huge confusing milieux which defines the natural state of affairs, into a spiritual reality of knowing God and living in communion with Him. We must become supernatural humans with an alive spirit from God to know the depths we yearn to know.
So here’s my point, every man who joins honestly and actually to God through Christ by Him crucified and resurrected is born into a completely new reality of the kingdom, life as it is in heaven–forever.
Therefore we ask ourselves, “What is the practice of faith in God all about?”
Is it about the form or boxes or structures or causes of this natural world done with some sort of justification in Scripture?
I would say the practice of faith is about a human being birthed into and aware of his or her new creation existing in a state of communion, that is to say oneness with God, through the in-dwelling spirit of Christ.
In simple church, we seek a simple experience with one another free of traditional forms, rules, and expectations in order to encourage and spur one another on in the profound understanding of who we are in spirit!
All matters of life find their answer when one examines those matters from this place of communion.
Candidly, I do not want to destroy or supplant organized institutions of churches full of people I consider my brothers and sisters. Full of people dear to God and therefore dear to me. But I have come to believe I can accomplish everything important to God without the organization.
I guess you could call my ten year sojourn out of organized church as by-pass surgery!
ded,
wow… and why do you not have your own blog?
-Alan
Kind of you to encourage me to have a blog, Alan.
Well…I like letting Steve do all the work.
8^)
Alan, I’ve asked him that question several times before. He hasn’t budged yet!
David Sword, so nice to have you here on the blog! Welcome, brother. I’m sorry I haven’t responded to your email yet, but you need to know that it really blessed me! I look forward to more interactions with you as we walk through this together in this forum.
Christy, thank you for your wonderfully encouraging comment here. I am truly blessed to have you as my wife and as a partner on this journey. You are a gem, my love!
Cameron, I’m in shock that you wrote a comment that was actually mostly serious!!
Seriously, thank you for your kind words and encouragement. Blessings upon you in your ministry, and if there’s anything I can ever do for you, let me know.
Tony, thank you, as well, for your kind words. You’re a blessing! I hope to meet up with you very soon.
As for what I can teach you about writing…hmmmm…I’m not sure what I have to offer you there. You do a fine job yourself!
Here’s a thought not intended as an attack on anyone or any practice, but as part of meaningful discussion…
Solutions to the problems in the institutional church–alter the functioning of those in the group:
The simple church model encourages maturity as each believer according to his or her abilities must seek their own maturity. Reliance on a trained clergy moves believers subtly or overtly toward waiting until the clergy reveals truth. The responsibility for growth is off the individual and on the professional. Problems of any group are rooted in immaturity. Assuming the model of pastor-centered church is not the cause of the immaturity, but that the cause of the immaturity is the choices of the believers themselves is not examining every possibility for improving the situation.
Recognizing that humans are a bit sheep-like, wouldn’t it be better if we created a gathering where individuals looked first to God as their source of truth? If we have been successful in strengthening people in a real understanding of life in the Spirit, this will not be subjective, but instead flow from the mind of Christ.
Corollary, trust those in the group who know God:
Jesus said, “Where two or more are gathered, there I am in the midst of them.”
So did these two not have Christ in-dwelling them to begin with? Of course they did! But in their mutual discussion of their individual experience with God in Spirit, Jesus is described and illustrated out in the open. He “appears” in the midst of their words and expressions of both logic developed and longings satisfied by Him. He appears in the changes each takes on to be more Christ-like through the discussion.
Christ is the solution to the problems of the institutional church. More of Him will equate to problems solved.
thanks steve, for another thought-provoking post. thanks, ded, for your well-worded thoughts in your lengthy comment. i am still in the IC but sometimes longing deeply to be out. like trish, though, hubby is comfortable with what he knows, and so we stay put. but my heart longs to be with those who, like some of you, have found a different type of fellowship in simple things. at least, having been raised in IC all my 47 years of life, the grass looks greener on the other side of the pasture….
Steve,
I must admit that, although I am in an institutional church (or maybe I SHOULD be institutionalized!), I have found your comments remarkably balanced and kind — and as I recently noted in my blog, I have learned much from you and others friends who frequent this blog.
I believe we must all watch our arrogance, even as I post about some of the ills I see in the church at my blog, I find these selfsame issues within my own life!
Blessings,
Ray
I’m not picking up any arrogance either brother…for sure, there is a fine line between passion and arrogance(the assurance that you are right
) and I’m sure I cross it often…but when you feel so strongly about some things and you’ve seen the difference they make…it can be tricky…as you well know.
AS for being out of organized traditional church…I/we(my hubby and I) have been out for 25 yrs….
also…one more thing…a picture is worth a thousand words and in that regard it might be a good idea to to follow Gordon’s lead and share what a difference simple church has made for you…this way of life is so much bigger than mere words can express…and often sounds trite ab=nd well…simple…when we try to put it down on paper
my hubby says to inquirees…”come and see”…