Churchless Christian

I really related to some of the stages in the post below. The word 'faith' is used could be endlessly argued over. I also feel that the article confers that the church systems and structures are under strain because people in them are going through these 'stages of faith'and suggests churches need to adjust to these changes in people.
I would most probably come at this from another angle. Looking back at my journey, and from what I read, I wonder if 'Churchianity' actually causes most of these stages not faith. Did the early Believers go through these stages of faith? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I know I should validate what I have just said and perhaps I will in another post.

My personal belief (at this momment) is that our life in Christ is a journey, a pilgrimage. We literally need to stay on the move with God (literaly)through our life. It should be FLUID and FLOWING. Churchianity I believe encourages us to do the opposite. It encourages us instead of being pilgrims and pioneers to be settlers (rigid). We are told we need to settle down in a local church and not move on. So the Holy Spirit has placed in us a pilgrims heart which is constantly moving forward, but we have put on settlers
clothes and are trying to act like a good Christian settler. My own opinion is that these 'stages of faith' is what happens in the tension between settling in one place and pilgrimage. I wonder (no proof) if Christians who from the first time they followed Christ
became pilgrims and stayed that way, would have a different experiance? Who knows at this momment. This is just my opinonated opinon

On the basis of structured interviews with a wide range of people,2 Fowler describes six stages of faith development. Just as there are commonly observed 'normal' patterns or stages of human development - childhood, adolescence, adulthood, to name some - so too, Fowler says, there is a process in the development of faith, with stages in which recognisable, distinctive characteristics of faith are observable.

We may speculate on whether the children, young men and fathers addressed by the Apostle John3 were in those categories on the basis of natural chronology or whether he was referring to those who were such in terms of their spiritual growth and development. Certainly John not only addresses such categories but refers to spiritual or faith characteristics common to people at that stage of life, be it chronological or spiritual.

In other passages of scripture4 we see the analogy of normal human growth and development being explicitly used to make points concerning spiritual growth. We see here an expectation that characteristics of our faith will change over time. It is just as surprising and distressing when a person's faith development becomes fixed at an immature stage, as it is when physical or emotional development is stunted or delayed.

We need to distinguish here between 'faith' as a verb (something we do or the way that we do it) and 'faith' as a noun (something that we have) - ie
between the container and the contents. Both are vitally important, but our
focus here is on 'faith' as a verb.

While Fowler himself is a Christian minister, the people interviewed in his
research included people from other faith traditions as well as those who
claimed no religious allegiance. What emerged from the research were six
recognisable stages of development, or six ways of structuring and giving
meaning to life. The content of people's belief is highly dependent on their
religious (or non-religious) allegiance, but the structure or shape of that
belief is largely independent of the particular content.

"Faith, it appears, is generic, a universal feature of human living,
recognisably similar everywhere despite the remarkable variety of forms and
contents of religious practice and belief. Faith is an orientation of the
total person, giving purpose and goal to one's hopes and strivings, thoughts
and actions."

Here then are Fowler's stages of Faith Development:

Infancy and Undifferentiated Faith

Stage 1: Intuitive-Projective Faith

Stage2: Mythic-Literal Faith

Stage 3: Synthetic-Conventional Faith

Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith

Stage 5: Conjunctive Faith

Stage 6: Universalising Faith

The pre-stage of Infancy and Undifferentiated Faith and stages 1 and 2 have
characteristics that are consistent with the emerging conceptual, cognitive
and emotional abilities associated with infancy, early and late childhood.
Understanding of the detailed characteristics of faith in these stages and
the challenges of transition from stage to stage is important for parents
and those working in Christian education with children. It also has
significant implications for structuring worship experiences where young and
old participate together.

In the context of why people leave the church, however, it is the
differences between stages 3, 4 and 5 which are most significant. Most
people between teenage and old age are in one of these stages.
Synthetic-Conventional Faith

Stage 3 typically begins in adolescence, says Fowler, but for many adults it
becomes a permanent resting place. "It is a 'conformist' stage in the sense
that it is acutely tuned to the expectations and judgements of significant
others but does not have a sure enough grasp on its own autonomous judgement
to construct and maintain an independent perspective.

"While beliefs and values are deeply felt, they typically are tacitly held .
. . there has not been occasion to step outside them to reflect on or
examine them explicitly or systematically." Authority is given to those in
traditional authority roles or to the consensus of a valued group.

The dangers of this stage are twofold. The expectations and evaluations of
others can be so deeply internalised that later autonomy of judgement and
action can be jeopardised; or interpersonal betrayals can give rise to great
despair.

Key characteristics of stage 3 faith include:

1. The need to conform to the norms, beliefs and practices of the group.
We see a strong parallel to this in the importance and influence of the peer
group in adolescence. The need to belong and to show this by having the
'right' clothing, hairstyle, music, jargon - by being seen in the right
places with the right people.

The parallels in faith are evident - associating strongly with 'our' church,
theology and worship style, as opposed to that of others. Holding key
leaders or people of influence in high regard and modelling strongly on them
in terms of practice, lifestyle - sometimes even mannerisms!

Each stage of faith is good and healthy in itself. Certainly much healthy
growth comes from modelling on and emulating a good role model. Difficulties
arise, however, if growth is arrested artificially rather than being
encouraged and embraced, even if this means going beyond or in a different
direction to an earlier role model.

2. Partial development of self-identity and self-assurance about the beliefs
held.

Largely the beliefs and practices of this stage are maintained and sustained
by the group rather than the individual. In stage 3 the need to examine
these beliefs critically has not yet emerged, nor is it encouraged in groups
which are predominantly stage 3 in their corporate faith.

Within the corporate life of the group, stage 3 Christians are secure in
themselves and in their beliefs. Outside the group, however, they may be
troubled by questions and doubts and may be unable to articulate, either to
themselves or others, quite what they believe or why.

3. Expectations and evaluations of others outweigh autonomous evaluation.
People in stage 3 are particularly vulnerable to abuse of all kinds because
the opinions and decisions of those in leadership roles carry such
authority. The stage 3 Christian has not developed the solid autonomous
belief to challenge or often even to question this.

This is a stage in which the inequality of power between leaders and
followers is great. Both the awful prevalence of professional sexual abuse
where a professional person (doctor, lawyer, minister, priest) abuses a
client or parishioner and the mass suicides of Jonestown are evidences of
exploitation of this vulnerability of people with stage 3 faith.

While voices are almost universally raised in outrage when such abuse is
uncovered there seem to be few, particularly in our churches, addressing the
need to support and encourage people to evaluate their own and others'
beliefs, practices and behaviour and to think for themselves.

4. Despair arising from interpersonal betrayal.
What are stage 3 Christians to do when a respected role model lets them
down? When leaders' private lives or behaviours are damagingly different
from their public personas and what they demand of their followers, or when
they fall and deny the faith? Because the locus of faith and security for
stage 3 believers lies largely outside themselves, such a failure or
betrayal by a respected leader is a failure of their own faith. Despondency
and despair will commonly accompany such betrayal.

Individuative-Reflective Faith
"For a genuine move to stage 4 to occur there must be an interruption of
reliance on external sources of authority. The 'tyranny of the they'- or the
potential for it - must be undermined. In addition to the kind of critical
reflection on one's previous system . . . of values . . . there must be . .
. a relocation of authority within the self.

"While others and their judgements will remain important to the
Individuative-Reflective person, their expectations, advice and counsel will
be submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose
and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices. I sometimes
call this the development of an executive ego."

Stage 4's strength, says Fowler, has to do with its capacity for critical
reflection on identity (self) and outlook (ideology). Its dangers are an
excessive confidence in the conscious mind and in critical thought, and an
over assimilation of the 'reality' and the perspectives of others into its
own world view.

Here we see development. Reliance on external sources of authority has been
balanced by the individual claiming the right to choose and taking personal
responsibility for those choices.

People may hold the same beliefs at stage 4 as they did at stage 3. However
stage 3 people held them because they were the beliefs of the group as
expressed by its leaders or senior members, while stage 4 people hold them
because they have reflected on them, examined them against competing beliefs
and found them to be compelling. Of course in all likelihood the transition
from stage 3 to stage 4 will result in some change to the content of belief
as well.

Stage 4 people may challenge or question accepted group practices or
traditions. The enthusiastic expression of their newly discovered critical
faculties is easily misinterpreted as rebelliousness or undermining of unity
and authority, rather than as evidence of healthy growth.

Stage 4 is often marked by polarisation. Stage 4 Christians may see things
in very black and white categories. Having discovered clearly what they do
believe, they also see clearly what they don't believe.

This may lead them on a campaign to set others straight in their beliefs.
Their enthusiasm to 'convert' others to their newly discovered sense of
freedom can be threatening, if not damaging, to those who have not yet
developed the resources to evaluate their beliefs and take responsibility
for such freedom.

Conjunctive Faith
"Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the
reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. . . . Alive to paradox and the
truth of apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in
mind and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange
truths of those who are 'other'."

The new strength of this stage, says Fowler, is a capacity to own one's most
significant beliefs, while recognising that they are relative, partial and
imperfect perceptions of reality. Its danger lies in the direction of a
paralysing inaction, giving rise to complacency or cyclical withdrawal.10
In stage 5 the pendulum has swung back from the somewhat narrow
'certainties' of stage 4. No longer does this truth insist that another
perspective is therefore false - now both may be seen to be true, perhaps
with some tension but without conflict. The stage 5 person is at ease in the
presence of difference and paradox.

The stage 5 person is beginning to grasp that many of the issues of faith
are larger than the human intellect's ability to grasp in their entirety.
Because of this, stage 5 Christians may develop a new or renewed
appreciation for symbol, in language and worship, and for liturgical forms
of worship - symbol and ritual providing helpful connections to the
transcendent realities of faith.

In contrast, the intense brightness and starkness of stage 4 descriptions of
faith and modes of worship may now be difficult for people who have moved to
stage 5, where once they seemed so relevant. These earlier forms now seem
shallow compared to the unfolding depths of the newly discovered stage of
faith.

Universalising Faith
According to Fowler very few people emerge into this stage. It is perhaps
the preserve of those who are regarded as 'saints' or whose lives have a
profound impact in areas of social justice or reform. They have a capacity
for relating to and influencing people from widely differing backgrounds,
cultures and religions. Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa are among
those seen to have entered this stage.

The outgoing President of one of the largest denominations in the world attacked Bloggers in the Sothern Baptist Church in his outgoing message. Here more from http://billycalderwood.com/?p=233 interesting thoughts and reflections.

Americans are increasingly designing their lifestyles in ways that meet their needs more efficiently. This is true even in the spiritual realm, as evidenced by the rapid growth of participation in house churches across the nation. Whereas most people continue to think of "going to church" as attending a service at one of the many church buildings located throughout their community, a new study from The Barna Group shows that millions of adults are trying out new forms of spiritual community and worship, with many abandoning the traditional forms altogether.

Large Numbers Attend
The new study, based on interviews with more than five thousand randomly selected adults from across the nation, found that 9% of adults attend a house church during a typical week. That is remarkable growth in the past decade, shooting up from just 1% to near double-digit involvement. In total, one out of five adults attends a house church at least once a month.

Projecting these figures to the national population gives an estimate of more than 70 million adults who have at least experimented with house church participation. In a typical week roughly 20 million adults attend a house church gathering. Over the course of a typical month, that number doubles to about 43 million adults.

While many religious professionals say they are unaware of such activity, it might be because the house church is in its "ramp up" phase in the U.S. One consequence is that millions of Americans are intermittently engaged in a house church, alternating back and forth between house church and conventional church. (For clarity, the survey distinguished between involvement in a house church and participation in a small group that is associated with a conventional church.) The Barna survey revealed that of those who attend a house church, 27% attend on a weekly basis, 30% attend one to three times per month, and 43% attend less than once a month.

One Foot in Each Camp
The study also discovered that church attendance patterns are being reshaped. Among those who attend a church of some type, 74% attend only a conventional church while just 5% attend only a house church. Another one-fifth (19%) attend both a house church and a conventional church. (The other 2% attend a small group that was not considered to be a house church.)

The people most likely to attend only a conventional church were women, people 60 or older, residents of the Midwest, and evangelicals. In contrast, the people most likely to attend a house church but not a conventional church were men, home-school families, residents of the West, and non-whites.

The Impact of the House Church
The study was directed by George Barna, whose current best-selling book, entitled Revolution, estimates that this trend will continue over the next two decades, substantially reducing the share of adults who call a conventional church their primary spiritual community.

"The house church now appears to have reached 'critical mass' in the United States," commented Barna. "Analysts typically find that once a new tool or institution reaches 15% market penetration, and has evidenced a consistent or growing level of affirmation for at least six years, that entity shifts from fad to trend status. At that point, it becomes a permanent fixture in our society. Today, house churches are moving from the appraisal phase into the acceptance phase. We anticipate house church attendance during any given week to double in the coming decade, and a growing proportion of house church attenders to adopt the house church as their primary faith community. That continued growth and public awareness will firmly establish the house church as a significant means of faith experience and expression among Americans."

Barna noted that this change is already reorienting the nation's faith dimension. "By necessity, the transition from a nation exclusively offering a conventional church experience to one that offers a choice between conventional church and other forms of spiritual experience is changing the rules and roles. New leaders are emerging to represent and guide house churches - people whose names are unfamiliar to the bulk of the country, but whose ministries will become more mainstream and well-known as time goes on. A new body of spiritual resources is being developed and utilized by the expanding house church community. House church adherents make greater use of Christian radio, Christian books and online faith experiences than do people engaged solely in a conventional church. In addition, new patterns of faith participation are being implemented. The traditional ways of thinking about and experiencing 'church' are rapidly being revolutionized by a form of 'religious choice' in which people are taking greater personal responsibility for their spiritual experience and development."

It was the shortest day this week and I can tell you it was the coldest day today in 10 years of living in Auckland. Ithought I was living back in Tokoroa or Balclutha, not the warmer north! Freezing, and typically I wound up all day either outside or in a freezing gym watching the kids do gym. Sadly I was 2 cold 2 watch as I spent most of my time at the coffee machine paying $2.00 a time to drink disgusting coffee and trying to stay warm. One interesting factor came out of the day, my kids don't trust me an inch. I was meant to be the guy holding the rope when they did rock climbing but they were a bit uncertain about Dad being able to deliver in there time of crisis.
On this cold day I thought I would post a pix of the lads during mid summer to remind me that there is a sun and that it can be warm.

I thought I would qualify what I meant when I said IC church was a lost cause. I mean that I think the structures systems and MINDSET and MENTALITY that I know I had in I.C is a lost cause. I was not refering to actual individuals as being a lost cause. Does that make sense?

So what do I mean? Hmmm.....I guess I have got the impression that some on this list think that IC is a lost cause

I thought about this today. I thought I would be totally honest. I don't say this lightly as the only real skill I have is being a Professional Minister, and coming from 4 generations of professional Ministers and Missionarys. I believe we got it wrong! Church as we know it is not the way God intended it. And (I think) we can't just renovate it like most of my friends in ministry say they want to. That's like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. So yes I do believe it is lost cause which is a real bummer because I have had my whole family, life and carrear invested into it. I thought I was on the Highway to heaven but discovered that it was just a cul -de-sac!

"Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains alone" For me 'normal church' is that kernel of wheat.

Also for me, I am that kernel of wheat, I need to completly die to everything that I have held to of the old (including normal church). Blood needs to flow, suffering is inevitable (hopefully as quickly as possible!) before God can birth something new.

God is not into transition (same thing as evolution) he is into death and life. I.C needs to die (I need to die, we need to die) that God may bring new life.

Stepped on more toes here I think?

I suppose I should back up everything Ive said with refrences and scriptures and stats but it is to late at night and I am too lazy, but I cannot tell a lie, I think that as committed Christian involved with normal church for 32 years of my 35 yr old life, that I was like a tame mouse running around and around its wheel going no where. I praise God that he has allowed me to get off that meaningless treadmill and find peace. Praise God!

One of my heart Changes is reeveluating whether I consider myself a protestant or not any more (I will explain why in a minute). One of the positives of taking off the protestant label is rediscovering the existence of Catholics (joke).
Many Protestants do not consider Catholics real Christians and at best lower quality Christians because of what we consider 'inappropriate' practices. Since becoming more
inappropriate myself I have a new found respect for them. I still remember my neighbors as a child in Tokoroa. They were a large passionate Catholic Family who were constantly bringing waifs and strays through there home. We could often here them next door praying and singing, often in tongues. I remember their three and four year old praying in tongues and people getting healed in their home (more then anything I saw in 12 years in the pentecostal tradition). One of there sons Michael is now a Catholic Priest in
Hamilton and he tells me that when he went to a Ministers Meeting for Impact World Tour in Hamilton and sat down. The other ministers sitting next to him stood up and sat elsewhere!

The basic difference from what I understand it between Catholic and Protestant is that the Catholics consider the foundation of there faith is the 'Church' and Protestants consider the foundation the 'Bible'.

I am no longer so sure that the Bible should be placed in the position Protestants have placed it. These are the points Im pondering (empasise pondering).

1. 500 years after the protestant reformation the Catholic Church is still one (diverse)church. The Protestant Church using the Bible as there guide have around 70000 denominations who have all read the Bible in a different way. I wonder if we are kidding ourselves that using the Bible as our base brings unity. Only the Spirit of Jesus Christ can do that.

2. The reality is that for the first 1500 years the Bible was basicly out of reach for most laymen and Clergy alike. Even in the last 500 years the Bible was still quite unobtainable. Upto World War 2 a Bible would have been far more expensive then most people
could afford readily. Yet the Message of Jesus Christ changed the world like nothing before it or since.

3. The fact is that during the fastest time of growth in the church (first 300 years)there was no New Testement Canon, and the gentile believers had no real awareness of Hebrew Scripture (and that was'nt canonised by the Jews to after the Christians Canonised there Scriptures). The Jewish people interestingly were never bothered to define what was scripture and what was not. Different groups held to different convictions on that matter. Some held only to the teachings of Moses, some to that and the Prophets, and other groupsto what we think as the Old Testement plus other writtings etc. It was only when they felt threatened by the explosive growth of Christianity that they got together to set out what they considered the Jewish Bible.

4. I wonder what Paul would say to us if he discovered his letters that he wrote were now read with the same weight as the five books of Moses? I think he would be horrified and shocked. And then he would send us one of his letters with a fair amount of abuse in it. Jesus said all scripture is God breathed, but the New Testement was not in existence then. Also Jesus quoted scripture that is not in the Bible, what do we do with that?

5. I am a great lover of creeds as my Children have discovered. It's interesting that they over and over again emphasise Jesus Christ and his divinity but they never mention the Bible much (if at all?) including the Apostles creed which really defines Christian orthodoxy.

6. I remember my father telling me about going to my Aunts funeral in the Brethren Church. Throughout they hear about how she was a great women of the word. But Jesus was never mentioned. As Protestants have we started worshipping the Bible? Is it now,
Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Bible? I wonder if it has become a new God?

Some people say to me well in the end you either believe it or not. And when I was in I.C I would say the same. Yes I love and believe the Bible is inspired by God but I am questioning (not carrying conviction) its role and how it is used. Okay so have I stood on a few toes here. Have I become worse than a Satanist, a liberal perhaps? I don't think so, perhaps just a bit more balanced and reasoned?

‘It has been said that the current church culture is on life support. It is living off the work, money and energy of previous generations from a previous world order.’

Many of us have grown up from different backgrounds. Some are more dogmatic than others. All my life I have been brought up in a strong institutionalized setting myself. My father being a clergy of a mainline denomination, we literally had to live in an ‘institutionalized environment’ almost all my life. After studying in a theological institution for 5 years, followed by being a Senior Pastor of a Charismatic Institutionalized Church for 9 years and currently a missionary for 8 years in a 3rd world country, I don’t particularly delight in questioning a world I once believed in and was very fond of. Ministry and church (as we have received from the west) have at one time been my world. Unfortunately, it is a world that I increasingly find difficult to feel at home in view of the Biblical mandate, spiritual purpose and mission focus.
We are talking about God's people who should be following God. The Body of Christ is a living organism that is connected by His Spirit and Love, not by a commitment to an institution.

Having said that, I also believe there are many people like me that find it hard to speak up, feeling afraid to say how desperately we need to make some changes. I constantly come across people who express fundamental doubts about the validity and viability of the church. These are not critical people with an axe to grind with the institution but these are serving, active members & leaders who don’t like what they are seeing, understanding and experiencing in the church. Perhaps these loved ones’ calling is to be a missionary to the church that has lost & need rediscovery of the Mission of the Church. Hopefully they are seen, understood and accepted as people with genuine concern rather than with fear, suspicion and worst still as being rebellious or traitors.

A growing number of people are leaving the institutionalized church to preserve their faith not because they have lost faith. Church does not contribute to their spiritual development. The number of ‘post-congregational’ Christians are growing: World Christian Encyclopedia, author David Barrett estimates about 112 million “churchless Christian” worldwide. This is about 5% of all adherents but the number will double in the next twenty years.

How do we do Church better? Is there a right answer to a wrong question?
There has been ove kill of suggestions from Denominations, Consultants, Para church organizations thru seminars, conferences & meetings toward whatever ‘flavor of the month’ or current fad is with quick fix programs. The mailing list keeps coming for more programs/activities/books to emphasize on contemporized worship, small groups, spiritual experience, seeker-friendly, community services etc. I have become skeptical and ask myself, ‘what’s next’? Perhaps this keeps us busy and preoccupied with methodological pursuits while not facing the hard truth. ‘Church activity is a poor substitute for genuine spiritual vitality.’

The Senior Pastor is the CEO of the church that has several hundred members & he manages the corporate culture, head-hunter, personnel manager, strategic planner, fundraiser, expert communicator, chief vision developer and caster, ministry entrepreneur, spiritual guru, consultant and the list goes on and on.

On the other hand, a good church member is one who utilize their gifts (according to how the church is structured & ordered), join small group, volunteer for church ministry, give their tithes & offerings (especially if there is a building project), clap & dance in worship, attend multiple classes, seminars, conferences (especially organized by the church) and that is suppose to bring them full & meaningful lives. These people have been led to believe that their Christian life is all about church. The trouble is that all the church activities do not produce more matured followers of Jesus Christ. In actuality it produces tired, burned-out members still struggling and seeking for answers for their life & ministry.

Two types of church today: Col 2:6-23
a) “Traditional cult” that focuses on rituals, forms & traditions of men from centuries ago. Holding on to the past sacredly, solemnly and mundanely. Creativity and thinking outside the box is alien and seen with suspicion and at times with irritation.
b) “Personality cult” that focuses on the: charismatic personality’ of the leader. The church has a high index of entertainment. Living inside the bubble in a Christian subculture completely with its own entertainment.
Both the above types have one thing in common in terms of their leadership method, which is hierarchial, pyramid style, power control base. Both would collapse if the ‘tradition & personality’ are removed.
The Fivefold ministry based on the Apostolic Church is not fully discovered or practiced in both these instances which is the mandate for equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.

Jesus Christ established His Church upon a Living, vital relationship with Him, and the only thing we need to guard against is what threatens that relationship. Paul's greatest fear was that we would lose the simplicity and purity of our devotion to Christ, and the liberty that it brings us. Built upon this Rock, no power of hell can prevail against us. (II Corinthians 11:2, 3; Galatians 5:1; Matthew 16:18)
Looking around us, we rarely find the powerful Church that Jesus described, even though many claim to be His true Church. Jesus still has a true Church, and that He lives and walks the earth every day in those who know Him. If the institution does not serve the purpose of God for His people, let it fall. God's Church will stand.

Pharisee-ism & Sadducee-ism; Are they alive today? Matt 23
The Pharisees & the Sadducees were the religious leaders of Jesus’ days. They held high positions in the religious circles as they were considered the interpreters of the Law & the Prophets. They loved their offices because it held a high profile, status & power in the community.
The Pharisees were holding the religious agenda and controlling figures in the synagogues had produced a dead religious expression. The Sadducees in charge of the Jewish Temple activity sold out to materialism and rituals.
Both these sects had one thing in common, ‘Having a form without power’. That is why people flocked to John the Baptist and Jesus. They had much more powerful spiritual tool at their disposal than coercion or legalism.

Churchianity to Christianity?
A Church meeting has become to us a regularly scheduled gathering where a planned program is witnessed, but the Church is more than that. We are warned to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but what does that actually mean? Shouldn't the building of meaningful relationships with each member in the group be one our priorities? Couldn't this scripture be applied in the countless ways in which we relate to each other on a day to day basis? Jesus stated that wherever two or three are gathered together in His name and in His purpose, He would be in the midst. His Presence must always be the most important factor. Whether we gather with many or few, we must never, ever lose that central focus. He is the one, solitary purpose that unites us and fuses us together into the one glorious body that is His Church. Where we meet is not the real issue. The more important factor is how we see the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ assembles in homes, in coffee houses, in restaurants, or wherever they happen to be when the Christ that is in them is embraced. Their meetings might be planned or spontaneous, but they are characterized by love, friendship, prayer, and worshipping Him. They carry with them an environment of excitement and expectancy that is contagious. He is In their midst. Unbelievers are drawn to Him and the love of His Word, because they see evidence of His Life. They see no need to compete for numbers, for they are part of the largest and most ever-expanding fellowship on this earth.

The invitation to become a Christian is an invitation to come to church. Christians think in terms of institutional practices, expressions, church as opposed to thinking in terms of movement of disciples of Jesus Christ for the extension and establishment of the KOG.
The assumption is that in order to be a Christian, one must order their lives around the church, shift their life and work around the church programs & priorities, give thru the church, serve in some ministry and bring others into the church to do the same. Matt 23:15
Because church leaders cannot think of Christianity outside of institutional terms, they equate lack of church participation with a loss of spiritual interest. People may have left the church But they have not left Jesus. Jesus is still their God who is worshipped.
In the unbelievers mind, the church is a religious club for religious club members gather to honor their traditions, hang out with others with common lifestyle and thinking. To the believers, the church today is a clubhouse where religious people hang out with people who think, speak, behave & believe like them. The church is hardly seen as championing the cause of the poor, healing the sick, setting the captives free & serving people.

Return to our purpose:
We have forgotten why we exist. We need to recapture the mission of the church. Through out the OT & NT we encounter a God who is on a redemptive mission to mankind. The church was created to be the people of God to join Him in His redemptive mission in the world. It is a chosen instrument of God to expand His Kingdom. As the Bride of Christ in union with Him designed for reproduction, the growth of the KOG. God is inviting us to join us in this mission, an invitation to be part of a movement, not be part of a monument or religious club. His Church is a living organism, composed of regenerated people who love and know Him. It was never an organization or institution or building.

Jesus entered a world similar to our spiritual conditions, institutional form of religion has collapsed. Jesus tapped into this widespread disillusionment with religion but hunger for God. He taught about the KOG and how people could become part of it and actively participate in the life of The Kingdom. The movement Jesus spoke and demonstrated had power because it had at its core a personal life-transforming experience. This is the genuine Christianity that turned the world upside down and the time is now for recapturing the initial appeal of the Gospel.

That is the Church’s Mission: ‘to join God in His redemptive affords to save the world. The Church is not in need of a methodological fix but a missional fix’.

by Inban caldwell

The article below is written by my Father (Max Edwards). My Father has had huge experience in the Organised Church including being a Baptist Minister and on the mission field in Papua New Guinea.

THE END IS NIGH!

In the NZ Herald today there was an article “Taking the easy way out” from the Observer. It talks about outdated management structures. It outlines about the demise of General Motors which is in a death spiral. Its business model ensures that each car it produces costs $4,500US more than its rivals. It says that the business model of GM and indeed most of the world’s largest traditional companies is played out. The Proud foot 2005 international productivity report states that it found that within these companies everyone was “busy doing the wrong things” to raise productivity. The article says that autocratic control is not the answer, they must produce to real demand placing decision making on the front line nearest the customer.

When reading this I thought about the traditional church. I can see that after 40 years in the traditional church in all leadership positions at some time or other, I was busy doing good things. Things that helped keep the wheels of the organization turning but had little to do with, or little effect upon, the lives of our own people or the community in which we were placed. Busy doing the wrong things really spoke to me.

It alarms me that some churches still see autocratic control as being the answer. Appoint the right person, give him his head, and get the right systems and programs in place, get more staff on board to cover various age groups and things will really move. The result is that you have tension at the top, people feeling driven, slaves to the system. Autocratic control is not the answer really spoke to me.

What is the real demand out there in the world today? Isn’t it Kingdom Building? Pointing people to Christ and helping them to understand how God has acted on their behalf and encouraging them to respond in faith to that and helping one another to greater maturity in Christ. The traditional church places responsibilities to the structure before and between their people and the lost. It subtly says “leave it to the pastor and the staff, they’re the paid professionals”. Faith is not a given. Philip’s grandfather (a minister for 50 years) regularly said not to forget the warning of Jesus “”When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

Whatever shapes the new structure of the church takes, it must bring decision making to the front line nearest the customer. To my mind that is…leadership must be placed in the family where it belongs, where it is closest to the unbelieving community (the customer). Christians need to understand that you don’t need professional help to be the person you are meant to be for your family and the community in which you have been placed. You need to be dependent on God and subsequently filled with the Spirit. Anything else will be more of a hindrance than a help.

All over the Western World, mature Christians have begun to ask themselves, “Is this it?” . Dissatisfied with being unfruitful, tired from years of doing church, bored and sometimes lonely, many Christians are once again taking stock of what they believe, and how they outwork it in today’s Western society. Not only are many Christians taking stock, but a good proportion of them are doing something about, stepping out of there comfort zones, walking away from what is familiar and jumping into the unknown.
Several authors and commentators have begun to commentate and remark on this phenomenon such as Wolfgang Simson, Jim Ruiz, Jim Montgomery, George Barna and many others. Reading widely and experiencing this phenomenon myself, I believe that there are three main desires in mature believers which are creating this surge.

1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Many of the believers affected in this new move, have been in two or more churches. Often they have been heavily involved at some stage. It is common for them to have come to the conclusion that church as they have known it is missing the mark in regards to the world they live in from what they read in the New Testament. Often words like, exhausted, dissatisfied and meaningless are used.

2. Desire to be simpler.
This is one of the core values and people can come to it from different directions. It is a reaction to peoples feeling that institutional church needed one to be so busy with involvement that it made people be doers instead of be’ers. For some it is a value out of what they believe is expressed in the New Testament about simplicity of faith and the apparent simplicity of the church gathered expressed in the Bible compared to what they have known. For others the desire to be simple is out of conviction, that the simpler they live out there faith the more effective it would be in fulfilling the great commission. Some also are turning to simpler forms believing it is more relevant to a post modern world then the churches they have left.

3. Desire for more Fruitfulness.
Many have carried the feeling that they have not been very fruitful for God, in the way they have previously lived there life. They are living out the dictum ‘if you continue to do what your doing, you will continue to get what your getting’ Even though they are aware that making the change does not automatically mean they will be more fruitful, they feel it can’t be any worse then how they were before. For some involved in this surge, the two points above may not hold so true, but there desire to find more relevant forms of faith / worship expression in today’s world brings them into this group (these people are often tagged as the ‘emergent church’).

Out of these three desires, mature believers are beginning to act out there faith in many diverse ways (to numerous to list here.) Some believers are staying within the traditional structures, advocating against growing bigger but to begin making the structures simpler. Some Believers have left ‘normal church’ and are doing nothing, either waiting for God to reveal himself to them or being completely unsure of what to do next. Others are gathering in homes, offices, cafes and being the church in neighbourhoods and workplaces. Some are forming themselves into teams and focussing on tasks that they feel God is calling them to undertake such as relieving poverty in there neighbourhood, or backing to the hilt some missionary endeavour . These are just some of the massive expression’s beginning to take place.

Perhaps you are a mature believer, who has become dissatisfied with the status quo and are feeling a real frustration in your spirit. I remember a very wise man once said to me. Frustration comes from God to galvanise us out of where we are at. After frustration we need to know the holy Spirits leading that we can have the confidence to take the first step to a better tomorrow.

It is a sad fact that today's church is deceiving itself in some very crucial areas. Below are some plain facts (-absolutely true) that may shock a few people:
1.”Ask Jesus into our heart" is not in the Bible. Neither is “Give your heart to the Lord”, nor repeating a "sinner’s prayer". These practices do not exist in Scripture at all. The subject of salvation is the most important subject in the Bible and we are being lied to about it. These doctrines are a total fabrication. They were invented to
make salvation "quick and convenient". Many church members today who are relying on these things are clearly not 'saved' at all.

2. Church buildings do not exist in the Bible. They were invented around 200-300 AD, when the church was in serious decline. Only a backslidden church could fall so
far away from the simplicity of the early church. Church buildings are anti-New Testament, and bring with them a host of problems and traditions. It was basically
when the church fell into the hands of Rome that this concept of the "cathedral" really took over. And we are still spending millions on these monuments today.

3. The "one pastor runs everything" model is totally unscriptural. Far from running everything, in the book of Acts we find the word "pastor" NOT EVEN USED
ONCE. (-The early church did have strong leaders and elders. But it was never a "one man band" like we see today. And never was it so "controlling" either).

4. "Tithing" is not a New Testament practice at all. And it is being shamefully abused by today's preachers. In the New Testament we are told to give cheerfully - whatever
we purpose in our hearts to give. Telling people that they MUST give 10% to the church or they are "robbing God" is totally sick - and a money-grubbing way of twisting Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles EVER preached 'tithing' to New Testament believers. It was clearly regarded as an Old Testament practice.

5. The words "prosper" or 'prosperity' was NEVER used by Jesus at all - and only exist a couple of times in the entire New Testament. Yet greedy preachers have built
whole kingdoms upon them. The words - "sell what you have and give to the poor" and "deceitfulness of riches" and "you cannot serve God and mammon" and "woe
to you that are rich" were DEFINITELY used by Jesus and the apostles. But we don't hear these things preached too much, do we?

6. There were no Bible Colleges, Seminaries or degrees in the New Testament. The only people who seemed to have "Bible Schools" were the Scribes and Pharisees!
The apostles were simple fishermen and tax collectors. It is likely that a number of them could not even read or write. What was their "qualification" for being in the
ministry? Simply that they had SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH JESUS. The fact that people expect a "professional clergy" today with degrees from Bible College has helped to make the church sicker and more unscriptural than ever. Simple humble people with a calling from God often cannot get to minister because they do not have a "piece of paper" to make them 'qualified'. -Yet another disaster for the church.

7. There is almost no evidence whatsoever that the early church had their "main meeting" on a Sunday. They gathered together 'from house to house' virtually every
day! There were no church buildings. They did not dress up and "go to church". There were no denominations. There were no separate groups with different 'labels'. They
lived their lives together - all the Christians in the local area. Love and fellowship and 'koinonia' were as natural to them as breathing. And the apostles in Jerusalem
preached every day at huge open-air gatherings. -Not “hidden away" inside four walls. This was truly a "street church" in every way.

8. The idea that you can replace the moving of the Holy Spirit with programs, programs and more programs just shows how low we have sunk. Man-made
programs are everywhere today. The early church had much more of God and much less of 'man'.

9. We preach a 'humanistic' Jesus today. -A Jesus who exists mainly for our own "happiness". A Santa Claus who wants to rain down continual blessings upon us. A God of grace and mercy without judgement, righteousness or truth. Our gross misrepresentation of who Jesus really is is one of the most serious offences
of the modern church. Today's church seems to worship a "plastic" Jesus - one that she has made in her own image. What an offence to God.

A lot of Ministers are well aware that there is something very wrong with the church today. They know there is little 'fear of the Lord'. They know there is no deep repentance or deep moving of the Holy Spirit. They know that it is just the same old "game" being played every week. A lot of them are very aware of this. But they will
not do anything about it. They will not rock the boat. And they will "squash" anyone who comes along trying to do something. They do not want a real "shaking". There is too much to lose. They have their careers and their little 'kingdoms' at stake. This is the real truth of the matter. This is where the rubber truly meets the road.

There is a 'New Wineskin' coming. In fact it is upon us. There is a new leadership arising - many of them trained in the 'wilderness' for such a time as this. The hour is now here. LET THE NEW LEADERS ARISE! The sad fact is that today's church has sunk so low that it is almost a matter of people needing to be RESCUED OUT OF HER. I never thought I would say something as radical as that, but it is the truth.

The entire church is living a lie. Many inside her are told continuously that they are "OK" - that they are saved and headed for heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Multitudes of them are headed directly for hell. The systemized LYING that is going on has deceived the leaders and the people alike. It is the blind leading the blind. We need to contend for these people - desperately. Much of the church is
"lost". They are mired in deception - an entire system of deception.

-by Andrew Strom.

Millions and millions of Christian Believers are beginning to take part in a ground swell of change that is beginning to radically alter the Christian landscape beyond what we recognise today. There are the beginnings of a massive migration from the cultural experience of Christianity which we have practiced through an institutionalised / congregational model (post – Constantine) towards the beliefs, functions and forms of Pre – Constantine Christianity.
“The local church has virtually no discernible influence on people’s lives… One million people leave the traditional church each year”. (Barna, George www.barna.org)

“These Christians reject historical denominationalism and all restrictive central authority, and attempt to lead a life of following Jesus, seeking a more effective missionary lifestyle. They are the fastest-growing Christian movements in the world. Barrett estimates that by the year 2025, these movements will have around 581 million members, 120 million more than all Protestant movements together. Hirsh confirms the trend from his own experience, and believes that these new Christian movements "are simply under the radar of traditional Christianity", at least as long as it holds on to the classical Constantine church structure).” Hirsch, Alan. www.forge.org.au

This change is like a wave not led by Academics and Leaders but by simple followers of Jesus Christ dissatisfied with the status quo and wanting to be more in step with the New Testament in a relevant way for the world they live in. Their cry is to be Christ incarnate to a desperate world.

Below is an article written today in the Washington Post about House Church. This is the best article I have seen by the secular media. When it's being written up in the Washington Post, you know something is happening!

Going to Church by Staying at Home
By Michael Alison Chandler and Arianne Aryanpur
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 4, 2006; C01

After Sunday dinner at Joe Rodgers's Rockville home, guests adjourn to the living room for church.

In his makeshift chapel, wooden kitchen stools and a floral print couch act as pews, a portable keyboard substitutes for an organ and the host, an electronics technician by day, serves as pastor.

But just as there is no formal name or dress code for this church, there is no sermon or pastor-led prayer. When it came time to bow their heads on a recent May evening, each of the 10 adults in attendance had something to contribute: One man prayed for success with his new fitness program; another sought guidance as he prepared for his upcoming marriage. The worshipers have different faith backgrounds, including evangelical, Episcopalian and Catholic. What they share is a dissatisfaction with traditional church services.

"You can't ask questions in most churches. You might make an appointment with the pastor, get in his daybook for a quick lunch," said Rodgers, 50.

A growing number of Christians across Washington and around the country are moving to home churches -- both as a way to create personal connections in the age of the megachurch and as a return to the blueprint of the Christian church spelled out in the New Testament, which describes Jesus and the apostles teaching small groups in people's homes.
Estimates vary widely for a movement that is by design informal and decentralized, but the consensus among home-churchers is that they are part of a growing trend.

George Barna, a religion pollster, estimates that since 2000, more than 20 million Americans have begun exploring alternative forms of worship, including home churches, workplace ministries and online faith communities. Barna based that figure on surveys of the religious practices and attitudes of American adults that he has conducted over the past 25 years.

"These are people who are less interested in attending church than in being the church," said Barna, who became a home-churcher last year. The alternatives are attractive to those who want to deepen their relationships with God and one another, and they also suit Americans' growing taste for flexibility and control of their schedules, he said.

Although many Christians still participate in their old churches while trying out a new one, Barna predicts that over the next two decades, traditional churches will lose half their "market share" to these alternative start-ups. His estimates far exceed the best guesses of home-church networks. The Orlando-based Dawn Ministries places the number of home churches in the United States in the tens of thousands, based partly on the size of online directories and attendance at home-church conferences.

Home churches are usually nondenominational and consist of a dozen or so friends or family members who often meet without an ordained pastor. They have historically proliferated in countries with repressive regimes. In China, millions of people have converted to Christianity in unauthorized home churches over the past half-century. But the United States has seen only intermittent swells of activity. The free-form style of fellowship got a boost in this country during the 1960s and 1970s with the hippie Jesus Movement and the Charismatic Renewal, a worldwide movement best known for embracing speaking in tongues and other emotional expressions of faith. Those movements downplayed hierarchy and emphasized broad participation.

The more recent rise of home churches has been facilitated by the Internet, said John White, a Denver-based coordinator for Dawn Ministries, one of several organizations that helps plant new home churches. White said that when he tired of the "endless" church administration meetings and quit his job as a Presbyterian minister to start a home church eight years ago, it was difficult to find anyone to join. Now he has an e-mail list of more than 800 people nationwide who receive his postings about practical issues of home churching -- addressing such matters as how to organize child-friendly services, how to handle tithing, and what to do if the church gets too big.

With more access to religious information online, people are realizing that they don't have to rely on a pastor with an advanced degree to lead them, White said. Instead, they can learn how to create an alternative in a few steps. The result is an overall "flattening of the church," White said. This is in keeping with God's plan to have a "kingdom of priests" in which everyone participates in his or her religious life, he said. With next to no overhead, home churches are easy to set up. Dawn Ministries has been sending missionaries, or "coaches," to establish home churches around the world since 1985 and now has about 2,000 volunteers working in about 150 countries.

The model has been less successful in the United States -- until recently. Responding to the growing interest in home churches, over the past year the organization has increased the number of coaches working in North America from about five to 70, mostly in the Midwest, California, Texas and Colorado.

Critics of the home-church movement warn that, by meeting only in small groups with lay leaders, Christians could become disconnected and stray from orthodox beliefs.

"We human beings are prone to error; we need each other," said Scott Kisker, an associate professor of evangelism at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington. He said that even the early home-based churches were connected through the apostles and that "many books of the New Testament are letters from the apostles calling churches to more faithful doctrine."

But Kisker said that a growing home-church movement could be good for traditional churches by encouraging them to foster small breakout groups, something he agreed is necessary for people to feel connected.

Many traditional churches do have midweek Bible study groups or cell churches. For some, these can be a first taste of home church, said Greg Windsor, a real estate developer and a member of the Rockville congregation that meets in Rodgers's home.

Windsor, 48, became interested in home churching almost 10 years ago while he was attending a megachurch in Montgomery County. "The person sitting next to you in the pew could be close to dying, but people don't really know one another," he said. By abandoning the steeple, the pastor and the crowds of people, Windsor said, his tiny congregation is trying to live according to the New Testament. "A lot of embellishments happened over the centuries," Windsor said. The modern Christian church is "like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy," he said. "It starts getting distorted and changed." Windsor and his wife started reading about home churches and broke off froma bigger church to meet with a group in northern Maryland. After several years, that group grew too large -- about 30 people -- and the couple broke off again, starting the home church in Rockville. Stripped to its most basic elements, he said, his group can focus on developing "deep friendships" and "helping one another grow spiritually."

The service changes from week to week, depending on what members are going through or thinking about; they might organize a Bible study or discussion around managing their finances or overcoming depression. On a recent Sunday, they watched a film by Focus on the Family that chronicles the lives of early Christians and their attempts to convert the Greeks. Afterward, they talked about how those experiences compare with challenges in spreading the faith today. They sang hymns and put money into a small cardboard box, to be donated to homeless programs and victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. As the Communion bread and wine were passed around the circle, music played while others swayed and whispered "Oh God" and "Merciful God."

By about 9 p.m., it was time to go home. But Windsor said church does not end when the service is over. Members might meet several times during the week, and church can continue over coffee at Starbucks or during a biblical discussion at a family barbecue. For them, church is not tied to a building or confined to a couple hours a week, he said. "It's a way of life."

"House Church is at a crossroads of whether what we do is based on the reality of God?s work among his people, or whether we?ll package into slick programs of celebrity speakers and become just another whirlpool of irrelevance in the sea of failed religious approaches to God." Wayne Jacobsen

Until two years ago, I was a pretty conventional guy. When my wife and I were in our mid twenties we planted and pastored a fairly conventional church in a fast growing area of the country, with a small number of churches. Our dream was to see many, come to know Christ and see a large thriving dynamic church established. Seven years later disillusioned and questioning the way I ‘did church’ I was about to join the ranks of failed clergy. Three things in particular then set me to thinking ‘outside the square,’ that my conventional ministry had been in.

The first reality I had to face was doing church was far simpler in the New Testament then the way I was doing it. I was tired of the complexity and difficulty of running and maintaining the organisation of church. I craved the simplicity of what I read about and wanted it for myself. I felt that God had got lost in the system somewhere, and all I was producing was tired disciples who spent more time building the church instead of going into all the world. I had to admit was that I loved eating and drinking and sharing life with people but had always (even as a Minister) struggled to find the benefit of sitting in church for two hours every Sunday singing and passively listening to a preacher.

The 2nd thing I had to acknowledge was that in reality, the ‘church’ as we know it in New Zealand, has not seen the Kingdom of God grow in a significant way for a very long time. Since my first memories of church in the early 1970’s, many exciting things had happened. The charismatic renewal swept the country, and there had been explosive growth in the Pentecostal churches, the church growth movement, cell churches, seeker churches, mega churches, combined evangelistic and prayer campaigns, new worship music and more. However, for all the hard work of many church leaders and their members, how much had God’s Church in N.Z. really grown? Statistics say that at best it has stayed the same, and if one deducted all the Christian migrants that have flocked into New Zealand’s churches in the last decade, the church would likely be revealed as in decline. I had to admit that even if I saw what I thought was my heart’s desire; a big church established, that this would most likely be the result of believers moving around f