I found myself in deep agreement with your article. You expressed so well the journey we go through as we struggle to get over ourselves and connect with broken sinners that have been redeemed. If Christ can accept them and He is perfect then why can’t I accept them when I am one of them? I was an introverted loner before I found Christ some seventeen years ago. One of the biggest ways Christ has changed my life is that I now come alive when I am in the community of the church. I love finding my Lord at work in people’s lives, both mine and theirs. I am thankful that Christ has not given up on the church and I am filled with a great joy when I stand with a group of believers and followers as the body of Christ. Thank you for your work as a child of God. Peace, Gary Baas <><

Oh God, reading articles like this frustrate the hell out of me because I just wish that there will be a stop to this "us and them" mentality when dealing with those who are in and out of the church.

Many of us who are "out" of the institutional church, so to speak, have not given up on the church - the body of believers. Perhaps we have given up on a certain way of doing church, but we will never, ever, ever, ever (10x more) give up on the church, the body of believers.

As illogical as it may seem to most of you who don't understand us, we left because we want to find it.

I wish, instead of theorising about us in a corner of cyberspace, that you'd interact with those who left. Talk to us! Eat with us! Hang out with us! We'd be glad to talk to you, and NO, most of us still consider people in the IC our brothers and sisters. More often than naught it is those in the IC that don't consider us Christians.

If you talk to us, you'd find that many are not bitter and cynical as you allege. In fact, many have left that behind because they've found something better, healing, and more rewarding. We spend our time finding ways to serve the community, we get together informally and even visit our friends' churches on Sundays.

Is that notion terribly frightening to those in the IC, especially pastors? It may seem so because they seem to have a knee jerk reaction to those who are actually having a great time outside the IC. They produce articles like this, which will only drive people outside the IC – people whom Barna calls Revolutionaries (though I am not comfortable with that label – further away.

Anyway, I will answer the article as best as I can on my blog in a few days.

Good thoughts.

I have this notion that God has directions, AND is big enough to work with us where/as we are.

I think God has made us dynamic creatures (I think we're always developing.)

I think Christian community is part of the God direction while the format or model is developing.

I don't have a problem with people outside the church. My biggest challenge is staying honest about my own faith. When that happens I am most likely to humbly honor the pilgrimages and convictions of others without feeling threatened. Eutychus Guy (another lead pastor)

I agree with you that one can never be outside the Body. That is how God wants us to be, a community. But you just have to be careful not to replace one form of playing church with another form of playing church. As people we will always have to look out for the danger of feeling complacent just because we belong to a "church". I believe one can be genuinly be part of the Body even though you do not officialy belong to a "church"! What if I commune with people from several "churhces"?

This is an excellent post and I find myself nodding my head in agreement as I read. Church can frustrate me a great deal, but I just can't give up on it ...

This "With-God" life is meant to be lived "with others". To me you need others in your life to grow in your relationship with God. We definitely need periods where we "get alone" with God for solitude and silence -- for whatever time is needed -- but I think the purpose is that we might be more fully engaged in the community when we return. Our Enemy wants more than anything for us to think we can "do this life on our own", that community is more trouble than it's worth ... And there's no denying that community is messy at times, it's frustrating at times, it's downright tiring at times (burnout is definitely a danger), but then life can be messy, frustrating, and tiring and I think authentic community helps us with the struggles we encounter living our lives.

My experience would say that while community can be challenging at times it also gives us a great deal to help us in our lives and is something we are ill-advised to withdraw from for too long.

Thanks Bob for an excellent article. Let me posit an additional reason to stay in the church:

God calls us to be part of the messy church because it is in the context of relationship struggles where God meets us and helps us grow. As I said in a recent message dealing with Jacob's struggles with Esau and his wrestling with God: the two go hand in hand … relationships with God and with people. Struggle in one area, let’s say in our human relationships, often results in spiritual struggle as well; and it is within God’s workshop of our relational networks, that he helps us grow in love and spiritual depth. Particularly through relational struggles, we can gain a better understanding of God’s presence to give us hope and his power to bring reconciliation. Walter Brueggemann comments: “There are no troubled dimensions of human interaction which are removed from the coming of the Holy God. And there are no meetings with the Holy God apart from the realities of troubled human life.” While we might think that our greatest God-moments come when everything is going well, the stories of Jacob in the Old Testament suggest that our most intimate God-experiences are more likely when our relationships are falling apart, when we feel like things are completely out of our control, and thus when we realize that we most need him.

So it is, no doubt, easier and simpler to live life apart from the messiness of Christian community. But, in so doing, we will inevitably miss some of what God wants to do to make us more like Jesus. It is in the context of community that we move from selfishness toward self sacrifice, from callousness toward empathy, from apathy toward compassion, and the list goes on. And while these aspects of Christ-like character can and should be learned in our biological families, the church community is distinctive. For while we can’t choose our biological families and in some ways we “have to love” them, church is a choice and therefore provides a unique context for learning an other—centered lifestyle.

I'm glad my article could serve to stir up some good feeling...

Messy- I do all the things you want me to do. I have seen people who have left church get over the anger and bitterness, but it's certainly not the norm, at least in my experience. And I think your frustration with a silly article on the internet touches on some of that, eh?

Here's my point- what I see most often is that those who go the "I'm just going to hang out with some friends and that will be my spiritual community" route often end up in a very homogeneous group with little interaction with Christ-followers who don't view the world/spirituality/following Jesus JUST like they do, and for all the talk of building spiritual practices into those friendships to replace what's missing from not actively participating in a formal church community somewhere, they really just have some people they hang out with who talk about God sometimes.

And that really is a far cry from participation in a community which preaches the Gospel to us, holds us accountable, administers the sacraments to one another, etc...

If your case is different, my apologies, but man... "visiting different churches?" Why? Why even go if it's so messed up? And if it's not that messed up, why not make an actual commitment to be present at and to one regularly?

You're going to spend eternity with these people... might as well start getting to know them, loving them and serving them now. Your frustrations are not unfounded... like I said, I've been there. But that's why we plant churches.

"church is a choice and therefore provides a unique context for learning an other—centered lifestyle."

Awesome...

Bob:

1. You should actually read, digest and understand a book prior to tasking umberance with major points you have attributed to the author (George Barna)that are inaccurate.

2. When people are wounded in the "church" it takes time for people to heal and become reoriented. Perhaps the sheer millions that are "walking wounded" provides ample evidence for the reluctance of so many to become involved in what you refer to as "the community of the redeemed."...to use your phrase. Why would you want to return to a relationally based institution that has caused you pain and suffering? Takes a lot of thirst to return to a place where the same old same old continues to create the walking wounded...dieing of thirst.

3. Your interpretation of the Gospel as joining the "community of the redeemed" is both one-dimensional and self-serving. Perhaps another "purpose" of the Gospel is to "move-out" from where you find yourself and to move amongst those "unredeemed" (whatever "redeemed" might mean today).

Perhaps we need another term for "church" as many are now searching for different terms other than "Christian." Other than a change of label on the Ketchup bottle, many we need a substantive change in what that really looks like, and tastes like... living in the way of Jesus, amongst the unredeemed - rather than continuing to girate hysterically about what's happening to "us."

I pray it will be those who are disconnected, deeply wounded, lost, and seeking a better way, who may be the one's who God uses to stumble upon a better way. That's the way I see in my Bible how God has selected those to lead the "rest of us." Let's support those people in every way we can shall we? ... including those authors, like George Barna, who recognize their numbers among us, and direct our attention toward them, to perhaps learn something from their existence, experience within the church, and their present wanderings.

Read the book Bob.

Bless you,

Bill

Bill-

Again, I loved much of what I have heard George Barna say and write.

My issue is not with Barna (other than what I see as an overly positive take on the "church of the individual"). My point in writing was not to critique Barna, but to pull those who have walked away from church community towards thinking about the issue theologically.

"When people are wounded in the "church" it takes time for people to heal and become reoriented."

Did anything I wrote lead you to believe that I thought anything different?

"Why would you want to return to a relationally based institution that has caused you pain and suffering? Takes a lot of thirst to return to a place where the same old same old continues to create the walking wounded."

Because the Body of Christ is just THAT important. It's kind of like a family, Bill. You don't just walk away- you work to bring healing and change. And again, please understand- I left the institutional church and started a church that meets in a pub. Why? Because I needed to and because there were people who didn't fit in standard evangelical communities that needed me to.

"Your interpretation of the Gospel as joining the "community of the redeemed" is both one-dimensional and self-serving. Perhaps another "purpose" of the Gospel is to "move-out" from where you find yourself and to move amongst those "unredeemed" (whatever "redeemed" might mean today)."

One-dimensional and self serving? Pshah. That's easy to type, Bill. If viewing the Gospel through the lens of God's redemptive purpose in the world to create a redeemed community in a renewed creation in relationship with the Triune God is "one dimensional and self serving" then fine. Personally, I think that's pretty flaccid critique.

Why do we move out amongst the unredeemed? Is it simply to join them there? Or is it to invite them to join the Body of Christ? And how do we do that when we have effectively cut ourselves off from it and have little to no connection with it?

Like I said in the article- I don't care if its a house church, an emerging church, a baptist church or a mega church (you read that part, right?)... but the call to Christ is the call to community. "Just Jesus 'n' me" Christianity is something the New Testament know nothing about.

Bob:

"My issue is not with Barna (other than what I see as an overly positive take on the "church of the individual")."

Like I said, read the book. That's not what was written or advocated by Mr. Barna. You're completely out of context in your refernce to what he wrote. That's just not fair, nor is it, in my opinion, accurate (I was a reviewer of the book, prior to its release...trust me...I read every page).

The "Just Jesus n me" stuff that is the premise of the vast majority of your article. However, such a premise cannot be attributed to any sort of "advocacy" conained in the work entitled "Revolution" by George Barna. He may have "observed" some of this phenomenon in the data he was summarizing, but it certainly wasn't advocacy for the premise that you're writing about and attributing to him.

In commenting about his 'observations' of "revolutionaries," Barna says: "Revolutionaries do not try to draw people away from the local church. Theirs is a personal choice based upon a genuine desire to be holy and obedient, but finding that need better served outside the framwework of congregational structures." p. 113 My translation... Amongst the "unredeemed."

Finally, Barna says, "The Revolution of faith that is emrging today is no different (referring to the Reformation). If you mention that millions of deeply devout Christians whose lives are centered on knowing, loving and serving God live independently of a local church, you can count on criticism from the church establishment." p. 112

Bob...it seemed to me that your article was terribly symptomatic of the "criticism from the church establishment" that Barna referred to. That's self serving...an argument ( whose main premise I have pointed out as inaccurate)and your article supporting your present position as a pastor (albeit an errant one.

Bob...that's OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Your article makes for good copy, but it's legitimacy is flawed because you admit you haven't even read what you're railing about. Perhaps your attempt is to attract more mainstream appeal. The substance of your article certainly has garnered that.

The book "Revolution" continues to be controversial. We may all rail against the fear of the uncertainty that Barna illuminates by virtue of the data he summarizes about those he profiles. The error is to attribute the findings and the author's elaboration on the data, to the author himself.

"a biblical prophet, it has been said, is not one who sees into the future, as star gazers and crystal ball readers purport to do. Rather, he's one who sees things in the present that others are blind to...one who warns us of what will happen in the future if we don't mend our ways." P. ix He Is There And He Is Not Silent" - Francis A. Schaeffer - quote by Charles Colsen in Foreword.

When one examines the work of the Barna Group over the past 20 some odd years, perhaps this might be their legacy. Prophetic utterances are not always popular...I believe a reading of Both our Bibles reveals this truth.

Bless you Bob. I truly appreciate all you do for God's children...including this one.

Best,

Bill

Bob - There is a terribly unfortunate typo in my last post where it says "(albeit an errant one."

I was editing the premise section of what I said and unfortunately did not delete what I was typing. I can assure you I did not make what appears to be some sort of slur toward you.

My sincere apologies.

Bill

Good article. I think relating to the church is about loving it while making sure you have secure boundaries.

The boundaries for me are that we protect ourselves from damaging teaching, dysfunctional groups, and being drawn into a church set up that has lost the missional plot and doesn't want to recover it. But love with abandon, even the dying churches.

And for those of us in exile in some form, it is amazing how you can go on loving the church and building bridges with it, all the time you are technically independent. Denominationally independent planters etc can still have sensible accountability, and work hard to fit in warmly and sensitively with the other churches in the neighbourhood. I think for those not engaged in ministry in some form who are out of the church loop, we could do with developing some expertise in healing work in the form of church recovery programmes. It is a big enough problem to merit resources, and will demonstrate lovingkindness which in itself is a vital part of the healing.

2 things..

I should avoid typing late at night. I write things that sound harsher than I want, so apologies for that.

Second, again... my article isn't about Barna... In as much as he's talking about people leaving overly programmed, overly institutional models of church and setting out with small groups of others for missional serving of Jesus, I'm all about it.

But, clearly some have taken it further and embarked on a very individualistic tack, disconnected from the larger body of Christ. This article was meant to speak about that approach to following Jesus, not Mr. Barna's book....

Wow. I feel heartsick when I read some of the replies, especially from you Bob. Sigh. It's almost as if you're saying that just because we don't belong to a local church it means we're not part of it. Although I have not abandoned it in my heart, you're pretty sure I have.

It's no wonder that my friends who are on the same journey as I am often advice me to just stay away from such conversations because it'll do no good.

Isn't it funny that whenever a "movement" appears, the old guard will attack it? I suppose in a way its healthy - we need to be sure it's not 'heretical' and such, but it's so predictable it's funny. (and this is not exactly anything new, to be honest ... God has always worked in interesting ways with the church...)

Anyway, to answer some of your queries:

Messy- I do all the things you want me to do. I have seen people who have left church get over the anger and bitterness, but it's certainly not the norm, at least in my experience. And I think your frustration with a silly article on the internet touches on some of that, eh? >> My frustration is mostly with the fact that there's an us and them mentality,

Here's my point- what I see most often is that those who go the "I'm just going to hang out with some friends and that will be my spiritual community" route often end up in a very homogeneous group with little interaction with Christ-followers who don't view the world/spirituality/following Jesus JUST like they do, and for all the talk of building spiritual practices into those friendships to replace what's missing from not actively participating in a formal church community somewhere, they really just have some people they hang out with who talk about God sometimes. >> Wow, and you got that ... how? I can tell you for sure, that it isn't true with me. The people in my community is so diverse. Some are very charismatic, some not, most are in the IC. Some are not. Some are Catholic, others protestant. In fact, I think church was very homogenous when I was in one local church. But the best part is I have friends who are not Christians too, and who talk to me about Christianity. Isn't that swell??

And that really is a far cry from participation in a community which preaches the Gospel to us, holds us accountable, administers the sacraments to one another, etc... >> hmmmmmmm. I get that all by not being there every Sunday. How strange. Perhaps not the sacrements part, but I do visit my friends' churches so I do participate once in a while.

If your case is different, my apologies, >> Apology accepted. :P

but man... "visiting different churches?" Why? >> Wow. Do I even have to answer that? Because I love being with my friends in these different churches! To know how they live in the church, how they interact.

Why even go if it's so messed up? >> That's assuming that I think ALL churches are messed up.

And if it's not that messed up, why not make an actual commitment to be present at and to one regularly? >> Because I realise that I cannot be the church by just attending Sunday services every week. I want MORE. Commit to what? A cell group and a once-a-year visit to the orphanage? From my experience, and boy has it been a long painful one, one never forms true blue relationships in cell groups or the church. And activities? I have approached the church, wishing to do something, only to be turned away because 'i'm not qualified' enough, or because my serve doesn't fit the ministry.

You're going to spend eternity with these people... might as well start getting to know them, loving them and serving them now. >> Funny, that's what I'm doing now. :)

Your frustrations are not unfounded... like I said, I've been there. But that's why we plant churches. >> That's true and good. I never did say that what you're doing is not right.

Look, I am not saying that my way of 'doing church' is the right way. I respect your right to be in the IC, to lead it, but why can't you respect my way of being with God? Is it so hard to believe that millions of christians are finding joy and spiritual fulfillment outside the church?

I know this is a very threatening turn of events, but funny so was the Emergent movement and the Reformation.

But sigh, I'm going to stop trying to convince you. It's ok if you don't think I'm doing the right thing or am heading straight to Hades. The most important thing for me now, is to learn how to be closer to God and to be a better Christian.

Peace, Bob. My only prayer is that if you meet people like me, you'd listen to their stories without judging their motives. Just listen. Then perhaps you find out that we can work together instead of being seperate. :)

BTW. I'm not from the US. I'm from Asia. ;) Even in Asia people like the "revolutionaries" exist. Exciting, eh?

"Done correctly, a fast from church should make us hungry for the community of Christ followers again."

A fast from the meeting doesn't mean a fast from Christian community, unless your definition of church is limited to the meeting that take place on Sunday or the organization that runs the meeting and your relationships with other believers are formed and maintained only in the context of the organizaiton.

If you find Sunday meetings with other Christians helpful, then by all means, have a ball! Go to all the meetings that you want. But, speaking only for myself, I don't find them helpful. So, I've opted out of the meetings, but I haven't opted out of Christ.

I don't "go to" church, I am a member of The Church, Christ's Bride.

One last thought: It might just a sign of American culture that it's hard for many to conceive of community in any way that isn't structured of programmed.

Of course I can conceive of the difference between Christian community and "the meeting." The two have great overlap My point is this: one needs both. I need people at all places in their spiritual journey to connect to. AND I need to see my place in the Body and serve the rest of it. Do I really need to start quoting Hebrews 10 here? :)

Last year I wrote this:

Posted by Helen | Posted at 07/12/2007 8:38 AM

Oops, I messed that up...trying to post the link again

Why I AM done with church

Ahah, the oft-quoted Hebrews 10. Fire away! :) And we will respond with: We HAVE NOT forsaken the gathering with the saints. We just do it in a DIFFERENT way.

Tada.

As my friend would say: Cool beans, Helen! I will go and read the article now. :)

This article is another reason why I AM DONE WITH CHURCH. Bob, thanks for driving another nail in the coffin of organized religion. I have a small community of friends and we share our faith journey, but we won't call our selves the C-word.

Glad I could help. I love nailing nails in coffins.

Like I said earlier- If you really are functioning as a church, great. What I see most often is that those who go the "I'm just going to hang out with some friends and that will be my spiritual community" route often end up in a very homogeneous group with little interaction with Christ-followers who don't view the world/spirituality/following Jesus JUST like they do, and for all the talk of building spiritual practices into those friendships to replace what's missing from not actively participating in a formal church community somewhere, they really just have some people they hang out with who talk about God sometimes.

And that really is a far cry from participation in a community which preaches the Gospel to us, holds us accountable, administers the sacraments to one another, etc...

LOL Messy Christian, you beat me to it! Seriously, I've found that Christians who have opted out of the Sunday service place MORE emphasis on pursuing authentic, nurturing community than you find in way too many church org's.

Besides, during the service (attendane at which is, apparently, the standard by which my faith is judged) when do we really *fellowship*? Is it during the "Say hello to your neighbor" time? When?

I don't reject community, I *pursue* it. It's because I *believe* Hebrews 10:24-25 that I take it so seriously. Let's get together, let's encourage and challenge each other in our faith. Let's be family to one another. But does it HAVE to occur at the same time and place and with the same format every time?

I think there's plenty of room for a way more flexible, intuitive, informal approach to fellowship.

What's telling is that apart from this issue our theology probably has a ton of common ground. But you're making THIS issue the dividing line. I find that sad.

Bob, you just described most Sunday meetings.

"What I see most often is that those who go the "I'm just going to hang out with some friends and that will be my spiritual community" route often end up in a very homogeneous group with little interaction with Christ-followers who don't view the world/spirituality/following Jesus JUST like they do,"

Which is why we don't ABANDON church community... we change it. To me, that's what the best parts of the emerging church are all about.

If fellowship were the only thing on the table and the whole purpose of being connected to church, fine. But it's not. Theres a whole host of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ME.

Look, I'm not trying to defend a Sunday Christianity. I want nothing to do with that.

What I am saying is that connection to a larger body of Christians than just a handful of my friends serves an important role in my life, a role that has much to do with God's purposes in the world, and so serves an important part in the story of redemption for the whole world.

I still haven't heard anyone say anything that makes me think anything differently about that...

Side comment: you know what I really love? I get regularly written off as a heretic for my connection with the emerging church by those to the right of me. To them, I;'m a screaming liberal because I like to read Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren and because of how our community does church.

But now, because of this article, I'm the "old guard" who's trying to squash a new movement of God.

I have a feeling that whenever you are feeling the pushback equally from both sides of you, you are probably right where you need to be.

Carry on!

I find this dialogue very interesting because there appear to be several "martyrs" on here looking for a person or place to put blame for them leaving the church. Bob, you bastard! How dare you push ALL these people away from Church!

Dustin... I can't believe how badly I suck. :)

Man, if all the people at all the churches that I have totally pissed off could see me now...

Thanks MC! I expect I am more agnostic than you but hey, so what...we can still be non-church-going friends :)

"God plants His saints in the most useless places. We say --- God intends me to be here beacuse I am so useful. Jesus never estimated His life along the line of the greatest use. God puts His saints where they will glorify Him, and we are no judges at all of where that is." Oswald Chambers - My Utmost For His Highest - August 9th.

What "church" did Jesus attend?

Amongst The Unredeemed?

Sigh ... I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. You say A, they assume B ... Shari, you took the words out of my mouth! Yup, exactly how I feel.

Which is why we don't ABANDON church community... we change it. To me, that's what the best parts of the emerging church are all about. Didn't you listen to what we have been saying? We are trying to change it by living our lives this way. We are not abandoning church community for goodness sakes!

I find this dialogue very interesting because there appear to be several "martyrs" on here looking for a person or place to put blame for them leaving the church. Bob, you bastard! How dare you push ALL these people away from Church! I don't know about having a martyr complex, but Dustin, that's putting words into our mouths. Yes, it's true, articles like these push people away from the church because they see in it the reason why they left. They see arrogance and most of all, they feel judged and condemned. Who'd want to hang around this? Also, most people would not bother to engage in a conversation when they see articles like these. Why bother? Only silly people like me I guess. ;) But to be honest, I wanted to communicate that we've been misunderstood, so would like to enlighten you.

I was not not attacking Bob or anyone in the Ic, I'm just saying, Hey, what you're saying - not all of it is right. Here's what I think.

Bob, believe it or not, I consider myself part of the emerging church. Sivin (sivinkit.net) was my pastor, y'know? I'm dissapointed that as part of the Emergent movement, who claim that they value conversation and thought exchange so much, you're acting so defensively.

Your comment to Progression of Faith: Glad I could help. I love nailing nails in coffins.

Dissapointed me. Granted that he was probably reacting out of frustration, but if you value conversations so much as an Emergent guy, why are you chuckling at this guys frustration? Why are you telling him that you're glad that you're turning him away from the church (as you see it)?

How sad! But then again, I should not put so much of this on you.

Before, I would've reacted precisely the way you have.

I think to understand the way we see the church and our 'out of the box' church life, you'd have to undergo inner changes that can only come through experience. Usually, those who have not gone through what we have, or think the thoughts we have will never be able to understand our journeys. I'm not saying that we're better, but our experiences have made us view church very differently.

I suppose the only thing I can do is to hope that one day your eyes will be opened. And that God will continue bringing people like me and Shari into your lives so you'd understand. :)

Don't mean to sound condescending. Internet communication can be so limiting at times.

I think this article hits the nail right on the head. Nothing in the article suggests to me that Bob is trying to say anyone has to go back to an "institutional church" or anything. He's saying being in fellowship with other christians is an essential part of being a christian, that's all. I think he is addressing people who have stopped being in fellowship with other christians all together. I know folks who have done that and it's not healthy. They are nursing hurt feelings and holding on to damaged pride and trying to rationalize not having to be connected to any type of community. As a result, they are stagnating in their walk. For all those who have sucessfully moved on to some other form of "doing church" whatever form that takes, I think Bob is saying that is a good thing. I don't think he wrote the article about you, he is writing as an exhortation to those who haven't.

Bob,

I read Barna's Revolution and asked my elder team to do the same so we could discuss the criticisms he levels. Our take was almost identical to yours. I began visiting blogs recommended by Barna at the end of his book to find out more about "revolutionaries."

There are those I've come across who are in every way the pioneering adventurer Barna describes. Breaking with the institutional they've established alternative communities of faith which I applaud and respect. Who could knock that?

But many others (I would even say most) are believers disgusted with "ugh" factor of the Bride. They are disgruntled, disenchanted, and disillusioned. My heart goes out to them. I feel the same frustrations. But, here is--in my mind--the big HUGE deal: that "ugh" factor of sin...well it's in me too.

Some of the "non-traditionalists" and "non-institutionalists" are frankly arrogant believers who believe their passion too holy for a group of sullen, often time apathetic, frequently sinful church-goers.

So, I share what share on this post because Bill Dahl's critical posts compelled me. I have read the book. I agree with your take. And I did not read your article as an attack on Barna at all.

Bill needs to add to the discussion on a substantive level. The issue is ecclesiology not whether or not you've read the book. You're not offering a book review.

I, too, feel compelled to give my two cents after reading some of these comments which are, to say the least, defensive and missing the point. The article was not an attack on all things not-institutional.

On one hand, I am excited to see people wrestle with ecclesiology on such a personal level. What did Christ intend for His church to look like? Why does it exist? What does it look like here and now? I can understand the feelings of hurt and abuse that have caused so many to try new forms of faith communities. Like many of you, I've been there. I've ditched the IC, community, even my faith at times as a reaction to deep hurts inflicted by "God's people." So on one hand, I am excited.

But on the other hand, I'm disappointed by the reaction of some to this article. Bob hasn't waged war (either through this article or his comments) on all things different or not institutional. He has rather reasserted the importance of Christ's church in it's many forms (whether in a pub, a living room, or an auditorium.) When he voiced his concern for the tendency of some to walk away from biblical community in exchange for a small group who all think the exact same way and rarely participate in things like worship, communion, study, etc, there was this HUGE reaction!

There's really no need to get defensive unless you've done exactly that. He never shot down you "out-of-the-box" folks. He never said that meeting in a pub or a living room doesn't constitute being a part of the body of Christ. He only articulated the tendency of some to settle for something much easier and more homogeneous, which is then often less edifying, less challenging, spurs us on to less growth, and who often takes part in less spiritual disciplines together. (I think I may have added some of my own there.)

If that's not you, then there's no need to react. If that is you, then you need to ask some seriously questions and look to the scriptures to guide and direct what you're doing.

Thanks to the last few posters- I appreciate your balanced reading of this. No, as someone who dropped out of church and ministry for a time, came back and planted a fairly unconventional church that started in my living room with 10 people, moved into a pub (and then another pub, and then another), I don't have ANY problem whatsoever with unconventional out -of-the-box forms of community. So you'll excuse me if I chuckle a bit at the assertions that I'm somehow now the "old Guard." Maybe someday, but not yet...

As I though about this today, I really want people to hear a couple of things. First, this is Why *I'M* not done with church, not why YOU shouldn't be. I realize that I, in essence, make the second point, but fundamentally, this article is my understanding of the telos, the point, of the Gospel and its implication regarding community. If you disagree, okay. If I'm not describing you, okay. But don't angrily tell me how NOT angry you are, you know? :) Second, you don't have to tell me (over and over) that I don't GET you. I think I already admitted that right in the body of the article, right? But please don't tell me I need to shut up and listen. Believe me. I listen. Over the last three years as I have sat with countless people both on their way out of and back into church I have listened. In fact, I would wager with any one of those imploring me to "listen" that if I counted it up, I have sat across the table and heard the stories of more "leavers" than make up the small groups of friends you now associate with. I've talked to people who were leaving because they were hurt. People who were leaving because it didn't make sense to them any more. People who were leaving because they were just plain bored. I have heard the stories, and I will continue to hear the stories. I will also continue to encourage those folks to think about what the Gospel means on a practical level for community, and even if they need to take a break, to pursue healing and pursue *church* no matter what it looks like/ Overall, I don't think it's not a matter of doing it "my" way... I hope I made that clear by saying connect to whatever kind of local church makes sense to you.

But the option I don't believe is on the table for people following Jesus is to disconnect from the larger Body of Christ, circle up with a couple of buddies, and assume that having some spiritual conversations now and again (mostly focused on what sucks about church) is sufficient.

If someone wants to be a house church of 5 or 10 people, then okay. That's *great* in fact. Baptize people, take communion, serve the poor together, read and discuss Scripture and pray with and for each other. Regularly worship God together and when necessary, correct one another.

If someone is doing ALL of that with their 5 or 6 friends then I have absolutely NO beef with them whatsoever. That's church!

But I have a feeling that even with the best of intentions "me and my spiritual friends" OFTEN (not always, but often) is something different...

Howdy Bob. Great article.

I am truly one of those outside the institutional church, yet I'm open to being part of one again. But that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon. So it goes.

In your paragraph starting with "I couldn't disagree more", you said "God cares if you connect to community".

Is community with other believers only found in institutional church?

Sorry if this has already been addressed. There's like 36 comments and I can't get through all of them...

Thanks.

Hey Agent B-

I think I know what you mean by "institutional church" and my answer would be "no- it's not found only there." Whatever you do, don't read all the comments on this thread! :) But just read the one right above yours. I think I may have given what I see as the answer to that question...

Read it and then tell me what YOU think...

Maybe I should have read that comment right above my first one.

Yeah, that answers it. Good stuff & right on.

Say hi to Dustin for me.

Originally I said that I was going to write a response to your article, but the more I think of it, the more I realise that I shouldn't.

It is true one shouldn't get involved in debates like these because personally I feel that little can be achieved except to state what I believe and what you believe. It can be divisive towards the end because words do so little to communicate our true hearts.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I realise that I'm doing you (Bob) and others who are in the IC a disservice. I have to admit, that at first I was upset by your remarks, but after much thinking (and cooling down) I believe God is reminding me what matters most.

Because although I still do not agree with your points, I realise that at the end of the day, you truly do love God and are doing your best to honour Him in whatever you do. You wrote this article in that spirit - because you love Him and his church. And it is that spirit in which you write this article that I'm impressed with and applaud.

And that's enough for me. :) Because I share your passion and sentiments. I do not want to question your commitment to Christ, and I realised that I was in danger of doing that. (Prob crossed the line already!)

So, apologies if I questioned your passion and love, because that was not my intention. We do tend to get swept away trying to prove our points, forgetting the big picture: that in the end, we love God.

Love, Liz

Messy Christian/Liz I think you are awesome. I would be interested to read your response because I think it would be written in the right spirit - the same spirit in which you wrote your latest comment - i.e. not angrily or defensively. Maybe it would help people see another side of this issue.

I can't say I love God because I don't know if God exists. But it is my goal to love other people - (part of) the greatest commandment, according to Jesus' words, according to the Bible - and in that I have common ground with Christians who take that command seriously and don't get sidetracked by 'lesser things'.

If anyone thinks loving other people is a meaningless goal for someone who doesn't know if God exists then *shrugs* - whatever; I am free to pursue 'meaningless' goals if I want to.

As an observer from across the pond who is over 70, I've found this discussion particularly helpful. I read "Revolution" when it was first published (and listened to Barna himself) and I got the distinct impression that he had been over influenced by the house church movement, and that the majority of those he described as 'revolutionaries' might better have been described as 'reactionaries' - looking for their own personal church. I have also read "Emerging Churches" by Gibbs and Bolger which describes what is happening on both sides of the water. My own feeling is that Bob is right to be concerned for the majority of those 'revolutionaries'. I would agree with Bob that "Just Jesus and me" just isn't biblical, BUT I found the following comment significant: "Just hanging out together with like-minded friends is a far cry from participation in a community which preaches the gospel to us, holds us accountable, administers the sacraments to one another ... the need to plant churches" There are people who want to lead; there are people who want to be led; and there are people who need to think for themselves. After having spent over 20 years within a denomination that has in the past been called both a cult and a sect, I eventually experienced freedom from the slavery of legalism - and there is no way I would want to go back. I now know, after living 'outside the box' but still attending church services that there are tens of thousands (rather than millions?) of people around the world who have been drawn away from the churches they may have attended for many years (quite a significant number of whom have been in leadership positions). I loved the way Messy Christian said, "To understand the way we see church and our 'out of church' life you'd have to undergo inner changes that can only come about through experience. Not that we are any better - just that we see things differently"

I recently came to the conclusion that there are: 1. traditional or institutional churches where some like NT Wright and Brian McLaren, are working from within to initiate change 2. emerging churches basically led by LEADERS who see much wrong with the traditional churches 3. committed Christians who have moved 'outside the box' who, among other things are questioning the role of leadership within the church.

As a Brit let me suggest that we need to consider the rise and fall of empires. The British Empire disintegrated many years ago - but we are still here but with far less influence. The major denominations, like empires, are still around but are losing their influence.

I'm convinced that more and more of us around the world are now being drawn together and being given the chance to share our experiences, learning from each other, and gradually getting rid of some of the baggage of religion.

Hope that makes at least some sense.

Bob, I'd be very curious to see a follow-up to this article in which you interview several people (preferably people who haven't come from the same church) who no longer attend a church service every Sunday morning.

I'm with Lydia...go a step further --- interview George Barna and let him speak for himself about what he has said in Revolution.

Bob,

You have a keen mind and a gentle heart my friend. Great article. I appreciate your candor and insght. As one who's been more or less forced outside of conventional church, I can identify with many of the folks who've responded to your article. At my lowest point a few years ago, I can remember uttering the words (maybe it was a kind of prayer) "to hell with this S#%T!"

One of the things I've learned since is that while it may be ok to "fast" from conventional church for a season, to cut oneself off from Christian community (which is not limited to local church congregations) is like refusing to drink water; spiritually lethal! Fortunately God has seen fit to cause my path to intersect with brothers and sisters from the most unlikely places. I've been able to connect with people, either in person, or online who have been like cups of cold water to my soul. I'm reminded of a certain 30ish, slightly balding pastor from Portland for example.

In any case, I just wanted to speak up and suggest the possibility that even when we turn our backs on organized church (something necessary at times)the Spirit doesn't stop caring for us in other ways.

Shalom friend,

tp

i attended organized church for years and it was fine . i have no major issues with church as it has it's redeeming points and cons. of course anyone who defends it's merits and raises it's banner is either paid staff, new Christian , or functioning in some capacity that is recognized and praised from the pulpit. it'll be a rainy day in hell before some pastor or clergy who received their degree from some unaccredited ' bible school' from Kansas bible institute, inform me that i won't hear from god unless I'm sitting in the congregation. it says in his word we are all ministers-- which leads me to this statement " just because you hold the mike , doesn't mean your right". props and kudos to ppl who want to start their own ministry, maybe it's genuine or maybe they don't want to dig ditches, or they tend to be controllers. i'm not trying to be negative but realistic , it's very hard to keep pews full and excitement up with tithes coming in. i agree with some posts that church should be more interactive, not from the top down, that is to say one's meta- narrative.my issue has more to do with operations and procedures more than anything.

Bob,

I commend you on standing your ground and taking some hits, all in a spirit of peace. Be encouraged to stay involved with what works for you...it sounds like you're helping others too, so keep up the good work. thanks for your willingness to bare your soul on this issue.

I know I'm *really* late to the discussion but I'd like to just make one comment: This discussion has revolved around the concept of the "Bride of Christ" (or the Body, etc.). (I'd like to get beyond the "forsaking the gathering" part for now.)

I humbly suggest we all consider the possibility that our preconceived ideas (on both sides of this particular discussion) of the origins, meaning, and ultimate implications of this oft-quoted terminology, "Bride/Body of Christ" might be limited.

Some say it means the IC, some say just Christ-followers in general (I tend to lean toward the latter); the Jews might even say it means them. Some would even say it only refers to, for instance, only those who are baptized "in the name of Jesus alone." The list goes on.

I'd like to pose one reminder from Jesus' words: "When you've done it to the least of these, you've done it to me."

In my mind, this is the language of a Bridegroom speaking of things done to the Bride (good or bad).

What if this was connected to "the earth is the Lord's and EVERYTHING (and everyone) in it"...whether they are Christ-followers, Institutionlized Christians, UPC, Jews, OR a poor Hindu leper....OR EVEN a Muslim Jihadist??? No...couldn't be. Could it? I thought the "Bride of Christ" means "anyone who believes just like I do." Could I be wrong?

I really don't believe I'm lifting this out of context, because I believe Jesus' context is far broader than our own.

Just trying to open up the box a little.

(Okay, I'm ready for the stake. Hit me.)

Dave

Bob-

Just wanted to say a few quick things:

1) Great article. I couldn't agree more. 2) I think you take some unfair hits for it.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that the church can be (and should be) far more than a one hour on Sunday experience, but that the one hour on Sunday can't be replaced with 24 hours 7 days a week that have community but lack being centered in Christ. 5 or 500, traditional or out of the box, Sunday or Wednesday, the point is that the Church is a community specifically centered in Christ. It is people whose main purpose in gathering together is to draw near to him, share community with him, and become like him. Any group that is doing that is the group you haven't given up on. Any group that isn't doing that can be its own viable community, it just isn't the Church.

Kester-

Thanks, man- that's a great summary of where I'm at on this.

Dave- No stake, just a bit of disagreement (I think).

I'm fairly sure, Muslim Jihadists aren't part of the Bride/Body of Christ. I think that maybe you were trying to make a point more in line with the parable of the Good Samaritan (if I understand you, which I admit I may not be doing...).

But this discussion really centers on the life and mission of the Church- which was the same as/given to us by Jesus. Jesus' mission, as He stated it, was to seek and save the lost. This presupposes that there is such a thing as the lost. And he made it clear that the salvation He offered was in no way applied to people without their consent when He said that the road to life was narrow and few found it (and conversely, the road to destruction broad).

I think the Body of Christ is broader than many of us realize, but not nearly as broad as some would like to think.

And let me be clearer still ... Jesus desires that all people would come to be part of His Bride, Muslim Jihadists, Buddhists and Baptists alike.

I've been preaching through Ephesians as of late. Once again I am amazed by the magnanimity of God's grace. His ambition, as you stated Bob, is to throw open the doors of the Gospel to all peoples everywhere. Jesus came to preach peace to both those who were near and those who were far.

I'm enjoying this thread immensely.

I was amused by this article coming to my attention soon after I have repeated "If I weren't the pastor I wouldn't go to church." several times over the last couple months. I couldn't agree more that commmunity with Christ and our brothers and sisters in Christ seems to be one if not THE major point of the Gospel. And, I couldn't agree more that the "church of the individual" is a destructive "gnostic" heresy for the 21st century. However, I disagree in that I think you define "church" much too loosely for the purposes of your article. It reads to me like you assume all churches are parts of Christ's Body which can be no more true than assuming all Church members are Believers or Jesus followers. "Tare" churches anyone? I remain in the "all things Institutional" are counter Kingdom of God Camp, AKA communitarian Christian anarchist, and I don't think its a phase. A rebuttal of Barna's advocacy for individualistic religion is much needed but the truth about so much of the Institutional Church need not be bathed in the murky waters of lukewarmness. Can Christ's Body be found in many IC's? Of course. Are all Churches Christ's Body? I fear not. Shalom, Leon

ok--- this is like a gold mine of cool thoughts--from "both" sides.

I see "Messy' and can relate in many ways to what she is saying. I have been creating a network of communities and individuals who are striving to change the purpose of "church" [plug plug see the our site].... BUT i have been a pastor for years and can see what Bob is saying about community and the need to not run alone. I struggled with this for years--and still wrestle with the nuances today.

actually think the two are not very far a part at all---and I think its a very interesting discussion.

Whats really most important is people think and talk and listen to each other. When Christians think and talk and listen to each other---God can work.

i see God working here....thats cool.

kudos to Bob for putting himself out there and taking up this issue--it's not an easy subject and there seems to be a million things that people can disagree with. thank you for your best efforts in this area and not burying your head in the sands--good work bro.

i do believe this is THE issue of our time. so kudos for allowing people think about it here.

ps- i am good friends with Barnas people and they would be excited to see this type of dialogue taking place between Christians.

i know i am.

peace spencer shemamovement.com

Hi Bob.

I'm no poster-boy for the IC. I got uber sick of the non-denominational evangelical church I was in.

For a while we just basically dropped out entirely. Yes that means sunday morning, but really what pushed us out was that Sunday morning was really all that there was...do I have to tell you that when we stopped going barely anyone noticed?

Recently we've split our sundays between worshiping at home, at an Anglican church, at Rock Harbor and playing Tony Hawk's World Destruction tour (I have 4 kids).

Yes I have a community of faith in my friends and family from different churches.

I'm not eager to find another IC or even start a church really, because I'm having a hard time sorting through my emotions.

but one thing I'm clear on, and what I hear you saying, is that the entire context of the scriptures we have, even those written to individuals (Philemon or Timothy), is a certain type of community.

Yes, I'm sick of it. Sometimes I'm sick of my wife, too. It's not because she's flawed...that's only a small part of it.

I don't want to give up on church, Institutional or not. The early Christians, I'm sure, were noticed for their love for outsiders. But the record we have is that people were blown away by their love for EACHOTHER.

It seems that our stuff, our care, our concern, our lives, our prayers primarily belong to eachother.

Yes I relate to Thom Yorke more than Billy Graham.

Kurt Vonnegut said "We are all lost animals, looking for a herd." I think he said it with a sad, disgustedness.

Me, I'm coming out. Let me be a little vulnerable without being condemned.

WHERE IS MY HERD?

"The point of the Gospel is to place fallen people like you and me into the community of the redeemed."

Really? Says who? Where?

John said, "For God so loved THE WORLD that he sent his Son..." Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is among you!" Paul said: In Christ, God has already reconciled us all to himself and to each other.

It seems to me that to say "the church" is "the point" misses the point entirely. The point is the new kingdom God is bringing and has brought; a new heaven and a new earth; the whole creation reconciled and set free. If Jesus' followers are really about THAT - living, acting, talking, dreaming, and doing AS IF the kingdom is already here (in other words, AS IF we have already been given everything we need to make sure no one goes hungry - AS IF all the barriers we build between us have already fallen - AS IF there really is no Jew or Gentile, no black or white, no gay or straight, no woman or man, no churched or unchurched!) - if we really LIVE that, "church" (i.e. community) will happen. Communities will form because we realize we can do more together than individually. "Church" is a means for doing what God is dreaming. It is never, ever, "the point." And, if we make it the point, we end up right back in the mess we started in.

50 years ago Hans Hoekendijk (Church Inside Out) critiqued the church's evangelistic/missional/outreach efforts as nothing more than trying to prop up failed, failing Christendom. Another way to put butts in the pews and bucks in the plate. I don't believe for a second that is your goal. But it is just too easy to wind up there when you make "the church" our end point.

Says who? Well... The last two chapters of Revelation, is a good place to start- every other mention of the Body/Bride of Christ too. The Church with a capital C- the Bride of Christ- the community of the redeemed that inhabits the new heavens and new earth.

The point of the Gospel, the telos, (as I said- borrowing from Stan Grenz, actually) is a redeemed community in a renewed creation in relationship with a Triune God. It's difficult to read the NT and come up with any different conclusion- so it seems self-evident to say that the point of the Gospel is to place people within the community of the redeemed.

Aside from wondering whether we can really sort out the point of the gospel based on reading the last two chapters of Revelation...was Jesus really up to "placing people within the community of the redeemed?" Or was he, in fact, sending people with the good news that God had done and was doing and promised to do something in and for the sake of the world/the whole creation? There were only 12 or so folks in any sort of "community" that I can see in the Gospels. The others were all sent by him on one mission/errand/task or another. Did "church" happen as they went??? Maybe. Probably, even! But, still, not the point. Please hear me: I'm not saying community isn't important/doesn't happen/doesn't matter. I'm just saying we're on very dangerous ground when we make "the church" the point. Sounds too much like Christendom warmed over. Yuck. And yuck.

Man- that's the WORST possible reading. Was it Jesus' intention to create a church? Absolutely.

"I will build my church..."

"I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord."

..."This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church."

..."just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

The entire scope of the NT witnesses to this as we move from the Gospels, to the creation of the Church in the book of Acts, to the Epistles (letters to the Church and it's leaders) to the book of Revelation (which starts with letters to the Church and ends with "“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches." It's not "Christendom." It's God's purpose- His plan to create the Bride of Christ and set us in a renewed creation.

I'm not trying to make "church" (a Sunday service) the point- again that's the worst possible, least charitable reading. I'm saying "Church" (the Body/Bride of Christ) is ABSOLUTELY the point. And when you come to grips with that, it necessarily changes how you think about "church."

Ahh... good ol' Derek Webb.

He says it much better than I:

"I have come with one purpose to capture for myself a bride by my life she is lovely by my death she’s justified

I have always been her husband though many lovers she has known so with water I will wash her and by my word alone

so when you hear the sound of the water you will know you’re not alone

‘cause I haven’t come for only you but for my people to pursue you cannot care for me with no regard for her if you love me you will love the church

I have long pursued her as a harlot and a whore but she will feast upon me she will drink and thirst no more

so when you taste my flesh and my blood you will know you’re not alone

there is none that can replace her though there are many who will try and though some may be her bridesmaids they can never be my bride

‘cause I haven’t come for only you but for my people to pursue you cannot care for me with no regard for her if you love me you will love the church

Maybe what I'm having a problem with is the too easy mixing of Ekklesia (CHURCH) and kirche (institutional church) in this conversation. And collapsing both of these things into "community" doesn't help. In the mid-20th century Lesslie Newbigin and Hans Hoekendijk offered two very different visions for "missional church." Newbigin put church at the center. Hoekendijk put world there. Newbigin won. The missional (and, hand in hand, emerging) church conversation has been struggling to break out ever since. This is partly why those of us IN the conversation so often seem to be talking to ourselves. I think we are still burdened by a Christendom mentality, no matter how cool we may look or sound. In other words, we're still in an institutional (rather than incarnational) mode. And, no wonder. Those of us facilitating the conversation are financially dependent on the institution! That includes both you and me. We have amazing deconstructionist powers. Maybe we need to use them on ourselves.

I've read Frost and Hirsch too... had some great conversations with "Frosty" himself. I've got no argument that the church needs to be incarnational and as organic, non-institutional as possible. But that doesn't equate to free-range Christianity. And I don't buy a "kirche" vs ecclesia distinction... there's certainly no idea of "kirche" vs ecclesia in scripture. The church is both universal AND local. It can't be one without the other. So I'm concerned about is the ecclesia. That's what's in the NT. Those who are called out and gathered together. And the ecclesia, scripturally, has and does certain things. For instance, it has leadership. It participates in the Lord's supper and collections for the poor. It exercises discipline and preaches the Gospel to itself and the world... And so on... As I said, if someone is a part of that, regardless of what they call it or whether it's 5 or 5,000, it's all good.

Just saw this on Daryl Dash's site: "Maggi Dawn writes about Christianity and the church, and successfully challenges both those who are disillusioned with church and those who don't understand the disillusionment:

'It is almost always the case that you cannot be authentically Christian unless you are part of a Christian community. Why? The reason, I think, is that the gospel demands engagement in relationship. It has an individual element to it, but it is essentially a social religion.

That's not to say, of course, that "the church" as we know it always lives up to its calling...Traditional church structures are a stumbling block for some....

So what do we with the call of the gospel to become part of the Church, if our experience of Church thus far is just too bad to overcome? The answer to this dilemma, I believe, is not to abandon the idea of church, but to rediscover what it means for church to be fully a community. This applies equally to denominational churches that have lost their way, and to new groups that are afraid of being too committed for fear of getting hurt again. The answer in both cases is not to withdraw, but to create community. And this will not come to anyone without cost and some degree of hurt along the way, because it's in the nature of creating community that it is both challenging and expensive to the individual. A community that doesn't challenge your ego and upset your equilibrium from time to time is probably not getting to grips with the faith.' "

its true that to stay a Christian you need to be around other Christians. If you go off and be a lone ranger you might find your own life and path and this is the last thing the church wants, the church wants to control people and force them to all think and act the same. I'd rather be an individual and spend eternity in Hell than submit to what others tell me to do and spend eternity in heaven. I think community and fellowship with so called brothers and sisters in Christ is overrated. if you tell me what to do, then you are not my brother or sister. Hopefully the US will soon be like Europe is today, full of empty and abandoned churches.

Hippo...that's a very natural thought process. I can respect it. However, here are some assumptions that you made that may or may not be true...only reflecting what you think church is:

- you can be an individual in hell - people are going to spend eternity in hell - people are going to spend eternity in heaven - church wants to control you - the European church is dead because the buildings are empty

You might want to ask yourself why you think these things or if other people think them at the level you think they do.

I'm not done with Christ. He is still my Lord and Savior. I trust Him daily for salvation and for strength in faith. I have a hard time with church. I like to attend to hear messages, because I receive something that I cannot receive on my own. Basically, I learn from it. I have been involved in church ministry for 18yrs, specifically the worship ministry. I have been beat up the most while serving God in that capacity. I am very tired of the ways in which leadership acts as they make decisions. Sometimes I cannot get an honest answer, or they will pass the buck. I remember onetime I was cut from the worship team for no reason or explanation. I thought things were going good. Guess I was wrong. I think it is situations similar this that ticks Christians off. It ain't God causing the problems, it's His people. I'm sure I have things about me people don't like and they tell me that by giving me the boot. Another issue I have is when the pastor asks who is with him as he will build this big church with loads of people and new fancy building. I just cannot trust a pastor when I hear those words come from his mouth. I guess I have been corupted by the few that have burned me and others. But, I am still a born again Christian. I love God for saving me. A person that should be dead or in prison. God bless all the Christians and may Jesus keep them until that day!

Read the article and comments last night and got sick feeling in my stomach, mind swirling.. This morning sat at computer to check weather site and it came to me. Shepherds and sheep. Through out old and new testaments God talks alot about shepherds and sheep. Haven't seen admonishing of sheep who leave flock but rather admonishing of shepherds who do not care for each sheep,,,, My sheep know my voice, and will not listen to another. It's about LOVE. I liked what Messy Christian said about the "us and them" mentality. Jesus said to the woman at the well..(John4:21-24) "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Fathe niether on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshiper the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Great conversation happening at another online magazine about this concept - http://www.wreckedfortheordinary.com/index.asp?filename=im-done-with-playing-church.

I don't understand why "going to church" seems to be considered as a modern spiritual discipline. Of course, community is indisputably a biblical value, but just going to church? It seems that any pagan can do that...

But alas, I probably couldn't say anything that hasn't been said before on the subject.