Moving to WordPress

witwaw* is in the process of being reborn on WordPress. I've no firm relaunch date (though I'm aiming for July 1.

I've moved.

Launch Date: July 1, 2009 at ~ 8 pm PDT.
URL: http://witwaw.wordpress.com/

http://www.whointheworldarewe.com/

(NOTE: URL will go live on the launch date)

The rebirthed blog will focus more specifically on the subjects suggested by the title and subtitle:

• The church is in the world.
• The identity of the church is critical.
• Ecclesiology is about much more than polity.
• Communal spiritual formation should be our common practice.
• The practices of communal spiritual formation must be doable in the real world.

More information as things become clearer and closer.

* Who in the World Are We?

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Origin of Variation: Concluding Thoughts

• There is ample evidence for genetic
  variation.
  

• First, I offer some examples: The bananas we see in the grocery store are one example of genetic variation, for wild bananas are neither as large nor as tidy. Another example is the variety of household dogs and cats . We are surrounded by genetic variation. There is no point in arguing against it, for such arguments are not only futile, they are foolish.
  
• The extent to which this variation occurs is less clear. So-called microevolution is apparent, as stated above. So-called macroevolution is another matter. We have yet to observe the process of macroevolution and all conclusions regarding it are inference.


• Questions of origin are not primarily scientific.


• Observational science is not possible, given the unique nature of the events. Speculative science is possible, but it must be submitted to the scientific method for verification. On the other hand, theology-philosophy can speak directly to the issue; therefore, theology-philosophy has a prominent, and I would say primary, seat at the table when discussing issues of origin.


• These assumptions make the difference in how the data are interpreted. Naturalistic science assumes the universe is a closed system of natural processes and substances, whereas theistic science¹ assumes the universe is an open system in which the natural processes and substances have been created and are acted upon by an immaterial, divine, uncreated being.
  


• Non-young earthers rightly question why it looks as if adaptation took millions of years.


• Honestly, I do not believe there is a young earth answer that will satisfy naturalistic science. Theistic science and naturalistic science disagree on basic assumptions--specifically, the participation or non-participation of a divine intelligence. Further, convincing naturalistic science of a theistic interpretation of the data should not be focus of theologians. Rather, we ought to focus on developing an interpretation that is reasonable and coherent given theistic assumptions.
  


• One reasonable and coherent claim is that God made both the materials of creation and its processes. He created kinds within type and equipped them with the genetic information and capacity for adaptation to various environmental pressures. As time went along, these kinds within types, through the inherent genetic information and capacities, adapted to various environments, resulting in the great variety we see today. ²


• Questions of origin, by their very nature, are ultimate questions, best answered by theology-philosophy.
  


• Let me clarify what I am disagreeing with here with regard to humanity. I am not saying that the process of adaptation by genetic variation has not changed humanity; I am saying that at the beginning of those changes stood two human persons, created by God. They may well have looked quite a bit differently than we do today, but I do not believe the Bible allows any other claim: God created human persons.


• I clearly and fully admit that this is a theological claim, not a scientific one; I also believe that when we are talking about questions of origin, we are going past the capacity of observational science and into a realm where theology-philosophy has more to say and where what it says carries more weight. We are not talking about the observed data, but inferences made from that data on the basis of assumptions.


• Inferences concerning the origin of variation tell us who we are and how we relate to the world and to God. If we are the product of naturalistic processes, then we are mere animals and ethics, morals, and spirituality are adaptations for survival that have no transcendent quality. But, if we are the product of theistic action and are (as the Bible declares in Genesis 1) created in God's image, then humans have transcendent qualities and transcendent worth, for we are related to something greater than anything in the created universe.




• Conclusions
  
  


• Looking at the question of the origin of variation from a theological perspective--that God exists, that he acts, and that he has the power to create by fiat--produces inferences that are coherent and adequately explain the data.
  
• I realize that those who do not hold to theistic science and who look upon the question of origin as naturalistic will disagree with theistic inferences, and probably vehemently. I understand. Do know that we are not disagreeing about the data, but rather about the interpretation of data and the assumptions behind those interpretations. If one holds naturalistic assumptions, then I would agree that an evolutionary explanation of the origin of variation makes sense. But if one holds theistic assumptions--that there is a divine intelligence who has the power and authority to create by fiat--then divine creation logically stands as the origin of variation.
• I claim that these theistic assumptions are not merely my opinion; I claim they are true.
• Current Position: Adaptation by genetic variation originated with divine creation of kinds-within-type that are imbued by God with the genetic information and capacities for this ongoing process.
  

NEXT: A Short History of witwaw*

*witwaw = "Who In The World are We?"

---

1. By "theistic science" I do not intend to say that those who hold to naturalistic science cannot or do not believe in a god or that those who hold theistic science believe in a specific god. I am speaking here of the type of science, not the type of scientist.
2. "kind" in the Hebrew Old Testament: Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; 6:20; 7:14; Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29; Deut 14:13, 14, 15, 18; Ezek 47:10
   
   Conclusion: "kind" (Heb meen), seems to refer to categories of plants and animals that are able to produce fertile offspring. My best guess is that "kind" in the OT is equivalent to "species." This does not mean new species could not develop through adaptation; on this point I am unsure.

Postponed: Origin of Variation: basic concepts and theological significance.

School and ministry responsibilities have expanded to fill the available space this week; the post on Origin of Variation: basic concepts and theological significance should be up next Monday.

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Refining My Understanding: Origin of Variation, Origin of Life, and Origin of Matter

Through the helpful interactions on Why I do not believe in macro-evolution, I have learned that I have conflated three notions of origins. With this post, I begin to unscramble the egg.

Origin of Variation

• Looks at the genetic variation among living things, specifically the ultimate and continuing source of this variation
• Science-under-the-canopy (SciUTC*) offers a purely material origin: biological evolution.
• Christian theology offers a divine and material origin: God created the initial types and kinds of living things (Gen 1) and the continuing processes of adaptation by genetic variation. I hold that these continuing processes occur within type and kind, rather than between type and kind.

Origin of Life

• Looks at the beginnings of what we know as life
• One SciUTC explanation is abiogenesis (“spontaneous generation”), but Pasteur (Benton 15) refuted this.
• Another is the Oparin-Haldric model, which theorizes that life arose from chemical reactions in the earth’s early atmosphere (Benton 24).
• A third set of theories offer that “RNA was the first genetic molecule” (Benton 26).
• Christian theology** claims that God created life (Gen 1) by fiat, speaking it into existence.

Origin of Matter

• Looks at the beginnings of matter, space, and time
• SciUTC offers the various versions of the Big Bang theory and the Steady State model as possible explanations.
• Christian theology offers that God created matter, space, and time by fiat; the specific mechanisms are less clear.

Next week: Origin of Variation: basic concepts and theological significance.

Resources
Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, by Brian and Deborah Charlesworth (Oxford University Press, USA (2003), Edition: 1, Paperback, 168 pages)
Cosmology: A Very Short Introduction, by Peter Coles (Oxford University Press, USA (December 6, 2001), 152 pages)
The History of Life: A Very Short Introduction, by Michael J. Benton (Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (December 15, 2008), 144 pages)
Genesis 1-2

NOTE:
If I have misunderstood or misrepresented an SciUTC position, please kindly leave a correction in the comments.

*SciUTC: looks at the substance and processes of the material universe without reference to immaterial (AKA “divine”) inputs.
**The Christian Theology perspectives in this post are my own. Dialogue welcome.


---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

What do questions of origin have to do with who we are in the world?

If God created humanity as responsible adults to care for an adult earth, filled with adult plants and animals, who are self-perpetuating through sexual or asexual reproduction, what should be our approach to the data being interpreted by science*?

In last Monday's post, I dipped my toe a bit deeper in the evolution-creation pond that I had planned. With this post, I dip a bit further, this time leaning toward the theological end.

---

I do not dispute the data; rather, I believe both scientific and theological knowledge must be applied to the data. Our knowledge of the universe since the Scientific Revolution has increased dramatically, as mentioned by Andrew B in his comment: "our knowledge of the universe has been exploding through application of the scientific method, logic, reasoning and mathematics." God has placed us in this world and has given us minds that are naturally curious and that seek to reason things out. These great gifts must not be cast aside, but must be leveraged.

Science has told and will continue to tell us much about our world and ourselves, but scientific knowledge cannot tell us the entire story, for the origin of humanity, the earth, and all living things is beyond our experimental reach. We can also study what is happening now. We can study the circumstantial evidence left by what has happened in the past. These provide a wealth of information, but an eyewitness report is lacking in the scientific data.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then believe Genesis 1-2 provides such an eyewitness account. If it is an eyewitness account, then theological knowledge must be applied to questions of origin. This is not to say that scientific knowledge is discounted; rather, theology must have a place at the table, for these questions have distinct theological/philosophical components.

As it stands, at least from my tiny corner of the world, it seems the scientists and the theologians are having a difficult time at the round table. To quote Francis S. Collins,

The shrill voices at the extremes of this debate have had the microphone for too long. Although they will no doubt continue to rail against each other, the rest of us should find ways to bring together scientists who are open to spiritual truths, theologians who are ready to embrace scientific findings about the universe, and pastors who know the real concerns and needs of their flocks. Together, in a loving and worshipful attitude, we could formulate a new and wondrous natural theology ("A New Theology of Celebration," Search Magazine).

There is much heat in this discussion--too much heat (a small part of which I have cast about). But to quote Collins again, "If we make a serious and prayerful attempt to do this together, perhaps in a few years this new “celebration theology” could eliminate the conflict between science and faith."

Where do we go from here?

As God's viceroys on earth, an interpretation of the available data must conform to our care for and rule over creation. As God's creation, our interpretation of the data must keep in mind his divinity and power; it must serve to increase our understanding not only of the universe, but of its Creator.

Therefore,

I issue a call is to scientists who are Christian: have the courage to take off the canopy when it is academically feasible, even if it is only feasible in your own mind. Look at the available data and ask questions such as these,

• Since God is, how should I interpret these data?
• If God created by declaration, how would I interpret these data?

Interpretation is a greater issue than the data. If God created by declaration, then God could have created an adult universe that was sculpted with the characteristics of a universe that had developed over time. If God created by declaration, then he could have created human, animal, and plant kinds that the form the bases of all the species in existence today.

I issue a call is to theologians and pastors: have the courage to move from a discussion of the data to a discussion of its meaning, asking questions such as,

• If the earth appears millions of years old and yet was created by God a much shorter time ago, then what is the theological significance of his creating an adult universe?
• What is the theological significance of the built-in process of adaption and change that we see in the natural world?
  

Rather than wasting time refuting data, invest time interpreting the data and discussing theological significance.

We are followers of Jesus, but this designation is not to be relegated to Sunday morning rituals or private moments of prayer and Bible reading. We are his followers in this place and at this time. Let us be wholly engaged with God, each other, and his creation.

*NOTE: I am specifically refuting science that does not reference God, meaning science that interprets the available data according to materialistic assumptions.

Next week: Refining My Understanding: Origin of Variation, Origin of Life, and Origin of Matter

===
Further Reading
Reliability, Inerrancy, and the Like
Inspiration of the Bible (wikipedia)
Genesis 1-2

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Why I do not believe in macro-evolution

• Macro-evolution does not adequately account for genetic differences among species. Different species have very different DNA coding and the assumption that a fish became a lizard does not seem tenable. The plethora of DNA evolution theories testifies to the validity of the issue. Such complex and specific changes in DNA seem more magical than anything theology has come up with.
• Atheistic macro-evolution does not adequately account for the impossibility of spontaneous generation . How did the primordial ooze become life? Scientists have run laboratory experiments in which they "create" amino acids from some ooze, but these very experiments provide evidence for intelligent design, for the scientists are the intelligent designers of the newly created amino acids.
• If the Scripture is an accurate record of God's ways with his people and his creation, then our perceived timeline should not start at zero. Atheistic macro-evolutionists claim that Scripture does not make adequate sense of the data for the data show that the earth is millions of years old. I would offer that if we were able to travel back in time, to the garden and do tests on Adam and Eve, we would find that the tests "proved" them to be in their mid-twenties, despite the fact that they were mere days/hours old. Just as God created adult humans, animals, and plants, he also created an adult earth, stars, and universe. I happen to be a crazy young-earther , but I hold that with very open hands. I hold this position because I believe it makes the best sense of the biblical and scientific data. If one is a theist and believes God has the capacity to create, then frankly it makes no sense for that same person to discount God's capacity to create.
• Theologically, the presence of human death is directly connected to the entrance of sin. If death only entered after the entrance of sin, then it is impossible for there to have been death before that. Without death and a succession of generations, there is no way for human evolution to have occurred. Therefore, if one is to take Genesis seriously and not merely literally, then, however else micro-evolution fits into the picture, macro-evolution is theologically impossible.
  

In sum, these scientific and theological reasons compel me to reject macro-evolution and support intelligent design, for ID makes the best sense of the scientific and theological data. In addition, I hold that a young earth is both theologically and scientifically possible. I believe it is even likely, but I am unwilling to die on that hill.

What do you say?

===
Next week: What does this have to do with Who in the World Are We?
---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

If God is gracious and loving, what about the suffering?

God is gracious and loving; he is also sovereign and just. Too often, we await his grace and love, while ignoring his sovereignty and justice. We bifurcate God's attributes into pleasant and unpleasant because we do not want to be confronted with a God who has the right, will, and capacity to command all and to discipline or punish whomever he deems fit. Somehow we assume a disciplining and punishing God is unfair and his purposes unjust.

We only want his love and grace; we want heaven NOW! His answer is, Not yet.

But what about the suffering?

There is real suffering in the world and something ought to be done. If God is loving and gracious and has the capacity to provide relief, then he should respond. Yet, we do not see his direct involvement in the relief of suffering. Why? I suggest that God expects us to respond.

I see at least three alternatives to direct divine response: theological clarification, human compassion, and human action. Theological clarification provides a conceptual context in which suffering might be better understood. Proper theological clarification keeps in mind those who are in the midst of suffering, for whether deserved or undeserved, their suffering is real and its presence in their lives hurts us, whether we know it or not. It hurts us whether the sufferer is our friend or our enemy. No suffering is good in itself, even if deserved. Suffering requires compassionate theological clarification through word and deed.

But clarification and compassion are not enough. Those in undeserved suffering deserve relief. Rather than waiting for God to swoop down from heaven, let us assume he wishes to deliver relief through us. For those of us who trust and follow Jesus, let us assume (and rightly so, I believe), that he has blessed us by calling us to be his partners. Let us do his work, share his life, and show his compassion to a hurting world. Let us put our backs and our pocketbooks to the work.

It may well be that those searching for hope will see his hope in us.

Related Post: This world is a mess. Why doesn't the Creator intervene?

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

This world is a mess. Why doesn't the Creator intervene?

Jiffy Lube worker charged with rape
Burglary suspect caught in Hawthorne
Man cited for stuffing cat in his bong

Our world is a mess; it has been a mess for millennia. Whether due to natural causes or personal choices, whether on the front page or hidden in the darkness, evil runs amok with restraint running behind, playing catch up. A theist of any honesty whatsoever must wonder, even if silently, what the Creator is up to while the world slowly self-destructs.

Genesis 1 says that the Creator made humanity in his own image (imago Dei). While we struggle to understand what this means, it at least means that by design humanity is glorious and responsible, just like God. Looking around at culture or listening to the daily news, humanity as imago Dei seems a far-fetched dream, for we are a mess and years of trying have not solved even our basic problems. We need help from the Creator, but he so often seems far away.

Some think that the Creator, because he has the power, should swoop down and magically fix us, yet he has not done so. Why? If we assume the Creator is good and has our good in mind, then there must be a just cause behind his apparent inaction. In this post, I offer a cause for your consideration: such a bold, unilateral intervention would violate his creative design of humanity as imago Dei. If it is true that the Creator made humans responsible beings by giving us real choice--the choice to trust him or to trust ourselves--then humanity justly bears the burden of that choice.

As a race we have chosen to trust ourselves and that has caused no end of trouble. When we trust ourselves as if we were gods, we willfully, intentionally set ourselves off from the Creator, the only source of life and good. In trusting ourselves, we offend him, the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe, and make ourselves his enemies. Now, a sovereign must deal with enemies; they cannot be patted on the head and told, "There, there, you're not that bad are you?" No! Either enemies must become friends or they must be removed. If they are not willing to become friends, then they have chosen, by their own will, to be enemies, disconnected from the Sovereign. Since life is in the Sovereign Creator, to be disconnected from him is death.

There is a truth here that we hesitate to admit: in the Creator's mind our having real choice is more critical than everything here being pleasant. He created us for relationship and true relationship requires the willing participation of both parties. The Creator honors humanity by giving us the choice to participate in relationship with him. In choosing self over him, we choose to rebel against the Sovereign Creator.

As a race and as persons, we have chosen rebellion. Because the Creator is just, our willful rebellion cannot simply be forgotten. Because he is love and acts for the good of the other, he has made a way for humanity to return, trust him, and have life. The Sovereign Creator, the only one with the capacity to fix humanity, has fixed it, all the while maintaining human responsibility.

We can get angry and frustrated that he does not fix us the way we want him to. We can rant about and pant about and shake our fists at heaven, and in his grace, he allows us to do so without being smashed. But the truth is, without him, we are dead and as corpses, we have neither right nor capacity to demand how life is given to us.


An accurate view of our circumstances depends on an accurate view of the Creator. We all bring our assumptions with us and those assumptions can distort our perceptions. With a more accurate view of the Creator, are we able to magnify and deepen our understanding of and emotional response to his grace. Grace, understood in the context of his sovereignty, glory, and justice, brings us to our knees in gratitude because we finally realize that it did not need to be so. We realize that he had every right to crush us all and start afresh, but he chose to rescue, over and over and over, and then finally and fully in Messiah.

Humans who do not trust the Messiah and the way that he has made, are disconnected. Those who are disconnected from him have no life. Trust in the resurrected Son of God, Jesus the Messiah, is the only way for humans to return to the Creator and have life.

"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 4:11-12

Update--Related Posts
Theodicy--Live and Direct
Theodicy--Live and Direct...the end of the story
Tragedy Sucks and God is Good
Tragedy Sucks and God is Good part two

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Mission without the Sacred-Secular Dichotomy

UPDATED 2/11/09

Question: Given the identity of church, what are the activities that would express that identity and by what criteria are those expressions to be evaluated?

For too long, the church has separated its activities from daily life; we have conformed to a sacred-secular dichotomy that does not exist. God is Creator and Ruler of all and we are his people in all of life. We--his church--ought to bear his influence through regular life in our neighborhoods. I do not mean the sort of influence that we often package as programs, but rather an influence had by joining existing services in our neighborhoods, working together in the community as a powerful expression of church in the world.

How should we decide which services to join? General grace is one criterion: "For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45b).

As we consider participating in this work, let us ask, "Will we demonstrate God's mercy, grace, and rule before the world?"

If the answer is yes, then let us join the work.


===


I hesitated in posting this, because it is an indictment of and a challenge to me more than to any who read it, for I have separated myself from my neighborhoods.

In self-defense, I offer a usual excuse: time. But I must ask myself, "If I am too busy to be a neighbor, them am I not too busy?"

I also offer the excuse of calling, for I am called to minister to the church. But does this excuse me from service as the church? I think not.

Now, the million-dollar question: Will I take the next step?

Related
Robert Campbell:

• Being a Local Church "...discern those few key points of dissension that will communicate what it means to live the gospel of King Jesus most clearly to our people and our place."
• Finding Your Way With the World "...[1] use truth rather than opinion...[2] change the existing culture...[3] shape the arriving culture"
  

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Open Letter to the Sanctify! Dreaming Team

As we have seen in Isaiah, God holds individuals and communities responsible for their behavior. In addition, individuals may experience discipline for community behavior, even if their own behavior is good.

As TNBS and Sanctify go forth this year, possibly transforming into something beyond what we had envisioned, we need to function with this in mind. We need to remember that we are responsible for the behavior of our community and are obligated to do something about it. Within that task, we must not let loose of the fact that we are also responsible for our relationship with God. We must strive to be holy persons.

I, for one, know how difficult it is to act against our habituated ways of being. But God's Word is clear: he expects our lives here, together and alone, to correspond to his ways. God is Lord and Creator of all. Whether it is entertainment, employment, politics, community service, or friends and family, how we live must correspond to God's ways. Living a life that corresponds to his ways means living a whole life, not a few moments here and there.

We, as individuals and as a church, are so engulfed by our own ways of being and our culture's ways of being that we do not know how to be who we are. This must change.

To bring it down locally, for that is all we can really do, if TFB is to become what God wants us to be, we must remember two things: who God is and who we are. Apart from this knowledge, we have no criteria for change.

According to Ephesians 4:15-16, spiritual maturity happens in community as we exercise our grace-gifts in connection to Christ and one another. Our becoming who we are has everything to do with our connection to the Head and to one another. These connections accomplish the work of growth.

In 2009, let us struggle to maintain our connections to the Body and the Head. Only in doing so will we as a church become who are are.

Inputs
Isaiah 24-27
Ephesians 4:7-16

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

sketchpad Communal Formation and Disciple Making as Systems

Update: Feb 4, 2009 (Thanks to input from Jeff, Prib, and Plock)

Initial version

Changes

• "discipleship" merged into "Disciples in Training"
• "conversion" --> "Trusting to repentance"
• corrected direction of disciplers-to-Disciples in Training influence arrow

Initial version

Changes

• added "perceived walk" and "discrepancy"
• changed "functioning body" to "functioning members" and made "APEPT" a subset
• Not knowing how to depict the Head, I created an all encompassing footnote.
• changed title to "Disciples in Training"
• Added Ephesians 4 references
  

yellow box = stock
yellow arrow = flow
black arrow = influence
"B" = balancing feedback loop
"R" = reinforcing feedback loop


Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Identity of Church: by divine definition or human decision?

Inputs: Horrell, Viola, Isaiah 24-27, Sunday sermon 1/11

Who we are is a defined thing and the definition (laid down in the apostolic tradition comprised of the normative beliefs and practices in the New Testament) cannot be changed by our decision. It is not culturally conditioned; who we are does not change across history, country, or language. The particular suit of clothes might change with time and culture, but our identity, expressed in normative beliefs and practices, is definitional. If we step outside of that definition, we become something other than who we are. One of the key ideas, picked up by both Horrell and Viola, is the notion of communality: that God designed us to be a people, not a collection of individuals, but a gathering around a person for whose work we structure ourselves. We do his work, not our work. He comes first.

The institutional church has gotten off track by forgetting who we are and who he is. It may well be that our doctrine is in good order. It may well be that our behavior conforms to biblical morality. But if we do not express Christ and who we are in Christ, then we are not church. The uncomfortable conclusion is that many organizations, quite certain they are churches, are actually something altogether different; they are religious organizations, but they are not churches.

What do we do with that once we know the truth?




Related Posts
Being the Loyal Opposition in the Institutional Church
Among the Loyal Dissatisfied



Key Ideas from the week:

• Christ-centered
• part of the one people of God, distinct from but not divided from Israel
• shaped as specifically Christian by belief and practice
• being dancers, creating on a sure theme, rather than docents, merely relating the theme and its history

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Being the Loyal Opposition in the Institutional Church

Thoughts after reading the preface and introduction to Frank Viola’s Reimagining Church, in which he makes a case for church life outside the institutional church

Regarding Viola’s assumption, that in the institutional church the structure should not be reformed or renewed because the structure is the problem. Though I think the structure is a major problem, I also think structure is more a symptom than a source of the problem. Leaving the institutional church to its own devices will not solve the problem. I hold to another solution: remaining in the institutional church as the bold, yet respectful, loyal opposition.

My reasoning is this. If it be true that the persons inside the institutional church are Church and that the Spirit in them in witnessing to their spirits that Jesus is the Christ and the center of our corporate being, then change—including complete reconstruction—is possible (however likely or unlikely). Some first steps are redefining things and positions and removing the business/marketing template.

For example, if we say that the large Sunday gathering is worship and celebration rather than the primary event, then we free that definition (“primary”) for application to smaller gatherings throughout the week. These smaller gatherings would include learning groups, serving groups, and everything in between. If these smaller groups redefined themselves as primarily Christ-centered communities with specific tasks I think, the institutional church would begin to change. Of course, there are some things that must be rebuilt from the ground up. [1]

I realize even as I say this, that those who are fully committed to organic or house church will likely consider this a compromise. And indeed it may be, but I think the community of persons inside the institutional church is worth it.


[1] One thing that we must change is the solo senior pastorate being one (which I believe to be unbiblical and wrong). We need a plurality of elders (“older holy one”) who really do lead—stepping out there first, putting themselves on the line, and living lives that look so much like Jesus that we cannot help but follow.


Related post: Among the Loyal Dissatisfied


Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology frank viola