Simple church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple church is a controversial Evangelical Christian movement that seeks to redefine the nature and practice of church. The movement believes that church should be "a Christ-centered community established primarily on relationship both to God and to the other members of the group." In doing so it discards many aspects of conventional expressions of church, which is considered beneficial by some, and problematic by others. This gives those in the movement the opportunity to focus on what it considers to be the core practices of Christian spirituality.

Contents 1 Simple 2 Origins and influences 3 Values 4 Practices 5 Media and popular attention 6 Criticism 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Simple

A simple church may meet anywhere; with or without trained leaders, formal liturgy, programmes or structures.^[1] To facilitate relationship, discipleship (spiritual formation), multiplication, mobility, and member ownership, a simple church is usually a small group of no more than 20-25 persons. Church "programs" are virtually nonexistent and small group participation is essential. The process of moving from worship to small group, small group to mission work, and mission work to worship is a primary focus. Authors Tony and Felicity Dale, founders of House2House Ministries, have promoted the term "simple church" in their book "Simply Church" (ISBN 0-9718040-1-X).^[2]

The term simple church is often used interchangeably with other terms like organic church,^[3] essential church, primitive church, bodylife, relational church, and micro-church^[4]. Some groups use other names for their groups, although they would consider themselves part of or related to the simple church phenomenon. A good example of this is Emerging Church Network's "authentic faith communities" ^[5] or "emerging indigenous faith communities"^[6]. Perhaps the most common synonym is house church, which has much more popular usage and predates the term simple church significantly.

The name simple church is favored over house church by some because the house church movement has often been associated with embittered reactions against more traditional forms of church. Whether earned or not, with some people the house church movement has a reputation for being insular and exclusive, even cultish—something that many who are concerned about missional living want to avoid. Also, simple churches can meet anywhere, not just in houses, leading some to see the term "house church" as too limiting^[7]. Others think simple church a broad category that should include "house church" as a sub-set. However, in many circles, such as large conferences and gathering of simple church practitioners, the term "house church" is used freely, or even dominantly.

[edit] Origins and influences

Sociologically speaking, simple church could be seen as a subset of Emerging church^[8] (although many in the simple church movement would not see themselves as part of emerging church^[9]), a phenomenon rising from the conversation between Christianity and the culture and worldview of postmodernism. Many in the emerging church movement would consider simple church to be represented in expressions such as house church and unique gatherings like Church in a pub.

From a cultural viewpoint, postmodernism's emphasis on relationship has enabled contemporary people to reform their ecclesiology, replacing the institution of church with ideas of spiritually-related family. Also, postmodernism is in many ways a reaction to modernism, which many believers feel has infiltrated Christendom for the worse. Postmodernism's deconstruction of modernistic structures and culture has also led to deconstruction of the church, and simple church, as one stream of that conversation, has found the freedom to reconstruct what it means to be church because of this cultural trend. Simple church has also been influenced by overseas missions and the growth of church planting movements^[10]. Church planting movements are spontaneously growing church multiplication efforts that often result in thousands of new simply-structured faith communities. The growth and character of these movements has impressed many who would like to see similar things happening in Europe, the United States, and the West in general. Groups like DAWN Ministries have switched to simple church as their model for domestic missions in the hope that this phenomenon that has been effective overseas will also work here^[11].

The Missional Movement^[12] has also influenced simple church^[13]. Missional thinking grew from the lessons learned from foreign missionaries and as a reaction to the Church growth Movement. In this line of thought, the Church's purpose and theology comes out of the Missio dei -- God's Mission in the World. This means that everything relating to church life and Christian practice should be directly derived from a theology of mission. This means the Body of Christ should be primarily identifying with humanity, reaching the lost, ushering in the Reign of God, and working towards the peace (Shalom) the Kingdom of God brings. To aid its cause, missional thinking promotes incarnational ministry, messianic spirituality, indigenaity^[14], and innovation. For many simple church practitioners, their model of church aids in completing the missional mandate of God by being highly mobile, easily adaptable, and fundamentally indigenous.

While cultural aspects complicate the issue, many in the simple church movement point to the New Testament, especially the Gospels, Acts, and the writings of the Apostle Paul for justification of their model (see "House Church, Scriptural Basis"). Historically speaking, simple gatherings of the faithful were the norm of early Christianity. Often believers met in homes or public venues. However, how this relates to constructing a theology and ecclesiology is the subject of much debate, especially with critics of the movement. Some within the simple church movement believe the Bible shows this model as the most valid form of church, even the original intention of God. Others see the Bible as presenting an expression of simple Christian community that is a valid option, but not necessarily the "right" or "only" choice. Last, the simple movement in the West has recently gained attention but has been quite normative in other parts of the world where Christianity has historically been persecuted.

[edit] Values

As in any decentralized, spontaneous movement, a variety of values are expressed in simple church. Due to the influence of some key groups and Acts 2:42-47, three overarching values have emerged in many circles:

Adherents Paul Kaak and Neil Cole originally articulated these values using the organic metaphor of DNA:

• D - Divine Truth : Truth is the foundation for everything. By Divine Truth, we mean the dynamic and living presence of Christ and His Word.^[15]

• N - Nurturing Relationships : Healthy relationships are what make up a family. Love for one another is to be a constant pursuit of the family of God. This is the most basic of Christ's commands.

• A - Apostolic Mission : Apostolic means, simply, “sent.” Just as Jesus was sent on a mission, so we are sent out on a mission for Him. Our mission is to go into the world and disciple the nations for their good and God's glory^[16]

These values have since been promoted by House2House Ministries^[17] and DAWN North America, and have been adopted by various groups like New York's MetroSoul.^[18]

[edit] Practices

Adherent Frank Viola's book Pagan Christianity points out a number of reforms that organic churches often advocate.

• The belief that modern clergy is a vestige of Roman pagan religion and was absent from the early church and is largely at odds with the true priesthood of all believers. The movement sees the insitution of the clergy at odds with passages like Matthew 20, Matthew 23, 3rd John, and the message in Revelation regarding the deeds of the Nicolaitians (Greek-literally those who triumph over the people). 1 Corinthians 12-14 paints a picture of an every-member functioning church meeting entirely at odds with the modern religious service which is performed by professionals for an audience. However,some believe this view does not take into account the Jewish and synagogue based nature of the ekklesia, which explains the talk of elders and deacons found in the New Testament. In reply, many simple churches do recognize elders and deacons according to the biblical standards laid out in TImothy and Titus, but believe these people emerge over time as their character becomes descriptive of these roles. In an environment where people are free to express their gifts, such people can emerge. Also, being an elder or deacon does not mean this person dominates the meeting. 3 John rebukes Diotrephes the elder who had to be first and was dominating. The simple church largely believes the idea that an elder or deacon is not a license for some to minister and others to be passive.

• Valuing the Lord's Supper occurring as a regular, recurring full meal celebration rather than a short religious ritual. The early integration of the home based ritual into the public synagogue-like meeting functioned to reduce the symbolic nature of the act to a private moment, replacing its symbolism of fellowship and dedication to the Lord. This was complete by the time of Constantine, when home based agape feasts were banned. However, this history does not in itself devalue the need for the larger synagogue-like meeting for prayer, ministry of the word and singing. Simple church adherents also enjoy occasional and even monthly larger gatherings that do this very thing, though they emphasize the smaller meeting of the ekklesia as the environment for spiritual growth.

• Organic churches tend to place less emphasis on the building or meeting place. To this end, Neil Cole, an adherent of simple church, states that "buildings, budgets, and big shots," tend to do more to contain Christianity than allow it to spread (The Organic Church, Cole). However, this statement against larger sized churches does nothing to substantiate its claim. For documentation on the organic Church movement, see George Barna's Revolution or Neil Cole's Organic Church.

[edit] Media and popular attention

In recent years, the growth of the movement as it becomes more missionally focused, and the adoption of simple church by various missions groups, missionary societies, and parachurch organizations, has led to increased visibility. News coverage by specialized and mainstream media is becoming more common:

• Michael Alison Chandler and Arianne Aryanpur, "Going to Church by Staying at Home: Clergy-Less Living Room Services Seen as a Growing Trend" Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com (Printed June 4, 2006, pg. A12) (Accessed September 30, 2006).
• Stuart Laidlaw, "Religion, but no church required" Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com (Accessed September 30, 2006).
• David Van Biema and Rita Healy, "There's No Pulpit Like Home" Time http://www.time.com (Accessed September 30, 2006).

Many books have been written on the simple church movement, especially by insiders (see booklist of Wikipedia's House Church, Recommended Books). Recently, books are beginning to appear by those studying the movement from a more objective view. Most notable is George Barna's "Revolution"^[19]. Barna, perhaps the most influential pollster and church growth consultant in Evangelical Christianity, says that "revolutionary" expressions such as simple church will soon account for one third of American spirituality.^[20]

Visibility of the movement has also increased due to national and regional gatherings of various kinds. The largest of these is the Annual House Church Conference held in Dallas, and, occasionally, other locations by House2House. There are also many smaller localized or regional conferences where people may be exposed to simple church ideas, like CMA Resources' Green House, and DCFI's House Church Seminar.

[edit] Criticism

Several prominent voices have serious concerns about simple church. For example, referring to George Barna's description of simple church and similar trends in "Revolution," J. Lee Grady (Charisma Online Editor) says such a movement wants to "reinvent the church without its biblical structure and New Testament order — and without the necessary people who are anointed and appointed by God to lead it. To follow this defective thesis to its logical conclusion would require us to fire all pastors, close all seminaries and Bible colleges, padlock our sanctuaries and send everybody home..."^[21] Grady and other critics worry that the simple church movement could encourage people to leave more traditional forms of church, which could lead to further collapse or decline of Christendom. They also see in simple church an accommodation of current culture and "everyone does as he please spirituality" that is at best ill advised, and at worst destructive—an accusation that has been leveled at all forms of emerging church.^[22]

Online discussion boards contain much of the current debate between simple church practitioners and opponents because the conversation is not yet mainstream enough to be in many other forms of media.^[23] These conversations usually revolve around several issues:

• Leadership: Who are the leaders and what is the leadership structure? Is the simple church understanding of leadership biblical? Is there enough control to prevent abuse, cultism, and heresy? Are the lay leaders in simple churches qualified for the care of others? Adherent Frank Viola replies to this in his book Reimagining Church saying that certain strains of the movement look to apostolic outside coaching for help and try to prevent any one charismatic person from dominating the meeting. Other leaders emerge over time according to function, emerging as others respect their authentic experience of the Lord. The Christian's ultimate "covering" is Jesus Himself and the local believing community that gathers in His name.

• Longevity: According to sources within the movement, the average lifespan of a simple church is 6 months to two years.^[24] This leaves critics to wonder how Christianity can survive in such a transient movement. What will be the long-term impact of simple church? Adherents might reply that the sticking power is not in a static institution but a multiplying movement of the Holy Spirit. The hope for organic churches is exponential multiplication, meaning that two churches become four, four become sixteen, and so forth (although this rarely, in fact happens). The same question could be asked of institutional churches where closure and the failure of new church plants is also a problem. Traditional approaches to church can be expensive and rare in their ability to replicate and multiply. Nonetheless organic church has yet to substantiate its growth claims in the optimistic terms in which they are made.

• Orthodoxy: Without denominational control or pastoral oversight, who will maintain orthodoxy among simple churches and its participants? Isn't it a breeding ground for people with wild theologies who would get drummed out of more traditional and more orthodox churches? These questions seem to be more based on fear than the reality of practicing organic churches. In its defense, heresy is no more likely to spread than in any other form of church. The nature of accountability in an every-member functioning church can deal with heresy appropriately. Many within organic churches are seminary educated, many of having left positions of prominence in the organized church out of conviction.

• Teaching: It is rare for simple churches to have sermons or Bible classes in the formal sense? Critics wonder when teaching occurs and how people are formed educationally and doctrinally in simple churches. Without concentrated teaching, sermons, and bible classes, how will believers be educated? Adherent Frank Viola, in Reimagining Church, points out that Christian meetings are where worshippers gather around Jesus Christ and every member functions as described in 1 Corinthians. Here people share how God is feeding them, and this can be very rich. Viola contrasts this with "ministry events," where teaching, education, or even evangelism occur, or where an outsider comes to minister to a group. This point, does not in itself deal with the biblical nature of synagogue-like events where one of the elders is responsible for "preaching and teaching," as in 1 Timothy 5v17. Believers in the simple movement also have opportunities for good teaching, biblical education, to read Christian books, and so forth. In fact every Christian is encouraged to feed upon Christ, which is contrasted with the system where one or two clergy teach and others absorb from them.

• Outreach potential: How will unchurched people or visitors find the church when there is no location and no phone book listing? In common with many evangelicals, adherents of organic church believe that worship should not be bound to a location; but rather be thought of as the way a community offers their lives to God. Nonetheless it is possible for a community to understand this and retain a public presence.

• Relationship with established churches: Is simple church another movement pulling people away from congregational churches? Is it a threat to more traditional models? Do simple church practitioners condemn or criticize other forms of church? Can simple churches and traditional forms of church work together? It is the expressed hope of many churches that lost people find a relationship with Jesus Christ. Neil Cole, Frank Viola, and other adherents admit that God works in and through the organized church as well as the organic church. Many people in the organic church acknowledge that they were saved while in more formal churches.

• Cultural accommodation/syncretism: Has simple church sold out to a culture that sinfully refuses to go to church? Is simple church just caving in to postmodernism? Does simple church promote the West's tendency to worship the individual and individualism? Such questions are complex. Writers such as Lesslie Newbigin^[25] have made the point that the church shows every sign of being captive to modernism. Where many in the church believe that western culture is becoming more postmodern, the same danger of captivity applies, but now in a different cultural context. Newbigin suggests that retreating into a private world of faith is a mistake in any context, and therefore would be critical of the simple church approach.^[26]

Self-criticism is also present in the movement. Leaders and prominent voices have pointed out key issues, like leadership development, exclusivity, missional effectiveness, and other items as points of concern. A good example of this is Andrew Jones, an emerging church advocate and simple church practitioner^[27]. Many in the simple church consider this kind of self-evaluation very healthy and tie it to the important prophetic role in the movement. It also is consistent with the experimental, conversational, and deconstructionist motifs in emerging church.

[edit] See also

• House church
• emerging church
• pub church

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• SimpleChurch.com Social Network
• Simple Church Network
• Simply Church
• House Church Resource
• Organic Church