More Debate: Is It Church Yet?

(Editor’s note: Chad Hall wrote a few weeks back that the contemporary church bears little distinction from a 501(c)3 not-for-profit charitable organization. We have confused the organization with the authentic, relational body the organization should help create, he says. Many readers responded, agreeing and disagreeing with Chad, including a thoughtful reply from Doug Johnson. To wrap up this conversation for now, here is Chad’s counterpoint.)

Click here to read Chad Hall’s first article, “Why Church Isn’t Really a Church.”

Click here to read Doug Johnson’s reply, “In Defense of the Church.”

Of the many responses to the article a few weeks ago, the editors highlighted the one from Pastor Doug Johnson. Like many of the readers who found fault with my article, Doug’s concern revolves around three sets of issues that I will categorize as primitivism, people, and problems.

Before diving into a retort of each set of concerns, let me first offer a general assessment. I believe these critiques have more to do with reading between the lines than with what my article actually said. A more careful reading of the article will go a long way to dispelling these critiques.

In this response, however, I will reply to these three concerns in a way that elaborates a bit on what I believe is a healthy (and increasingly welcomed) attitude regarding the relationship between church and the organizations that have been carriers of church during modernity.

I don’t expect this response to convince the unconvinced, but perhaps it will at least leave less room between the lines. In doing so, I expect those who disagree to do so more strongly, those who agree to do so with greater conviction, and those who are undecided to at least have a clearer picture of the issues.

1. Primitivism (and the value of tradition)

Doug quoted Os Guinness’s critical description of primitivism and believes that I am arguing for “another form of primitivism.” Similar sentiment was expressed by others who warned me against some naïve belief that Christians today can return to the church of the Bible.

I invested four years of graduate school studying American religious history with a mentor whose specialty is the primitivist factors involved in Pentecostalism and other faith movements, and I would agree with Os (and Doug) that the primitivist impulse is strong in American religious history. But one must be able to distinguish between primitivist movements and initiatives that simply seek to improve the church.

Primitivism has varying levels of influence among many faith groups in America, most notably among Pentecostals and Churches of Christ. Ironically, the Bible church movement that apparently includes the congregation Doug serves also displays primitivist tendencies, in that it attempts to restore a church based on the Bible’s description, rather than what history, tradition, and denominations have created. The key with primitivism is a double notion: first, there are pure patterns that once existed (somewhere in the past) which should be restored; second, the traditions, additions, and accretions of church history have polluted the church and should be dropped (although different groups chose different levels of intensity when it comes to determining what should be dropped).

I reread my article looking for where I may have hinted that I was trying to “get back” to some primitive pattern that once existed, and I just can’t find such evidence. Which is a good thing, since that’s not what I intended to say.

I believe the church is strongest when it understands three categories of church expression throughout history. There are the essentials of the faith that exist for all expressions of the church throughout time and cultural context. There are traditions that accumulate over time and which clarify the church’s expression over time and in various contexts. And there are styles that add flavor and assist the church being expressed in a particular time and culture. I believe the 501(c)3 expression of the church is a style that has served fairly well for a few hundred years.

My intention is neither to discard tradition nor reject a particular style. Rather, my intent is to say that I have found meaning in recognizing that there is a difference between accomplishing the church’s mission (connecting people to God and each other) and organizations that exist to do that mission.

2. People (both messy and clean)

Doug and some other readers also believe I am tired of working with and among sinful, broken, and messy people, that I want to cloister with a few friends and just be church with those people I like. They believed that I somehow have missed seeing the messiness of the New Testament church and that I am out of bounds in believing today’s church should be any different from the messy churches described in Acts, Paul’s epistles or Revelation.

I think the glitch in interpreting my article is in thinking that some phrases like “authentic community” to mean some kind of neat and clean gathering that achieves an ideal state of perfect community.

In fact, Doug says that the early church was probably not “a true expression of authentic community (my phrase, with underlining added by Doug).” I strongly disagree with that. I believe the early church was true and authentic while also being filled with messy, “newly-redeemed, still-sinfully-inclined, ordinary people” (Doug’s phrase – which I like very much).

For me, the essence of true and authentic community has nothing to do with levels of messiness among people. The church is messy people being Jesus.

Again, the distinction I am drawing has to do with believing an organization that draws messy and clean people together to be church is the church. In my opinion, people who are being connected to (1) God, (2) each other, and (3) God’s mission in the world through Christ are the church.

The fact that not all members of a local 501(c)3 are experiencing these three connections reinforces my belief that such an organization is not a church. The fact that some members are experiencing these three connections maintains my belief that such an organization can be a catalyst for church.

3. Problems (with house and home)

Doug also insisted that no church would be perfect this side of heaven. I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. So where’s the rub?

What I am proposing is not a better way to do church. I am not saying that my way is better and will result in a perfect communion of saints. What I am proposing is something more radical and perhaps more threatening.

I don’t believe what Doug means by “church” is really a church. The 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization he pastors—and mine—are organized efforts at helping people become church, but this is not the same thing as being church. 501(c)3 organizations that exist to create such communities of faith can be barriers, non-players, and/or catalysts for church, but they are not churches themselves (as outlined in my earlier article).

A helpful metaphor might be the distinction between and house and a home. (1) Your house can destroy your home life. If you give too much time to landscaping, cleaning, decorating, etc., you will keep good relationships from forming. (2) Your house can be a neutral factor in having a good home life. Or (3) your house can be a catalyst for having a good home. Sleeping in a warm bed and sharing a meal around a level table is more conducive to good family relations than sleeping under a bridge and eating off cardboard boxes.

Recognizing that distinction is not the same as saying we should all go live in caves. It is merely saying that if your roof leaks, you don’t have to feel like your family is falling apart. Likewise, adding a family room doesn’t mean your family is stronger.

I am not proposing an either/or dichotomy (as one reader put it) that pits the 501(c)3 organization that many people call “church” against “real church.” I believe the best path is a both/and approach whereby the non-profit religious organizations become better and better catalysts for birthing churches. These organizations have been the main carriers of church over the past few hundred years, and I appreciate the role they have played in expanding the kingdom. But I can also imagine church without these organizations.

As we move beyond institutionalism and out of modernity, the next few centuries may see the diminishment of these organizations as the main carriers of church. But that’s OK, because the church will live on and will utilize other carriers, much as how in the past the synagogue and the state have been utilized.

As modernity and institutionalism continue to fade off the scene, I do not believe we should ditch the 501(c)3 nonprofit religious organization that passes for church. Rather, we should seek to make such organizations the best catalysts possible for birthing the body of Christ. Let’s just not confuse these organizations for the body.

Chad Hall is lead pastor of Connection Church in Hickory, North Carolina, and he operates the website www.CoolChurches.com.

To respond to this newsletter, write to Newsletter@LeadershipJournal.net.