This book points out the authors reasons why he feels that the current Church model is broken. I agree with most of what he says. But I have my own additional reasons why I think that the current Church model does not work. I think this book does a decent job. I just dont agree with the language that the author used. See below.
-------------
Frank calls his vision for the Church "Organic Church."
On a side note, I don't much like the word "Organic." Have you ever gone to stores that have organic foods? These places seem to attract people that oppose Christianity. (To be fair, there are many that go to these places that just want to be healthy and select healthy foods). I'm not entirely sure why Organic and religions other than Christianity go together. Perhaps they are like Spirits. No matter the reason though, they just seem to attract the same people.
In the world of Christianity, I live by the verse; "You will know them by their fruits." In other words; if you want to determine if something, or someone, is of God, just look at the end result (What it, or they, produce). In this case; what kind of people do organic stores attract? If organic stores attract those that oppose Christianity, then we can draw the conclusion that it's not Christian. So associating the word organic with the Christian Church, just rubs me the wrong way.
Frank's book draws a line in the sand, which is his vision for how the Church should be, and dares you to cross over it. He very clearly spells out his viewpoints and defends them well. However, all that defense makes the book sound a bit desperate. It's like he is saying to the world; "Won't you please read my book so I can prove to you how wrong your way is?"
Though he stops short of saying this, Frank seems to be saying that his vision for the Church is the only way, and if you don't accept it, you are doomed. Now I have to admit that I did not read each and every page word-for-word. I just couldn't. This brings me to my next side note and rant.
Doesn't anyone use illustrations anymore? To me, a book that has nothing in it but line after line, and page after page of text, is very boring. Nice, well laid out illustrations break up this monotony, and provide you with a wealth of information. Ever heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, it's true. Frank... I'm drawing my line in the sand and I dare you to prove me wrong.
Frank also uses the word "Institutional Church" many times in the book. Here we go again! The word Institutional makes me think of folks that have been committed to a mental institution. I don't much like the Church being compared to a mental institution and those that attend it to mental patients.
Now in his defense, Frank does address this word in his book. He says that he could just as easily used the word "Traditional". Well, Frank...If you could have just as easily substituted the word Institutional for a less offensive word, why didn't ya?" Are you trying to make enemies of every Church going Christian in America? If not, I suggest choosing your words more carefully.
So right from the start,"Reimagining Church" sets a bad tone by its choice of words. Perhaps Frank just wanted to rile us all up. I'm not sure of his intentions and I won't try to figure them out here. I do agree with most of what this book had to say. I mainly just didn't like the way it was said, and the manner in which it was written. The book Reimagining Church was dry and lifeless and did not make me want to run out and purchase his next book, "Pagan Christianity."
Reimagining Church is all about how we have strayed from the original design that God laid out for us for the Church. In the New Testament;
* Church was held in homes
* There were no Pastors
* No hierarchical structure
* No strict division of laypeople, Pastor, clergy or staff, etc...
* No firm structures to meetings
I was intrigued by 2 things in the book that I had not thought of before. The first is that the Church should be a family. Now interestingly enough, most Churches are families, or at least were started by families. Many Churches are run by husband and wife teams, with the husband as the Pastor and the wife often the worship leader. Then the kids often join on as staff. Many Churches start out in homes, but then when they grow, they naturally think of getting a bigger building. They do this because that's just the way it has always been done. As the Church grows bigger and bigger, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain that family dynamic and eventually its lost altogether.
I love the idea of getting back to the family unit as the center of the Church. This solves the problem of husbands abandoning their families to go off to Pastor a church. Then as the Church grows, that family dynamic is maintained, because as a home Church, its maximum size is determined by the size of the home.
The other idea that I thought was mind blowing was the part about the Lords Supper. In the modern day American Church, we have reduced the Lords supper to communion. The word communion does not even appear in the Bible. Communion is a stale and sterile practice that consists of tiny wafers, or crackers, and some sort of juice.
The wafers are tiny so they are easier to pass around and hold in ones hand. Grape juice is used so we don't offend those that do not like alcohol, or those that think it sinful to drink wine. What I never understood about communion is how it became all about us. Our current Communion rituals cater to our needs, not the needs of Jesus.
In many countries, they still use real bread and real wine, which in my opinion, is the way it should be. I wonder what Mosses would have said had the Israelites used present day arguments like that.
"Oh Moses! Really? Sheep's blood! "Why Cant we use something more hygienic on the door lintels like red markers?" Don't ya know I'm allergic to sheep's blood?"
The idea that the book presents is that we should get back to the original idea and intention of "The Lords Supper." Instead of the abbreviated version, we call Communion; let's have the full meal deal. A real supper complete with real bread and real wine. The supper would be a time for sharing the good things of God with each other. A time of fellowship and getting to know each other better. We could even take turns going around the table and talking about the things God has done in our lives. A supper filled with true good will, remembering what God has done for us, and showing thankfulness and joy in that. Not some cold and somber event that last just a few minutes and is quickly forgotten.
Reimagining Church condemns the traditional Church. I do agree that home church is what God probably intended for His Church. However, I disagree that there is no place at all in this world for the more traditional building based Church. He does not actually say this, but it is implied. I read a review of his book on Amazon that I thought was very insightful.
The Pastor said that it's true that the Traditional Church model has gone astray and needs help. He pointed out though that just because it's broken, does not mean that we should throw out this model completely. It would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why not just try to fix what's broken?
Of course there is also the example we are given in the Bible of not trying to put new wine in old wine skins. So I'm not sure what the answer is. What I do know though is that the traditional Church model is probably not going to go away anytime soon and perhaps not at all.
Why cant home Churches and the more traditional building model of the Church co-exist?
This is a good book and an excellent idea, but the book itself could have been written better.
No comments:
Post a Comment