Church Outside-The-Box

I realize that my paradigm of 'Church' is unconventional - unorthodox even. My brothers and sisters of the more liturgical traditions may disagree with several of my thoughts about the logistics of 'Church' and even some of the conservative ones may take issue with how I describe the structure and concept of it. I honor my fellow brethren around the world who love the Lord and express their worship and faith in Jesus differently. As a disclaimer, I will say unapologetically, that I express these things from an American context and its application is imagined in a Western world.

I said in "525,600 Minutes" that "I have forsaken the religious routines of a spectator faith and I've exchanged them for an exciting journey of exploration and uncertainty, following Jesus into the unimaginable places He was already at - the gay community. I have the privilege of participating in my faith - this walk with Christ where I am no longer paralyzed by my own self." Today, I would also add ". . . and no longer paralyzed by the religious structures that dictate what my walk with Christ is supposed to look like." Is this a rebellious attitude? I don't think so . . . .

There are alot of church models out there trying to reshape the way 'church' looks so that attendance numbers increase on Sunday mornings or even on a week night. Sunday services are more 'seeker-sensitive'. Dramatic presentations are used more often. Eye-catching media flashes on screens to illustrates stories, Bible references, and sermon points. Teen dance routines and singing young children entertain the congregation audience. Fog machines are used to fill sanctuaries with laser lights shooting through darkened rooms. Technology is used to present an upgraded God to people tired of an out-of-date church. Even multi-service churches have a variety of styles for people to choose from: the liturgical, the charismatic, and the contemporary. There are churches with Sunday service and small groups during the week. There are churches with mid-week services. There are churches that meet in buildings, storefronts, homes, coffee shops, parks, school campuses, work offices, and bars. There are churches that meet in the morning, evening, or 3 a.m.

Known religious researcher, George Barna, reports his findings based on decades of studying the Western Church in his recent book "Revolution" that millions of people are leaving the traditional Sunday service local churches but are not leaving their faith in Jesus. I think church leaders and church planters are desperately trying to address the reality of a mass exodus away from the Western church by thinking of ways to attract them back. They are trying to think outside-the-box in their presentation of "church" to address the spiritual needs of a shifting postmodern culture that is hyper-individualistic, highly relational, and at the same time relationally-broken while experiencing a societal generational transition.

In my opinion, we are not thinking outside-the-box enough. We cannot merely change the location of where we "do" church, change the style of worship "at" church, or change the demographic of who the church reaches out to. We can't simply change the structure of how we do church to make it a place conducive for relationships. We need to allow our relationships the freedom to dictate what "church" looks like. The shape of our relationships should shape the way we express ourselves as "Church". As long as we refer to Church as a place to go and a thing to do rather than as a Way of life and being, we aren't thinking outside-the-box enough. As long as worship is a creative event that begins and ends (our "worship time" or our "worship service") rather than it being a lifestyle of expressing Spirit and Truth, we aren't thinking outside-the-box enough. Mass numbers of people are leaving the Church but not Jesus. Things are changing. We can't simply re-package "church" to trick them into coming back. The very idea of Christendom's "church" needs to be reimagined into something that allows this generation's Jesus followers to live out their most cherished value - relationships.

What if we lived out our faith in such a way that expressed ourselves as the Church in our very own sphere of relationships? In "Organic Church" by Neil Cole, the greek word 'oikos' used in the New Testament means "household" which refers to one's sphere of influence - family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. Our 'oikos' describes our relational communities. What if we re-conceptualized our understanding of "Church" as not simply where we gather but instead as who we are? What if we were an 'oikos' church - that is, a relational Church - a community of God's people "called" to live "out" Kingdom values in this world? What would it look like if we were the Church among people rather than taking people to a church?

What if we were "Church" within the "structures" of our simple everyday relationships? What if we no longer needed the buildings, budgets, and big shots? What if the stewards of God's Church - the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/shepherds, and teachers (Ephesians 4:11) were simply accomplishing their function in each relational oikos across a region?

What if we didn't dictate what this had to look like? What if we simply encouraged people to seek Jesus personally for those answers of what "Church" looks like in each person's individual relational context by allowing Him to shape their lives through reading the Bible themselves, intimately praying, and responding to whatever He tells them? Perhaps each community would be a "Band of Brothers and Sisters" with both believers and also those in the process of believing. This would be a group of friends naturally connected with each other, encouraging and supporting one another, and in the midst of it all, Christians intentionally living out the Kingdom values - being salt - within their normal relational communities. What if being "saved" didn't require an extraction from their natural group of friends into a foreign and sterile "church" laboratory? What if Christians were in conversation with their friends about Jesus and the Kingdom, and when one of those friends experienced a realization of faith in Him, was simply baptized in the presence of all the other friends? Perhaps all new believers can simply be referred to Jesus through the Word and prayer for an understanding and model of the Way to live. Perhaps it's enough to rely solely on Jesus for leadership and direction while each of us took the initiative of planting seeds of the Kingdom - living out the Good News of the Kingdom of God among our friends (oikos). Perhaps it's enough to love God, love each other, and love His Kingdom.

What if we raised the bar of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus and lowered the bar of our assumptions regarding what "Church" looks like?

When we are told not to "give up meeting together" (Hebrews 10:25) does that describe a church service? Do we need a "service" to "live the Way" He called us to live? Can we live as the Church without being told the logistics of it? We have one Head - Christ Jesus. All the rest of us are on equal ground - all necessary, all significant, all with a purpose and an individualized and personalized function and responsibility ~ the priesthood of all believers (1Peter 2:5-9).

I don't presume to proclaim the way Church must be - only what it could be. People may reject the Western church but they aren't necessarily rejecting the Person of Christ. He is still touching the hearts of millions of people regardless of what church attendance records indicate. We can choose to participate in what He is already doing by stepping outside-the-box of how we think Church is supposed to be like.

If the Harvest is plentiful, why are we still in the barn?