Thanks Shane, good stuff.

Having been a pastor for many years I did my best to utilize Sunday morning and every other meeting for the purpose of encouraging people to grow in their relaionship with Christ, and for a minority, it accomplished that purpose. As years went by I realized that it always remained but a small core that lived as community. Although we had a large discipleship program, reached extensively into the neighborhood, pioneered a unity movement among churches in the city and were involved with missions in several countries, our over-all impact seemed minimal in comparison to the time and energy invested.

Although I preached constantly on the nature and purpose of the church, I found that church still remained in the minds of the people as something they “attended” and “did” rather than what the were. What I had taken to be mere symantics of speech such as “going to church, we do this at our church, how many do you have in your church, where is your church located, etc, turned out to be what people believed at an emotional level.

According to my research and that of others, the above seems to be the case in the great majority of churches everywhere.

Thanks for the book reccomendation.

Terms (sorry for not defining them): organization = organism, the communion of believers. Institution: the mother of believers which utilizes the means God has prescribed to create and strengthen faith. Basically, the church as institution is the means to an end, that the church as organization be built up. In case the terms are still cumbersome, simply put, the elders, pastors, and their duties (institutional church) are for the good and edification of the people of God (church as organism). See Eph 4.8-14 for the biblical foundation. I meant to say there should be a balance here.

Concerning the solo/senior pastor, thanks for the clarification. Ultimatly the meeting place doesn’t matter – the gathered assembly is the “place.” In old-school Presbyterian church polity, there is a plurality of leaders – i.e. the “solo” pastor does not have higher authority than the elder, they simply have a distinct calling/office. So in a good Presbyterian system, the pastor is certainly no “Moses” or CEO or ultimate decision maker. Do you think that it is possible some Emergent types are reacting against the mega-church “senior” pastor concept and assuming presbyterian-type churches have the same thing? Just wondering…

Anyway, you’re right, the focus of the church isn’t on the leaders, but on Christ. The leaders – and Sunday assembly/worship! – exist so that the body looks to Jesus more and more. Paul’s instruction to install godly elders in the churches, and Hebrews’ call to “not forsake the assembly” are certainly things God instituted for the church to keep focused on Jesus day-to-day.

Thanks again for the cordial tone; I realize blog comments are less than ideal for such a good discussion. One serious book on this very topic you may want to consult is “People and Place” by Mike Horton. Though you may not agree with his Reformed/Presbyterian conclusions, I promise you the book will challenge you and you won’t hate it, since Horton interacts with so many different models of “church” today, praising the good and pointing out the bad.

shane

GLW: I should’ve been more clear. Eerdman was comparing Barth’s “freedom” to McLarne’s “broad ecclesiology.” My comment meant this: theologically, I disagree with Eerdman. Yet, Barth’s odd universalism and McLaren’s “generous orthodoxy” might be somewhat related. Also, for the record, I doubt we can compare Barth’s loud reaction to liberalism to Mclaren’s (et. al) reaction to the institutional church.

Thanks for the notes
shane