THE Right Way to Do Church
I’ve read a lot of blogs, and come in contact with church leaders from any number of backgrounds who are wrestling with this question: What is the right way to do church?
As a public service, I just thought I’d throw out the answer to save everyone some time…
Ready? THE right way to do church is… [drumroll please]
The way God calls you to do it.
Simple as that. Now go and sin no more… 
But seriously, as simple as that answer sounds, in practice it can be much more elusive for us to grasp hold of. Because simple isn’t always simple. We may be clear on what God wants us to do, but others may see it differently. Or maybe we’re not as clear as we’d like to be. Or maybe we’ve begun to wonder if there really is a path to follow in the first place. Or maybe we feel we’re so far off the path we’ll never find our way back.
Which causes many to withdraw and rethink/reimagine what church “should” be like. Or to re-double our efforts using our current approach, hoping things will work out. Or to photocopy someone else’s vision. Or to add a few programs that seemed to work elsewhere. Or to have endless rounds of water cooler talks comparing various philosophies of ministry. Or to adopt another approach altogether, leaving those who don’t like the new approach in our wake. Or to criticize what we think is wrong with others, to ensure that we’re at least not caught doing the wrong thing, like Joe Blow or ABC church over there who is REALLY messed up. Or to redefine our failure as success, chalking up criticism as the product of a sinful world, which rejects us just like they rejected Christ. Or to become disillusioned, bitter, or cynical about church and church people, whether we decide to actually do anything about it or not.
But do we ever ask ourselves, what if there is not one “right” approach for doing church that applies to everyone? What if God has something unique and creative to say to each of us?
What if local congregations were seen as the various parts of Christ’s body, and not just individuals? Could it be that God expects each local gathering of believers to do church in a stunningly unique way — a way that makes the best redemptive connection within their context, using their unique backgrounds, collective potential, sense of calling, leadership leanings, desires, failures, triumphs, etc.?
Could it be that we’re to learn from others, without letting what they do blind us from seeing what God has called us to do? Could it be that God really will show us if we’re willing to see, hear, believe, trust, and obey? Could it be he doesn’t want us to covet what others have, or rejoice when others fail? Could it be he wants us to extend grace and forgiveness and encouragement to ourselves and others along the way?
Could it be that we’re where we are for a reason? Could it be he’ll give us more light for our path, as we trust and follow his lead? Could it be that he’s given us a Great Permission within the Great Commission to do ministry in a way that brings us delight? Could it be that the desires of our heart match up with God’s mission in a way we never imagined? And that our God can be trusted — to lead us, and to lead others.
Well, those are my thoughts. I’d love to hear yours. Do any of these questions resonate with you? Provoke you? Make you think?
How clear is your vision of doing church? Are you engaged or disengaged from God’s missional work?
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Steve,
well put. My wife sent me an email just today arguing along these same lines. A friend of mine named Chris Marlow said a similar thing last Friday here: http://simplymissional.com/2008/08/08/part-6-if-i-church-planted-again/
I think all three of you are onto something. I think each congregation of the church has individual members using their unique constellation of spiritual gifts that fulfill necessary functions and I think different congregations within the larger big C Church do much the same thing.
Keep up the good work.
Keith
Great post Steve and since it's about ecclesiology you know I have to post a comment! I think we have to be very very careful here because the contextualization of the gospel must NOT happen but the contextualization of the local church CAN happen on several levels in my view. Maybe I'm over simplifying things but the NT church seemed to practice the two sacraments (baptism & communion) and preach the word. Those three things seem to cross cultural borders without question. There's a great Piper clip here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjPhSTSNYM) about the contextualization of the gospel but I think your post is dealing more with the local church itself. Thats my two cents!
Keith — thanks for you comments, and the link. Like Chris’s take on finding your own voice. Echoes a couple of posts Craig Groeschel has done on his blog, like this one: http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2008/08/11/my-path-to-me/
Jason — always glad to hear from you. Looked at the Piper clip — think his point and yours in not “contextualizing the gospel” is you don’t compromise the essential content of the message (a truth that is timeless) — and in that I would agree, though I might word this differently. I hear Piper likening “contextualizing” with “compromising” here — while I would tend to use it to speak more of “translating.”
You’re right, however, that my focus in this post is not on theological content — in fact, part of my underlying assumption here is that if God calls you to do something, it will be in line with Scripture. So I’m certainly not arguing for an interpretive free for all.
What I am saying is that each local expression of church is necessarily contextual, and unique. And that our focus in doing church should be on what God is uniquely calling us to do in our communal context, without worrying about controlling or passing judgment on others who do things things differently.
Thanks for you comments — look forward to hearing more…
Like these thoughts. We are seemingly likeminded on the point that simple is best. Less is more. We need to be what God has called us to be. Learn from others but not copy.