Rethinking the traditional church setting

A few years ago, at a time in which I was heavily involved in my local church, the congregation went through a nasty split. At the time, it was a shock to me. I've since learned, however, that congregational divisions are something that happens regularly.

Here's what happened. There arose some differences of opinion between the elders and the senior minister in regards to authority in the church. The minister had been in the congregation for eleven years and had grown more and more comfortable with his self-defined role as the "hub of the wheel," the center of all activity, connected to every ministry or effort in the church.

A few days later he was gone, along with about one third of the congregation. As I became more aware of church splits, I found more and more examples of them throughout the Christian world. This can hardly be pleasing to a Lord who prays for unity. But yet it continues. Why is that? Before we consider that question, I'd like to reflect on another situation.

It seems that the ranks of pastors and ministers are regularly under attack, and there is a constant battle to keep people in the ministry. For example, according to Curt Lloyd, regional director for the National Church Growth Research Center, writing in his Gleanings newsletter, in one religious body over 7,000 ministers "have dropped out, stopped out, or have been forced out of their calling." Compare that to the 7,226 active at the time, and you have a drop out rate of almost 50 percent.

One more observation. Our churches are too often filled with apathetic people. Members who don't get involved. Who come to worship assemblies on Sundays with an "entertain me" attitude. Members who come to classes with an "OK, teach me" attitude. I doubt that, at any one time, there are more than 10% of a typical congregation who are actively involved in the work of that group.

Why is that? Is the Lord's church so lacking in vibrancy and energy that only a few of its members seek to be involved?

Is there any connection among these three seemingly unconnected trends?

I believe the answer is "Yes."

All these difficulties in the church arise from our reliance on an institutional church -- a church that Christ never intended for us to have. I know that's a strong statement, and you may not agree. But set aside your pre-conceived ideas for a moment, and think with me.

Let's begin with acknowledging the general feeling of how active, intense and involved the biblical church was. Read through the New Testament, and you can't help but notice the vast difference between the church then -- it changed people's lives and converted the known world -- and our assembleges of Sunday morning spectators. The difference is striking.

Doesn't that same God want the same thing from and for His church today that he did then? So who changed? Him or us?

Doesn't it seem likely that we, the 21st century Christian church, are doing some things that have caused the church of our generation to be a sad shaddow of its glorious predecessor? Let's look at some of the pieces of church life in the 21st Century that were nowhere in view in the 1st Century.

1. Clergy. No such thing in the early church. Certainly there were the apostles who dedicated themselves to spreading the word. But there is no evidence that any of them were totally supported. Paul even made a point of making his living by "making tents." And, while we saw some of the roving apostles travel around the country, most of the churches were established before they were there, and left to fend for themselves after they were gone. There just is no such thing as a paid, professional pastor "in charge of" a local congregation.

2. Church buildings. The first century church met in small groups in people's homes. Church buildings didn't appear until 300 years later.

3. Seminaries. We've chosen to ignore the Biblical directive that a person is qualified to lead by his character and experience. Instead we have created additional man-made institutions and deemed someone qualified to be a "pastor" by his education. The list could go on for several pages.

Now imagine you attended a church that was a small group, meeting in someone's home, with no pastor or ordained "minister."

How would that church be different than your current institutional church? More importantly, how would you be different as a result?

Here's my answers to those questions. See if you can relate to any of these changes.

Since the church is really a small group, you couldn't sit quietly and anonymously every week. You'd have to acknowledge the others in the group. Since you wouldn't have a seminary-educated exponder of the truth to lecture you, you couldn't sit and passively listen to someone else's scholarship. You'd have to join in the work of understanding the Holy Spirit's guidance in your life. You may even give up a "Bible study" in exchange for a time of sharing what God is doing in your life. Since the group was small and non-professional, they'd expect you to be involved in using your spiritual gifts. Since you didn't have the church basket passed in front of you every Sunday, and didn't need to support professional clergy or pay for church buildings, you may even find yourself being more involved with personally using your financial gifts in a more intimate way."

And if you did all of these things, and found yourself personally involved in a small group of Christians, actively sharing your life and ministering to others, you might just find that Church become a powerful, dynamic, intense force in your life.

Dave Kahle is a consultant and trainer who helps his clients increase their sales and improve their sales productivity. Dave has trained thousands of salespeople to be more successful in the Information Age economy. He's the author of over 300 articles, a monthly e-zine, and three books. The Six-Hat Salesperson, was recently released by AMACOM.