The Confrontation/Conversation

Over the Christmas break, my family went "home" to Ohio to be with the Asp clan. I was saddened to learn, as we talked with family there, that early posts on this blog made some feel like they were being called out as inadequate, inferior, incompetent and un-spiritual. Our intent has never been to tear others down, but to share what we feel like God is doing in our lives. In the process, we proclaim loudly what we feel to be clear in God's word. At times that assertion sounds like a challenge or an accusation.

It is not surprising to learn that many other people are wrestling with the question of "how church is done" all over the country and the world. Heather recently went to a conference in Austin, called "Verge", that discussed matters related to the "organic church movement." Attendees included house-churchers and mega-churchers, as did the speakers (Neil Cole and Francis Chan, respectively).

I guess what I want to say here is that we are certainly fighting the wrong fight.

This point was made vividly clear this evening as I read a critique of Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. Basically, what I see is Mark Driscoll jumping on Frank Viola's case about what he said in the book (via some research assistants). But before anything else, let me say this: I love Mark Driscoll. I've been listening to his podcast for years. And I believe that the primary position put forth in his critique is spot-on: the only real enemies are Satan, Sin and Death. We must not fight the "orgainic is right and institutional is bad" battle. Let us discuss why we have issues with one another, and let it make us more godly as a result, but let's not spend hours and hours, millions and millions, and vats and vats of ink blasting one another.

I will not die on any hill for Frank Viola. I do not follow Viola. I do not keep in lock-step conformity with everything he says. Nor do I follow Driscoll. I do not revere his words and persona. I love Jesus. I follow him. AND SO DO VIOLA AND DRISCOLL. They both want the same thing: Love God with everything and Love your neighbor, & Go and make disciples (Mt. 22 and Mt. 28). I think they are both godly guys. They both want to see God glorified.

I think Pagan Christianity is largely correct. The critique by Driscoll begins with a defense of church buildings. In my estimation, that is missing the point. I can tell you from my experience teaching art history that it is entirely correct that the "church building" as we know it did not pre-date Constantine. Early "churches" were, in fact, based on the Roman basilica (law court) and were, in fact, celestially oriented (on a lateral, east/west axis). But arguing the point is missing the point, too (so I'm sorry). Viola's point in raising the issue is simply to ask, "Are we doing things in the best, most godly way?"

I think the critique by Driscoll is also correct. Their estimation of the biblically defined role of pastor and elder is true, and lies at the heart of one of my great struggles in how to conduct the meeting and discipline of an organic church. My favorite part is that Driscoll's team is fair and balanced and that they affirm Viola in many ways. They point strongly, and correctly, to the need for God's glorification and focus in defeating the enemy of Satan (not church practice).

In my mind, it all comes down to Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure that some who might lean towards Driscoll's side of the issue would criticize use of a pagan source to prove a point (and the irony is not lost on me, I assure you), but I believe it is a succinct way to state my case. The basic idea, at least in Ayn Rand's mind, is that the world is operating on a system, the system is broken, and it takes certain individuals risking the loss of that system to make a change. There are things in the institutional church with which I simply cannot agree. As a former vocational minister, I have a hard time with pastoral salaries (although Scripture affirms it: Gal. 6:6; this, then is my personal conviction, as with Paul in 1 Corinthians). As a member of a church which undertook a building campaign and overextended itself, I see the errors of huge buildings (and huge budgets, and huge programs, etc.). In addition, I feel like I've had a front row seat to the issues involved in sermons, denomination and boards, and a failure to employ the priesthood of all believers. I realize I will sound arrogant, but in my mind this puts me on par with Francisco in Atlas Shrugged. I quit the system, because my continued involvement would have amounted to tacit approval of its working. I gave up (not entirely due to holy motivations, mind you) so as not to perpetuate the problems myself. I now speak to those still working feverishly in the system, just like Dagny, who are no less than the heroes of the book. There is still much that is right with the institutional church, and many remaining in it labor for Christ and his glory. If I sound like I'm trying to convince you to quit the system yourself, it is only because I feel that revisions to the system would take more effort than it is worth. If you are Dagny, you are still doing right, valiantly; I am also trying to do right (however meager it may be) as Francisco. My only hope is that someday all the superfluities of "church" will be stripped away to make The Bride focused on the worship of God and the Great coMISSION left to us.