Myth #8 – Organic Church is a Monolithic Movement
Many believers are trying to get a “handle” of understanding on what we mean when we use the phrase “organic church”. Personally, I am finding the whole issue very tiring and am about ready to give up using that term altogether! Many are now calling it the OC (for organic church) like they did for the IC (institutional church). The term is very much in vogue and many (even on this blog) are calling for more explanation and definition. Many are calling us folk that use that term things like “the organic community” and “organic church people”. Personally, I don’t like such labels because it tends to sound like we are separating ourselves from the rest of Christ’s Body and that is just not true. I am a believer and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ – plain and simple! I am a member of His Body just like every other born-from-above believer. My spiritual family consists of all of those who have the Christ living inside of them.
What About Movements?
As I have already stated in another blog post, I do not believe what we see happening today is either a movement or anything new. Twice in my own lifetime have I seen similar stirrings of the Spirit towards a more organic way of being the Church. One was in the late 60′s early 70′s and it was affectionately called The Jesus People Movement. My wife and I came to Christ during that time. The center was only Jesus (hence the name) and there was much freedom, community, and spiritual life. Unfortunately, another movement, that was authoritarian in nature, quenched much of the Jesus people thing. Then, there was the house church movement of the late 80′s early 90′s. This was also somewhat of a return to the biblical way of meeting and living the Lord’s life.
But there were also many other moves of God throughout history when believers left the institutional system for a more biblical and organic way of church. Some of those groups were the Priscillians, the Bogomils, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Little Flock, etc. Here again, many people were leaving the conventional/traditional churches to seek Christ in the midst of body life. These groups were all different in various ways but all could be called “organic”. They all saw organic to mean that the life of Christ would be flowing in and through His people to bring about an expression. That expression would be His Body, the Church. What would this expression look like? It would look like Him – Jesus Christ in corporate form! It would contain all of His characteristics, nature, and life.
Not a Movement
So I would say it is not a movement or perhaps (if it is) then we could say that it is THE movement of God throughout the ages. It is the one thing that God is focused on. It is the one thing that He is relentless to pursue until it comes to full fruition in this realm. It is His eternal purpose and the thing that has been in His heart since before creation. It is that His Son would be the Center, Life, Head, and Sum Total of all things visible and invisible (Ephesians chapter 1).
Not Monolithic
Organic church cannot be monolithic because it is the actual life of God being expressed in a vessel; an image; a body; a house. I know people who have experienced organic church life in college. They were a part of a campus ministry and lived together with other believers most of the time. They shared Christ together and experienced much of the organic life during that time. Others have experienced some of this on mission trips or other ministries where they spent much time together with other believers. The expression can vary but the life comes from the same Source. The results are always the same; a deep love for the Lord and for one another; an embracing of the cross to let go of the soul-life; and a deeper experience of Him personally and with the other believers.
Mark Champion said:
Amen. Christ is all, in all. That’s it. He is not right or wrong. He is not left or right. He is not good or evil. He is not black or white…or gray. He is Life. He is the Movement!
miltrodriguez said:
Mark,
Well said brother!
MichaelO said:
Milt,
Amen!
First I was a heathen.
Then I was just born again from above in Jesus, in the Jesus movement.
Then I was told that was not enough, you need to be “covered”, by a pastoral hierarchy, and do all of these extra special orthodox things.
Then I was in the Charismatic movement.
Then I was in Megachurch movement.
Then I was in the Vineyard movement.
Now, I am again in Jesus, no movement, just Christ, and ekklesia.
The only movement I allow now is a bowel movement!
julian graham said:
It is as scripture says time and time again. In Him, all things in Christ. That simple yet profound. Those that continue to label and search for a title join the politicians they are masters at titles that don’t matter one bit. The heart of a believer is this, “That I may know Him”.
tevyebird said:
I’m one of those persons who feel that my most thorough experience of organic church was in college, although it took until recent years to realize it as such. One problem I struggle with is taking the unusual social social situation of the secular college campus, with mainly young, unmarried persons of a limited age range and the few older persons of influence (professors and administrators) of a limited intellectual (higher) and change orientation (high) range, and then applying it to being in a society of the normal range of ages and intellectual levels of everyday society.
david bolton said:
Hi Milt,
I love what you have written here. We have all been baptized into the Name of Jesus. He is our identity, the Name above every name. When we choose lesser names, identities,… we de-nominate ourselves and usher schism into the Body. When will we ever learn!
Along this line I wanted to share some thoughts by John W. Kennedy of India from the book “The Torch of the Testimony”, pg.241:
“Throughout the centuries, God’s people who have sought fellowship only around Christ have struggled for namelessness.Consistently they have denied the name of some man or other label which has been attached to them, desiring only that they should be known as Christians, or brethren, or by such other simple designation as might find warrant in Scripture. It has always appeared to be a losing battle, and to some it may appear unimportant, yet when a company of believers has been willing to accept a name, it has also accepted the limitations that have gone with it. The struggle for namelessness is not an insignificant factor in the struggle of the church for its existence.”
Amen.
Blessings,
David
http://christcenteredchristianity.wordpress.com/
Konti said:
“Personally, I don’t like such labels because it tends to sound like we are separating ourselves from the rest of Christ’s Body and that is just not true. I am a believer and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ – plain and simple! I am a member of His Body just like every other born-from-above believer. My spiritual family consists of all of those who have the Christ living inside of them.”
Praise the Lord!
Steve Simms said:
Excellent post, Milt!
MichaelO said:
Milt,
In your above closing paragraph you make mention of some interesting points. Ekklesia “cannot be monolithic.” Ekklesia is actually the life of God expressed in a vessel/body/house. You then list several examples, college campus ministry, living together with other believers, mission trips, other ministry where they lived together and much time was spent together. Isn’t it true that it is about shared life together. Shared life together in Jesus, shared life together with one another in Jesus. I know in my own experience in that atmosphere, miracles happen. I look back over a life of experience in this thing called Christianity always being involved in the perceived cutting edge latest “move of the Spirit”. The only time it really works is in the simplicity of people sharing everything in Christ in a shared life. This includes, MONEY. To truely share a life together in Christ individually and corporately, is to share money also.
In the New Testament historical record and my personal experience, the sharing of money in Christ is a major issue. Money shared produces miracles, money not shared produces a stunted community of believers. I have experienced this at length.
Among “organic church” circles the issue is strangely silent.
There is very little teaching about it. Other than bad
teaching. The historical record account in Acts 2:41-47;4:31-35; 6:1-8; indicate that money played an integral part in the rapid expansion of the ekkelesia, and the beginning of the miraculous performed through the community of believers. The Holy Spirit draws a distinction between Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4:36-37; 5:1-11). The issue of money correctly handled produces real results (Acts 5:12-16). It stirs persecution immediately (Acts 5:17-18). That is probably why all of the silence?
What is your take on this, Milt?
miltrodriguez said:
MichaelO,
The examples you cited in the book of Acts were related to the Jerusalem church and their pooling of resources together to make things work financially. They had a great need right after the day of Pentecost. There were now 3,120 people in the church and many of them had just moved there from out of town! Wow, what a problem! So many sold properties and such to help the new believers with housing, food, etc. However, we never see this same thing repeated throughout the story of the New Testament church. Many have tried to make this a principle or rule for church life, but I rather see it as the exception.
What we see instead is that the members of the body helped one another and shared their lives with one another in every way. Finances were just a part of that sharing. The interesting thing is that later the church in Jerusalem went through a time of famine and Paul had the churches which he planted save up their money to give to the Jerusalem church. So the principle that I see that is more consistent throughout the New Testament is that of helping those who are in need within the church, and even churches helping churches.
Of course there were no church buildings, clergy salaries, or any other such expenses so the believers were free to give to two main areas: helping the poor and helping the work.
Michael Young said:
Great points, Milt.
Being part of several different Facebook groups that are “Organic Church” by title, I’ve seen a few different things in that area. The trend with the OC title, is that we are a movement. And, sadly, many think that the OC is the only place where God can be found and everyone in the IC is a sinner. They may not out-right say it, but they imply it.
I agree with you about the OC title, I rarely use anymore myself. I usually just say, “The Body of Christ” or “The Bride”.
MichaelO said:
Milt,
You and I are essentially saying the same thing, kind of.
I consider this such an important aspect of “organic” I will be more specific.
I do not think it (an attitude of sharing things in common) was the “exception” but the rule. I am speaking of a present Western cultural mindset reading back into the scriptures in our common practice and understanding now. I do not speak of pooling all of our material possessions. But our attitude towards material possessions is to be fundamentally changed within the context of community.
It wasn’t just the Jerusalem Church “supporting the new 3100″ but Jesus and Pauls practice also. Jesus and the disciples had a common purse, it was even given to Judas Iscariot. We are to remember that “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,, that though He was rich, yet for our sake He become poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9) Paul challenged the characteristic Hellenistic associations with possessions and went far beyond those Hellenistic associations. Sharing of material possessions as a physical expression of fellowship is to occur voluntarily. It is a very good indicator as to the degree of fellowship one has actually entered into or matured. I am not advocating selling everything you have and divesting yourself of it, but Paul was consistant in his teaching 2Cor 8:14-15; 1 Cor 16:2. Paul did advocate the giving up the right to it. All that we have is given through the cross as a gift and the Gospel is not about rights but gifts. In the NT the emphasis was on maturity to the extent that one could quite cheerfully give from his abundance, but from his need (2 Cor 8:2-3) also with earnestness and joy (2 Cor 8:8; 9:5,7), stemming from love.
The “organics” I believe error not towards Pauls teaching which is essentially the “Jerusalem Church’s” but goes even deeper encompassing a heart change of such degree that they give from their situation of extreme poverty. Cheerfully.
Paul did not plant communes, but he totally challenged the common attitudes towards property, to the extent that believers did not look at things in the same as they did previously.
This is a far cry from what is going on in “organics” now.
miltrodriguez said:
MichaelO,
I agree with you. I think I might have possibly misunderstood what you were trying to say and that is why I went into the Jerusalem church thing.
If you read my book: “The Community Life of God” you will get my heart for community. It is definitely a shared-life and actually a participation in the community life of the Godhead. To what degree does the Godhead share? Enough said!
CatherineS said:
I’ve recently seen similar discussion on this issue and have been giving it some thought.
First let me say that it’s true that ALL believers make up the body and bride of Christ — whether they’re in the “institutional church” or “organic church” or church planting “movement” or even meeting with no other believers at all (“no church movement”?
). Also, I don’t like labels. So when I use the term “organic church” or OC, I am not at all using it to describe a movement, as a label of a “superior” way of doing church, or with a derisive “us vs. them” mentality. I am using it to speak of an expression of body life in Christ as you describe.
I know that OC has come to mean many things to many people and has even been applied to groups meeting in a way that I wouldn’t consider organic at all, but there is a man-made institution that represents much of Christendom that I have been calling “institutional church” (IC) and then the expression of body life that gathers around the person of Christ that I call “organic church” (OC). Without ways to identify these different expressions of “church” life, I don’t see how we can communicate easily. When I say “IC,” you know exactly what institution I’m referring to. So I consider it a type of short-hand that makes discussions easier to follow and don’t feel that I’m somehow being divisive or labeling people by using these terms to identify these different expressions of Christ’s body.
Then there’s the fact that institutional church and organic church are entirely different “expressions.” And just because we don’t want to be divisive doesn’t mean we can pretend the IC and OC aren’t very different! So we need to continue to be truthful as well as clear on the differences. I want to see my friends and husband who are still in the IC freed from the bondage (yes, bondage!) of that man-made institution, and only it’s only going to be the truth as the Lord reveals it to them that will free them.
John Wilson said:
amen brother Milt, very refreshing!
Michael K. said:
Thank you Milt.
Even as I read this I feel the trained “muscles” of control clenching in my heart. Muscles I do not want anymore. These muscles have been trained my whole life to grasp a situation or idea and make it controllable (a deception in the first place), safe, secure, and palatable.
I’m asked at least once a week about the church I’m a part of.
“What’s the name of your church?”
or
“Oh, I’ve read books on that model.”
or
“So you guys are more missional and home-group based?”
It’s not that I don’t understand the questions. The church as a person (Christ in us) doesn’t and won’t fit into any known category. So I’m letting those muscles go. I’m allowing people to walk away from me without a definitive grasp of exactly what it is I’m up to. So far, it’s been just fine – and I find that it’s far more intriguing to people when I don’t label it.
MichaelO said:
Milt,
Are the western American christian styled mega-churches becoming man-made theocracys?
I provide a recent example:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/26498/rabbi-declares-eddie-long-king