The Nature of the Church

Evangelical Outpost is blasting Real Live Preacher's reimagining of the church.

Even if you've never visited RLP's site you know the type: a hipster pastor who has the tongue of Tourette's sufferer and the epistemology of a French Deconstructionist; the type who thinks that cussing and fideism are signs that they are "authentic" when they are merely immature.

Ouch. RLP's essay If We Could Do Church is a vision of a community based organization. But it is neither a church nor a body of believers. The trouble starts here:

First of all, we probably wouldn’t call ourselves a church. That English word is rather tired, I think. It really doesn’t communicate very well, and it’s not a biblical word in any case. We might call ourselves “A Gathering of Friends,” or perhaps, “A Community Living in the Way of Christ.” I don’t know what we would call ourselves; maybe we wouldn’t have a name at all.

First, church is biblical. The Greek word in the bible is ekklesia, but it means church. The real problem is that of his two names, the first "A Gathering of Friends" is far more appropriate than the second. Here is his next paragraph:

I don’t think we would concern ourselves very much with what individuals in the community say about Jesus or even believe about Jesus. It’s not that what we say about Jesus doesn’t matter, but this community would begin with real living. There will be time enough for pretty Jesus words later on.

It is a good thing RLP does not refer to this as a church. It isn't one nor is it a new age, revolutionary replacement for one.

The church is God centered. It is supposed to be the projection of Christ into this fallen world. His "community" is not God centered. It is people centered. It is self-centered. He raises six bullet points on the core role of his new "community." Only one mentions God. His community is about "we" not about He. Tell me, what is "real living" apart from God? Apart from Christ? A quick read of Romans will show you that real living apart from God is worthless.

It isn't that his bullet points are wrong. They aren't. They are generally what a church should be doing. It is that his bullet points are like an arch without a capstone. They lack the key piece which holds everything else together. And RLP doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that.

Any replacement for a traditional church must be God-centered. It must be start with Jesus and then spread to the world, not the other way around. Now some of his emphasis on doing instead of talking is just fine. I think the modern church often talks too much and does too little. But his belief that talking just amounts to "pretty Jesus words" is completely off base. Some of that talking is establishing a firm spiritual foundation upon which to build. You must build upon the Rock.

If you want to go about being a pre-church christian you do not start with a "community" and move towards God and Jesus. The early church was a household of people serving the same master. Before there was a church, there were just disciples: Followers of the Way. They were fellow travelers walking the same path towards God. They started with God and built their community around Him. That is not what RLP is describing.