Jesus DNA and forms of church

Fellow blogger Andrew Black commented on my posting about 'reformation or revolution?' and asked: "What is your historical perspective on church practices and traditions which were lifted from pagan culture? Are you really going for just some more reform, or is it time to start again from Acts 2?"

That's a topic in itself. In terms of DNA I firmly believe we have to stick to the person and ministry of Jesus and the dynamic of the early church in Acts. Based on this I would say a healthy church or community of Jesus-followers is marked by three things:

1. The presence of Christ visible in love, joy, answered prayers, the gifts and guidance of the Spirit and the signs of the Kingdom.
2. Love, relational commitment and generous sharing among the believers.
3. Firm commitment to our common mission to disciple the nations.

When it comes to the FORMS of church/community I'd suggest we have a lot of freedom of expression. But I would also ask two questions:

1. Does this form really express the Jesus DNA, does it breathe the values of the Kingdom of God?
2. Is this form effective in helping us focus on Jesus and accomplishing the mission he sent us on?

Now looking at some of Andrew's issues:

1. Liturgy and rituals: there's nothing wrong with liturgy and rituals as such, they can help us experience a dimension of Christ. I've been in some very inspiring liturgic celebrations. On the other hand, if liturgy become a one-size-fits-all box, a legastic, traditionalistic structure that limits the Spirit of God, we better get rid of it as soon as possible. I think it would be fair to say that most liturgy in today's churches is limiting rather then releasing.

2. The distinction between (ordained, salaried) clergy and laity. I would say this is fundamentally unbiblical. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't release certain ministries financially as God leads. But I think the priority would have to be apostolic/missionary, not pastoral. Ministries who serve the wider Body, not just one local expression of church.

3. Church buildings. I think's it's unbiblical and a waste of money that every congregation has it's own building. But it would be great to have several multi-functional facilities on a city level that all Christian communities could use for training, celebrations and the like.

Looking forward to your comments.

Comments

[brad]

Marc,
I love the term DNA. I have links in the sidebar at my blog to three sermons I preached on Acts 2. The titles are:
Decoding the DNA of the Church - Fellowship
Decoding the DNA of the Church - Opening Our Homes
Decoding the DNA of the Church - Joyful Community

Any reformation must get to the real DNA of the prototype. At the root of this change is I believe an epistemological issue of how we learn. Again this gets to the role of our corporate story and worldview that we live in. We ned to blog storm this discussion andfind answers and practices and examples of the mriad ways to express this essential DNA of the Church.

[scott]

I so agree with your assessment on the way church could / should look as we travel forward. I think that somethings holding us back are: money, pride, and faithlessness.
1) Wouldn't it be great if the local churches were free from the burden of funding buildings and pastors and liberated to use the money missionally- ransoming the lost?
2) Wouldn't it be great if many with theological degrees would humbly release leadership and responsibility to the laity?
3) Wouldn't it be great if we (and throw me into this group) had the faith to move forawrd in these things?

[Andrew]

Thanks Marc, I agree with the priority of sticking 'to the person and ministry of Jesus and the dynamic of the early church in Acts'. And I share your assessment of the three points I raised. So we seem to be very much on the same page.

I suppose whether we see the process of getting there as reformation or revolution depends to some extent on our individual experiences of church and our assessment of the starting point. And I guess there is a marketing aspect. If the first reformation was a major step in the right direction then a second one should get us further in the right direction. And calling it reformation rather than revolution may keep more people on board the movement.

My socialist daughters are involved in comparable discussions between reformists and revolutionaries. http://isthistheway.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/04/an_inspiring_da.html
The former, such as the Dutch Socialist Party (SP), work through the democratic parliamentary system, the latter assess the whole (liberal capitalist) system as beyond reform and reckon that revolution will be the only way to get half the worlds population out of poverty.

Anyway, I am currently reading 'Revolution in the Church: Challenging the Religious System with a Call for Radical Change' by Michael L. Brown. I will post a Trackback with my comments on it in due course.