Post Church

starbucks-cupI’m following an interesting discussion started by Frank Viola (author of Pagan Christianity, Reimagining the Church, From Here To Eternity). It started over at Out of Ur, a great blog to keep up with, and continues on some of his own blog sites. The comments are as interesting and insightful as the posts themselves.

Frank observes…

“There is a growing phenomenon in the body of Christ today. Alongside of the missional church movement, the emerging church movement, and the house church movement, there is a mode of thinking that I call “postchurch Christianity.”

The postchurch brand of Christianity is built on the premise that institutional forms of church are ineffective, unbiblical, unworkable, and in some cases, dangerous. Institutionalization is not compatible with ekklesia. So say postchurch advocates.

But the postchurch view goes further saying, “any semblance of organization whatsoever . . . any semblance of leadership…is wrong and oppressive. Church is simply when two or three believers gather together in any format. Whenever this happens, church occurs.”

I made the mistake of posting a comment suggesting that “post church” was the logical conclusion to Frank’s writing in Pagan and Reimaging. He took exception with my remark (in a kind way) and asked how I could come to that conclusion when he spoke against “post church” in his writing. I told him I should have said, “inevitable conclusion” rather than logical. And I don’t think it’s so much what he wrote but how what he wrote has been used by people who’ve been hurt by church or who have become bored with church or who have always wanted to be “in charge” of a church.

There are some issues here that I don’t think Frank really gets because it’s so far from where his heart is. He wants to draw a distinction between me meeting with my friend at Starbucks for a coffee and calling that “church” and me getting friends together in my living room on a regular basis for worship, prayer, etc. Clearly there is a difference to Frank but for those who’ve been burned, abused or hurt by church or are just pissed off and don’t want to deal with that reality, the distinction is completely unclear.

Frank says, “In my personal judgment, the postchurch view fails all six tests. The postchurch paradigm is rooted in the attempt to practice Christianity without belonging to an identifiable community that regularly meets for worship, prayer, fellowship, mutual edification, and mutual care.”

The problem is that Frank is working from his definition (which he would insist are biblical) of all of those criteria) but others who I’ve talked to or read who are very “post church” would feel they do all those things (even at Starbucks) they just wouldn’t apply the same definitions that Frank does.

Is there a difference between 2 or 3 and 12? If so, then is there a difference between 12 and 100? Or the 500 that followed Jesus to hear his final words and see his final appearance before ascension? The problem in this conversation is that we don’t all use the same words to mean the same thing anymore. Neither English or Greek. A quick read through the comments on Frank’s posts reveal that we all may be reading the same thing but we don’t seem to be reading the same thing.

It’s startling to how a question so easily becomes an attack in this discussion. But then, that’s nothing new in Church is it?


About brianmpei

Stumbling towards what comes next.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Church, emerging church, Meaning, perception, religion and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Post Church

  1. Steve H says:

    Hey Brian,

    Just got a hold of your blog last night from a friend. Some good stuff here. Right on when thinking about definitions and terminology. We just moved from doing a church plant in Nor. Cal. and one big illustration there was the world “Tolerance”. It used to mean, “well, I don’t agree with you, but I won’t kill you.” Today, it mean that I not only can’t kill you, but I have to also agree with you and confess that your “truth” is just as valid as my “truth”, which means of course there is no truth. But isn’t that an absolute itself?

    Anyway, we created a new blog in our transition time called and we’d love to have you stop by. Plenty of room for discussion under the “CHURCH” page.

    Keep going on your end.

  2. Marc says:

    I’ve read Viola’s book and I don’t think “post church” is a good way of going forward from what he’s brought to light. It literally means “post gathering” and that would seem to give fuel to the rampant fire of “I can be a Christian without a Church” – an individualistic mentality which Frank is anxious to avoid. The name probably only stuck because post-everything is hip nowadays and “post-institutional church” or “post-christendom” doesn’t roll off the tongue.

  3. brianmpei says:

    Post is definitely hip Marc!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s