Old wineskins

This post is from the defunct blog "Dying Church"

A long time ago, I spoke on Jesus' image of putting new wine into old wineskins. My friend Sandy e-mailed this question:

In response to your message, I'd like to ask a provocative question: Is it a waste of time to try to change an "old" church into a "new" church? Should new churches be started from scratch rather than trying to convert or adapt established churches? (Do you think that's stretching the "old wineskins" metaphor beyond Jesus' intentions?)

What do you think?

Comments

[Mike Murdock]

I would think that starting from scratch would be easiest, but then I have to ask myself if we're called to do the easy thing. Another thing that occurs to me is just how easy it is for a new wineskin to age. At some point, as with the Halfway Covenanters of Massachusetts Bay, every revival struggles to pass the flame along to the next generation.

[Toni]

A wineskin will remain 'new' only as long as it is continually renewed. The moment the Holy spirit is no longer given freedom to bring renewal the wineskin ages and begins to split.

[LT]

Ahhhh.... You know what I think. :)

[Scott Hodge]

I'm trying to figure this question out as well. I have been a part of leading a major transition at a church for the past 18 months and I have probably picked the WRONG day to answer this... Most of the time I say "yes" transitioning an "old" church is possible and worth it SOMETIMES. I will say, this has been one of the greatest challenges of my life. We have a great team, we are seeing some great results, but all of this is coming at the expense of lots and lots of stress, bruises and bumps. Yesterday was one of those days that I was almost sure it was all going to fail. Today, I feel better. The emotional up's and down's are amazing, but I'm getting better at keeping my eye on the big picture and not being thrown around by the daily waves. Not an easy road...

[jared]

I think that this will become, if it hasn't already, one of the central questions of our progression as the church. I've got some thoughts that I'm sure coincide with Leighton on the issue, but an important contemplation may be--What if we are all the same wineskin, and not various independent ones? Then what? How would we adapt and provide for an atmosphere of tolerance and inspiration, for freedom and adaptation? How would we wrap our arms around the entire wineskin and carry it into the future? Even in the ancient church time, the people of God had factions of belief. But it seems to me that one of two things will happen as shifts in culture increase the disparity in our factions. Either we will snap back together and embrace our diversity, allowing each his own place in creating our future, or our elasticity will be stretched to the point of rupture, and the split will create pain and cause the church to turn in the ugliness of humanity upon itself. I hope that is not necessary. With that thought, how can we become a people that act as a catalyst for the former? How can we encourage and embrace our own diversity, making room for all to contribute in their own way, without allowing us to become divided because of our varying forms?

[Dean]

The major difference between old and new wineskins is that the old loose their flexibility. They stop allowing tollerance for the fermenting new wine to breath. The NT associates new wine with the move of the Holy Spirit. Often the old container or old structure cannot facilitate the new move that God wants to do. He never changes but the way in which He reaches does. Clearly for God to do what he wants He needs new wine skins or new structure, churches to move in and on. It's not that the old is worthless. We need all the wisdom and councel that the old can give. However when the old refuses to let the new go, the old is split and becomes useless to contain the move of God.