DashHouse.com

Darryl, can you explain to me, what you mean by "traditional" and "non-traditional"

You ask the question: "Is there a right kind of church, or are any of these legitimate forms of church with unique sets of strengths and weaknesses?"

Wouldn't that depend on your definition of "legitimate church"

I think a legitimate church would be one that is all about God's glory. Maybe that sounds simplistic and a no-brainer but I also think its profound. Everything we do at church has to be about God's glory. I think if we were really to keep that in mind all the time, God would show us how to run the particular church depending on the context we find ourselves in. I don't think then, that it would matter if it's traditional or non-traditional (depending on your definitions of those terms).

I am in a great church in Oakville. We are in a particular context in suburbia, amidst a lot of wealth and people with education and knowledge and means and privilege and all that. I am very thankful for our church. I know the leaders and they are, to a person, all about God's glory. I don't know if you would consider us traditional or non-traditional, I myself would say we are non-traditional as I consider other traditional churches in denominations.

What I can see, is God's blessing on our church and I believe it has so much to do with a striving for God's glory. God clearly blesses that, His Word is very clear on that. Honour Me and I will honour you, He often tells us in His Word.

Having said all that, I don't think you can necessarily take the model that we have and expect that it will work the same way in another context, say in the inner city (how did you know I was going to go there). I don't think you can franchise the Church that way.

So in downtown Toronto, let's say, it might be a different type of model that could be used, as we consider the different dynamics of ministering to different kinds of people in the inner city. But if we were all about God's glory in downtown Toronto, I'm confident God would show the way and lead and guide like only He can. I'm convinced of it. I believe what it takes is people who are totally sold out to Him, who truly have a desire to see His Spirit work in the lives of others, as we seek to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to bear upon their lives and see them set free.

I believe there would have to be some things in place to see God do a great work. I think it would begin with the people of God who show by their conduct as well as by what they say, that they are truly different, set apart for His glory, and come what may, refuse to live compromised lives.

I guess that gets us to what a true church and a true Christian are all about. I don't know if you will be blogging on that, I for one would be interested to read your thoughts on that.

George:

You're getting at the same question a different way. The question is, "What makes a church a church?" You go to an important issue (God's glory) but I'm thinking more of structure.

You know what a traditional church looks like. A non-traditional church may deemphasize certain aspects of what traditional churches look like. For instance:

-no single main teacher or "senior pastor"
-services that are more interactive that don't run from the stage
-a minimum of programs
-budgets that don't invest heavily in buildings and staff
-seeing church less as an event and more as a community

I'm not really talking about style of worship. I'm talking about churches that don't look like the churches that we go to in structure, but that are trying to fulfill what they see as the Scriptural elements of church.

My question is whether we can allow for various expressions of the church, or are some clearly out of the question? Is an organic house group a church? Is an older, inwardly focused congregation mostly full of seniors a church? etc.

Thanks Darryl, more to chew on. I know what I believe about all that and will look forward to your thoughts.

From what I see, one factor that is highligted in many discussions is the question about leadership and hierarchy. Can we see any difference in how the churches are structured regarding your categories - or do you find all kinds of solutions in all categories? Would it be helpful to make categories that also mention this factor?

My feeling at this point is that the questions coming from emerging,missional movements etc is better than the answers given so far. By this I mean that also should wrestle and ponder the questions raised about how to be church that is raised. But there has come up to many "great answers". Too me this means that at this point we can't rule out one or more of the categories you mention - and say that some of the others are right. Instead churches in all categories should start or continue to wrestle with relevant questions raised.

Elling,

You're right, leadership and hierarchy is a huge part of the distinction between traditional and non-traditional (I hate to use the word emerging) churches. But there are other factors as well. In general I think the non-traditional churches try to avoid all the trappings of institutional life, like hierarchy, but also an emphasis on programs and treating people like consumers. Maybe leadership is the biggest distinctive.

Your second paragraph - bang on!