I wonder what it looks like to have a church with no laity. I’m not saying it’s any more Biblical (it might be), but I do think it would be more beneficial to the spiritual growth and relational capacity of all involved.
May I pose a question: When it comes right down to it, what is “church?” I’m taking the question up a notch, I suppose. It’s often been asked whether church can be done in a house around the table or around a campfire. I’m asking if church can simply happen. I’m asking, “What is this thing we call church?”
And while we’re on the subject, I noticed today that Wikipedia has a Church 2.0 entry. It’s a brief article that could still use some fleshing out. Of course, most of us who have used the phrase don’t have it fully figured out, but this is certainly a good start. The article was started by a fellow called Joseph who I don’t know, but he’s compiled some links and a good jump on this definition. Who knows, maybe the Church 2.0 definition will be polished and ready for primetime before the cleanup notice come off of the Wikipedia Emerging Church definition.
The 411 on Church 2.0 is that it’s “a missional ecclesiastic response to a culture influenced by the values of Web 2.0.” The definition comes from Andrew TSK Jones, because he normally gets to define these things, mainly by hitting it quickly and striking pretty darn close to the mark.