A proper church structure and leadership makes use of the five~fold ministry to run the church with the apostle in charge and the other ministry gifts working together in each church

so there may be one apostle overseeing several churches and in each church there would be a prophet,evangelist, pastor and teacher ministry gift running the church together with administration staff.

each church would also have a team of elders chosen by the apostle

Large churches also need to practice cell group ministry to insure that the church asa whole is not impersonal and that the leaders in each cell group are able to minister affectively to the members in their cell groups

If I may, I would suggest a book that may stretch and challenge you and your usage of this term: Paul’s Idea of Community is a book written by Robert Banks. He has a lot to say about “ekklesia” and what it means and why it is important.

The challenge is to keep words valid and fresh. In order to do that we have to work hard to protect their context. I find, however, that people are looking for a smaller, more general vocabulary…where I am holding out for a larger, more specific vocabulary. We need the simple words and concepts for the simple things, but we dare not abdicate the complex words for the complex concepts.

And the church–that mystery that is the Body of Christ–is not optional. If you are in Christ, you are part of the church. Either you connect up with the Body and join the dance, or you are the Lone Ranger. But even the Lone Ranger had Tonto…and let’s not forget Silver! I do love triads… ;)

And home-churches don’t have to be anarchistic…just a brief word in their defense…

I would say that the church, as the ekklesia, is concrete and identifiable. The problem comes when we require our definition/manifestation of its local form to be the only one that is True.

Posolutely.. essentially, this is the formation approach. If we are formed in the image of Christ we don’t need rules in these things, we adapt organically and situationally to the new context in accord with who we have become. Or, to use NT Wrights analogy, if the actors are properly immersed in Shakespeare and are given three acts of the play, they can work out the fourth act without any instruction because they have been formed :) Perhaps the structure question is really only a mask for the character question which starts much further down. Related: the attachment question. We become attached to structures and methods, but if we were attached to Christ adequately we would be detached from these secondary things .,,. our ego would not be invested and we would be free for the kingdom.

As with many doctrines, the Bible seems to be general and we’re specific; it seems to provide leeway but we do not. All that to say that perhaps there is no one right, proper, and absolute form or structure for the church, but instead there are characteristics to which each form or structure must hold or aspire.

Thoughts on that one, anybody?

And The Abbess says–absolutely right. Just as there is a basic human body but infinite variety as to those things that make each person unique, so there is to be freedom to vision form and structure for the church according to God’s mission in each place. It is the tension within the ambiguity that keeps calling people back to the safety and comfort of what is known…even if it excludes those to whom God has sent us as ambassadors! Fear of the unknown has thwarted more God-sized missions! Then there is the fear of false teaching creeping in… Yikes!

What I am grateful for, however, are the many places where I see these conversations taking place…and I thank you, Brother Maynard, for being one such place.

Be blessed.

While my brother, A Celtic Son, is more than capable of explaining himself, I believe what he was addressing was something along the lines of those who have been redeemed (bought with the blood of Christ) and have fully surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ–over sacred and secular–are careful to guard against being seduced by practices and attitude that are not Christlike. Those who are willing to embrace and utilize non-Christlike practices and attitudes have compromised the message via their medium. They have traded their Heavenly birthright for the world’s mess of power-pottage.

The challenge, as you have said, is to identify the practices and attitudes we are talking about. I have waaay to much to say about that to clog your blog… And I realize that more and more are moving away and “starting over” with a clean slate. That is certainly what I’m doing…have to show them a better way, not just talk about the problems with the way they do things.

And you are exactly right…there is no business/church problem, either….when we who are redeemed choose to embrace any practices or attitudes that are not Christlike, then we have, in my book, sinned–and are in need of confession and repentance and forgiveness and reconciliation…so that the Body of Christ has its wounds cleaned and dressed and healing can begin.

What is needful is already known…but it is seldom practiced because the current organization/system is compromised and allows “lording it over” through its culture and business practices and by-laws…. And it is too comfortable to go along to get along…and ditch those prophets who are calling out “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!”

The Situational Servant Leader would look at some churches around and see that the leaders are unconsciously incompetent–they don’t know that they don’t know. They think everything is okay. In that case, one must be direct and precise about what needs to be done and how to go about doing it. The problem with the un/in folks is that they are basically unable to do what needs to be done, and they are either unwilling or too insecure to respond to the appropriate leadership style. These are the one who just “don’t get it.” Like the Hobbits who let “Sharkey” take over the Shire without a fight. The only thing worse are those who have the ability but are unwilling to act on it. These are the ones who will trample your pearls and turn on you…the Saruman who will not aid Gandalf and refuses mercy and reconciliation.

I may have to do some adapting of Blanchard’s language so that church folks can recognize themselves….add it to the pile ;)

I fear I have waded in without thought to the members of the community and the tone and depth of conversation past…but I appreciate you willingness to let me sharpen my sword amongst you.

All that to say that perhaps there is no one right, proper, and absolute form or structure for the church, but instead there are characteristics to which each form or structure must hold or aspire.

Yeah, start by quoting myself! I think I’ve got a good thesis statement here though, one that could use fleshing out as to what the characteristics are… perhaps an examination of how they’ve been expressed or adapted to culture through different church forms throughout history and geography.

Len,
I like that start-at-the-end thing, it’s a management style I use as well. Describe where you are and where you’re going… all that’s left is figuring out how you draw the line from A to B.

Bones & flesh… or vine and branches? I wonder if our becoming rigid is a way of attempting to be what Christ is supposed to be in “holding us up”? Metaphors tend to break somewhere around here I think.

The “sacramentally present” phrase has me thinking about “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” and the Church as the incarnational body of Christ to show forth the DNA of Christ and his purposes in the world. I think I’ve got a distinct post on this lurking in my grey matter, but it’ll probably get Jamie over here talking about theosis again.

Speaking of Jamie, he’s got another post adding more to the discussion, mainly by way of clarification but also quoting Len and Alan Roxburgh from a recent Allelon article.

Peggy,
Good angle on freedom requiring responsibility. You said, “in the end, structures–by definition–become more about purpose than about people” but is that in any way avoidable?

Rob,
The success-measure is spot-on, also what Pernell was talking about as well. I’ve just renewed my library copy of Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work based on your dropping of the title in a comment on your blog recently. I haven’t started reading it yet :^( but I’m wondering if it’s ironic to be reading business books about problem CEO types and hierarchical problems in the business world to fix the ones that we created in the church using older business models? Maybe we haven’t done that, or maybe it’s only right to fix it the same way — it’s the reason I like Jim Collins on leadership, which is really just an aside in his book but is used to illustrate one of the requirements for success in the companies he looked at (measuring as he did). hmm, more on this to come, I sense.

Len (and Peggy),
I’m thinking about the OT model and whether or not it’s valid for “church” today and what parts translate. I think in the sense that it tends toward the monolithic and so do we, there’s a parallel. I think too of the historical connections between church and state, and just go “hmmm…” (This and I was reading about the Crusades to my 9-year-old last night.) But I’m thinking about King Saul, and how he was God’s choice as Israel’s first king… relenting to the fact that they really really really wanted one even though he hadn’t been all that inclined to give them one… wasn’t he enough as their King? No, gotta be like all the other people around you, eh? Way to succumb to structural peer pressure, guys.

Peggy (and Len),
“I have wondered many times whether their ideas were submitted but not embraced by the church, and so they took them to the marketplace.” You’ve really hit on something here. Who or where was that conversation I was in where it was suggested that apostles were hard to find in the church because they weren’t accepted there so had all gone off to become entrepreneurs in the business world?

Ryan,
No, you’ve got a good question there… we could be defining it differently, though I hope we’re being cautious to flag nuances of the term when we can. (okay, oops.) I like your observation that we are not business, but consideration of the church is more complex because it is more of a mystery… and we are the church too. I think in saying “missional” we’re referring to a kind of church, like saying institutional church or “house church” or something like that… Leonard Sweet refers to the “inherited church.” Here’s where we may have omitted being specific about some of the nuances. By calling it church, I think it’s simply a recognition of what it is… or what we are. If we engage in missional activity because that’s what the church is supposed to do, then we are behaving like the church ought to… and so we are the the church. Okay, that sounded cyclical even to me.

Peggy (#21),
You’re right, leaders don’t generally wander around the office or the shop asking, “How can I help you do your job?” …unless they’re servant leaders. In the institutional church as we embrace the concept of servant leadership, we’re more likely to say “I’m here for you, my door is always open” (something that some business leaders will say) but that isn’t servant leadership… it’s self-serve self-help where you offer yourself as the answer to the problems of those whom you “serve.” (I was much annoyed for quite some time with my CLB for this very pattern of leadership.)

Scary connection between paid clergy and the turning of church into business. Not sure I want to touch that one…! (But yes, what a mess.)

Celtic Son,
I agree the two are not opposed. I took the title as provocative from another conversation (which has since shifted tone) and accused it of being a false dichotomy… the choice of one or the other doesn’t really exist. Wouldn’t mind hearing more about the self-fulfilling prophecy part.

I do think that the conversation you’ve just stumbled into here is all about “sacrificing the opportunity to take advantage of existing resources, to operate outside of the ’system’ and begin the attempt to practice biblically without compromise.” This is part of the essence of what it is to be missional, and is why you’ll find conversations in some of these quarters about how some of us have difficulty with the concept of paid ministry staff, or of teaching the tithe. The people I know who are currently engaged seriously in the missional conversation don’t really give a whit about what kind of support they get from the institution of church, if any or none at all… because it’s not about that, and a lot of that stuff distracts us from the real divine errand. I could be misreading your comment, but I don’t think we’re looking at people who have been bought or bewitched… but people who have been redeemed.

Len (#23, finally catching up),
Oh, c’mon, share! Do I sense the coming observation that if sacred/secular is a dichotomy we no longer recognize, then why are we asking business/church? It’s a proper observation, btw, and one I was kinda hoping we’d come around to when I first posted the question!