Much has been debated about the definition of a church. Is a church defined by having a paid pastor? A building? A calendar of programs and events? Or can a church be two people praying together. What is the essence of what defines a church?
In The Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch defines a church like this:
- A covenanted community – a church is formed not by people just hanging out together, but ones bound together in a distinctive bond. There is a certain obligation toward one another formed around covenant.
- Centered on Jesus – He is the new covenant with God and he thus forms as the true epicenter of an authentic Christ-ian faith…A covenant community centered around Jesus participates in the salvation that he brings. We receive the grace of God in him. But, more is required to truly constitute a church.
- Worship, defined as offering our lives back to God through Jesus.
- Discipleship, defined as following Jesus and becoming increasingly like him (Christlikeness)
- Mission, defined as extending the mission of God through the activities of his people.
A true encounter with God in Jesus must result in…
This book, and my time with the author, has my brain whirling. What do you think of this definition of the church? Agree or disagree with Alan?
13 Comments
Tim
I agree with Hirsch. With others like Neil Cole and Frank Viola becoming somewhat more mainstream in the conversation, current definitions/expectations of church are being discussed and implemented. We have relied far too long on the western culture of what a church is what a church does. The definition is found in the NT, not in church growth texts and conferences (of which you know I have attended my share and then some.) I did have the opportunity to attend The Greenhouse Story held by Cole's CMAResources last spring in Seattle. Making me scripturally re-examine church.
HIrsch hits the nail on the head. I feel that much of our tension is derived from a struggle between the Church (big C) and the institution, church. There is one church & Christ is the head of her. As I have heard before, there are many microcosms/small-scale examples across the globe of this 1 universal Bride! Many struggle with the questions you posed.. Does a church have to have a paid pastor.. building.. etc? I dare to say the answer to those questions is NO. Christ has to be the head. We have to disciple one another. We must express Christ to the world. We were never called to padded pews of skinny-jeans-wearing worship leaders. We were called to be living, breathing, walking, talking, reflections of Christ in the earth, living with one another & growing with one another! Great post, Tim!
Alan's answer seems simple…It seems too simple but it makes perfect sense. I guess I assumed the answer to this question could only come in the form of a thesis.
What I keep thinking is…What if I quit asking what the church is, should be, or should look like – and instead, I started asking questions about how I can BE the church?? For me, if I am not being the church, then what does it matter what the church is or isn't. Of course this is all relative…ask nonbeliever…
Church = fruit bearing community of Jesus freaks? Can't argue with that!
Sincerely, it sounds like part of the focus is how a church is NOT defined – it's not a few people but does not have to be hundreds or thousands – it's community. It's not just about getting together and it's not just about singing along – it's covenant and it's Christian. Oh, and it's alive and bears fruit (discipleship and Mission). Again, can't argue with that!
Agreed.
But I think it's easy to read something like that and our brains start to isolate out all the extras and say they're not a part of a church. We start to look at the building, the staff, the paid preacher, the etc….but I don't see any reason why those can't be a part of it.
Hirsch's definition of a church does not exclude aspects like those, in my opinion.
I agree. I think some of those are givens that a church should have and include. #2 is absolutely important but what sets it apart for me is his use of "covenanted community." That speaks of more than a Sunday gathering or a "let's have a fellowship dinner" where everyone goes to their tables and eat with the same folks they always do. A covenanted community (as he states so well) had a bond that transcends feel good stuff.
Although I agree and appreciate Hirsch and Cole and can totally get behind what they are doing, I have questions: It seems that NT churches were identifiable. ie. The Church at Corinth; It seems that there was appointed leadership. ie. He appointed Elders and Deacons; It seems that viability should matter….I have NO CLUE what that means, other than they should be sustainable at least to recognize they exist and where are they. It seems there should be some system of accountability to God appointed and annointed spiritual leadership. Just my thots as I consider what Hirsch and Cole legitimately practice.
I love Alan Hirsch's work…it's great to hear others (especially in leadership) talking about these ideas.
The Church is supposed to be a horizontal organisation, not vertical; Spirit empowered and not system managed.
This sounds like a book I'd like to read. Interesting conversation.
One quick question for the group here: Where do we get the "covenanted" part of this? I don't see much precedent in the NT for saying those churches had covenants, commitments or even official membership. Am I just misunderstanding the use of the word in this case? I agree that our command is to love one another which would imply a strong commitment on my part to other Christians, but can we really call that "covenanted"? Maybe reading the book will give me some further insight into what is meant?
Missing declared leadership and sacraments
I have one question that i would love to hear your feedback on. He says a "Covenented Community" which i love that statement and definition, but my question is should a church, speaking to the local body of the whole, should it be multi-generational? I only ask as a youth pastor who has many students who feel that our student service is their "church" and not our "church". 2nd question, Is it dangerous to have a church of the same generation when it comes to discipleship/ Just some questions i have that i would love wisdom from others on.
In response to Andre's comment, I have always thought that the problem with the church is that it is too horizontal. The more we become vertical in our approach the easier the horizontal aspects of church life work out. Andre, I may be missing what you are saying, so if there is a further clarification I would like to hear it.