“Onward Christian soldiers,

Marching as to war.

With our own agenda,

Going on before”.

(John Fischer, “True Believers Don’t Ask Why”)

Clique maintenance, as defined by Douglas Coupland, whose book "Generation X" first identified this trend, as well as widely being credited with popularizing the term "Gen X", can be described like this:

"Clique Maintenance: the tendency of one generation (the Boomers) to label the next generation (Gen X) as deficient, in order to bolster its own ego."

We spent some time in our last article refuting a common Christian variant, where the emerging generations (sometimes proclaimed as the "Joshua & Caleb Generation") were being touted as superior to the previous generations. However, it would be incomplete to not address how the same attitude of clique maintenance is cropping up repeatedly in discussion surrounding the structure, the re-structure, or the de-structure of the church as we've known it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, as much as house church proponents were viewed as the "flaky fringe" only a couple of decades ago, now that the house church or de-structured movement has gained momentum and a certain level of acceptance (and therefore trendiness), that a reverse pendulum swing would result. Now, instead of being "flaky", the de-structured crew is "cutting edge".

The danger of course, is that these newly acceptable groups will indulge themselves in their own version of clique maintenance, where anyone who doesn't do things the way they do, is suddenly "out of it", antiquated, or dismissed with (in words I'm hearing far too often) "they just don't get it".

Everybody Wants To Be A Rebel

At a recent gathering of regional pastors, Gary Best referred to the "ecclesiastical anarchists" as a growing group within the Vineyard. Personally, I must confess to kinda liking the term. Ecclesiastical anarchist. Radical. Habitual disturber of the status quo. I've often found myself labeled that way over the past 20 years, and part of me has actually found some perverse pleasure in being recognized as such.

But God, in His usual “I love you too much to let you stay this way” manner, has been showing me that my liking the label of "radical" or "controversial" meant that I was missing the point, even if I was more or less on target with whatever had caused me to be labeled radical by others. The point was illustrated to me in a cartoon in an old issue of the Wittenberg Door (a Christian satire magazine that loves making hamburger out of sacred cows).

The cartoon depicted a mob of radical Christian feminists standing shoulder to shoulder, clenched fists raised high, chanting “Inclusify! Inclusify!”. The point of the cartoon being (in context of that issue of the Door) that the agenda had perhaps become more important than Jesus.

But it is that very attitude that is at the core of clique maintenance: the idolatrous love affair we have with the idea that – somehow -- we are more special, more intelligent, more anointed, more chosen, more obedient, more radical than “them” – however we have chosen to define those that “just don’t get it”.

The “institutional church” isn’t the enemy, and the de-structured, re-structured, or house church isn’t the obvious, Spirit-filled answer. Neither can the experimental communities of faith that are attempting to come to grips with a postmodern expression of the Body be labeled arbitrarily as rebellious, out-of-fellowship, or a threat to established churches.

The biggest tragedy in the midst of all this clique maintenance is that nobody listens to each other – why bother, when you’re already completely convinced of your own infallibility? To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 12, “Can the house churches say to the ‘institutional’ churches, I have no need of you? And can the more established churches say “Because I am not destructured, I just don’t get it?”

Or, to continue the paraphrase, “Can the established churches say to the house churches, I have no need of you? And can the house churches say, “Because we have no building, salaries or outreach programs, we’re only fooling ourselves?”

False Dichotomy

Many times, when I’ve found myself in the midst of a spirited debate about some “hot” Christian issue, people have tried to steer the discussion into two diametrically opposed choices, and tried to make it sound as if these were the only two options available. I’ve called this approach the “False Dichotomy”. Here’s an example:

A few years ago, when “I Kissed Dating Good-bye” was the latest fad, I heard many people (sincere and serious about living a Godly life) reduce the discussion to two alternatives: courtship principles (that were “obviously” God’s best for everyone) OR promiscuous, lust-driven and self-centred manipulation of the opposite sex.

Wow. When you put it that way, of course we should all choose courtship principles as laid out in one man’s book. And for many people, courtship was a very helpful way of dealing with their desire to bring their dating into a more Christ-honouring expression.

But was there really no other option except for these two extremes? And if some Christian young adults DIDN’T agree with the book, did they have to be ostrasized and judged for simply having a different view on a topic that isn’t exactly clearly delineated in the Bible?

We used to challenge our youth group (back in the 80’s – now I’m dating myself) to “break up with your girl/boyfriend the way Jesus would have”. This would invariably cause raised eyebrows and occasionally the question of whether or not we were orthodox.

Our point was: the Bible doesn’t spell out dating regulations, but you KNOW that Jesus was honest and forthright with people, and He ALWAYS valued them and treated them with great dignity and respect. So, if you have to “break it off”, be honest and forthright, and value the person by treating them with great dignity and respect.

In the present debate about postmodern ministry, the house church movement, the re-structuring of church, etc., we need to avoid creating “False Dichotomies”. Using condescending phrases like “they just don’t get it”, or pejorative labels like “out of fellowship”, “institutional church”, or (my favourite example of arrogant labeling): “McChurch”, will not contribute anything healthy or positive in the long run. It will only serve to further divide people into camps that feel the need to justify themselves, often by making an absurd caricature of “them” to use as a whipping post, or to burn in effigy.

Is there no middle ground in the discussion of how to minister effectively in a postmodern society? Can we only “prove” the rightness of the approach that works for us, by ridiculing and demonizing “them”?

Is it possible that, by reducing the debate to house church versus established church, that we are missing something far better that God may be calling us to?

Using Acts As A Model

I’ve been fascinated recently with the idea that the believers in Acts didn’t see a theological, philosophical, or common sense problem with meeting in the Temple AND meeting in their homes (Acts 2:46-47). They did both, gladly and daily. It wasn’t until persecution arose because of the name of Jesus that the early church stopped attending Temple worship, just after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57 – 8:3). (And it should be noted that at least some of the disciples were still in Jerusalem later, when Paul tried to join them in Acts 9:26, and again at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, including James and Peter.)

After his miraculous conversion, Paul continued to attend synagogues, using the opportunity to show from the Old Testament scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah they’d been waiting for (Acts 9:20, 13:5, 13:14), and when Paul was finally arrested in Jerusalem and sent off to Rome, he was at the Temple fulfilling its requirements for purification (Acts 21:26ff).

Even after getting chased out of Pisidion Antioch (Acts 13:44-51), where Paul made his famous “we go to the Gentiles” proclamation, they continued their habit of teaching in the synagogues throughout the Roman world. (Acts 14:1, 17:2, 17:10, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8)

At the same time, in each city they journeyed to, Paul was visiting and/or planting “the church” (any gathering of those who realized Jesus was the promised Messiah) in their homes, as well as preaching in the Aeropagus while in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), and meeting at a “place of prayer” near a river in Philippi (Acts 16:13), from which they followed Lydia, the leader of the river-side prayer meeting, to her house. Although Paul and Silas were only in Philippi for a few days, the text seems to indicate that the primary meeting places for the believers there were the “place of prayer” by the river, and Lydia’s house.

So from the model of Acts, you could easily defend either a home church position or a synangogue/temple approach. The early disciples were only barred from the Temple and the synagogues for believing Jesus was the Messiah. Here the attempt to force a “God-ordained” model of “the Church” from the book of Acts breaks down. Try to imagine, with a straight face, the idea that the Vineyard, Evangelical Free, Pentecostals, Baptists, or Apostolic churches etc. would exclude anyone from fellowship because they believed Jesus was the Messiah…

At the level of house church “versus” established church, the only thing you can conclusively prove from Acts is (1) that the believers met together every chance they got, and anywhere available, and (2) that wherever they went, the Gospel was preached and people became followers of Jesus. And I’m still not convinced that the word “versus” belongs in the discussion at all.

We also need to take into account the difference between what have been called “prescriptive” and “descriptive” passages in the Bible. “Prescriptive” means “do it like this”. Examples could range from the boldly stated instruction in James regarding faith without works being dead, to the implied example of what has been called “power evangelism” as demonstrated by Jesus during His earthly ministry.

And even then, Jesus rarely did the same thing twice. You wouldn’t try to teach that because Jesus spit on someone’s tongue once (Mark 7:33-35) or rubbed mud in a guy’s eyes (John 9:6-7), that this is the normative way to go about the healing ministry.

“Descriptive” passages simply say “Here’s what they did at that time.” The disciples rolled dice to decide who should be appointed an Apostle to replace Judas after he committed suicide (Acts 1:21-26), but how many churches would like to choose pastors, elders, or missionaries by flipping a coin?

The book of Acts wasn’t written to give us a blueprint of how a gathering of the church should look. It’s a descriptive narrative that documents the people of God, responding to the Gospel and the outpouring of the Spirit, reacting to, adjusting to, and learning to live as followers of Jesus the Messiah. While following the examples found in Acts is totally acceptable, to insist that it is the normative, preferred, or “only” way to respond to the advancement of the Kingdom is far too narrow an option for the followers of an infinitely creative God.

Help Me Understand…

Like the debate a few years ago on Christian dating, there may be great testimonies about finding more relationship with God and with the Body to be found in the house church movement. I have certainly heard many credible people speak of how their walk with God improved after they left “church as they’d known it” and began to meet in homes instead.

There will also be many testimonies of God honouring those who stayed in established churches, wrestled through the issues of a postmodern expression of the Body, and restructured, retooled, or fine-tuned the infrastructure in order to make relationships with God and His people the highest goal and pursuit.

To reduce the options to only two possible expressions of the Body, is to create both a false dichotomy and to fail to learn by listening. I believe that there will be a cross-section of everything from loosely-formed house churches to high liturgy traditions that will hear the words, “well done, good and faithful servants”.

George Mercado, the pastor who was so instrumental in mentoring Wendy and I in our early years, would often start conversations with “Help me understand…” Even in what would normally be a “church discipline” setting, he’d begin from the same point. And in the honest “meeting of the minds”, we’d often find out that a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings could be quickly laid to rest, and the real issues dealt with in a way that was constructive and an invitation to all involved.

So as we continue to delve into the whole postmodern ministry discussion, my prayer is that we’ll begin all our dialogue, among the different representatives of a variety of postmodern possibilities, with:

“Help me understand.”