It is funny how many people I meet that say, “I am not a fan of organized religion.” My quick response is always something like, “than you should come join us on a Sunday morning–we are very disorganized.”
All kidding aside, comments like these do expose a weakness in the crazy complexity of modern church, but for some Christians they also expose a selfish ambition to be a follower of Jesus without the accountability, intimacy, and risk of community as God designed it.
The following quotes from Kenneth Flemming get right to the heart of the matter.
It is true, Church is Organic
Paul looked at the local church as a dynamic organism. Its life was that of Christ Himself. Its unity was maintained through His presence. Its direction and purpose were from Him. Paul expected to plant these organisms wherever he went with the gospel. He nurtured them with a view to growth both qualitatively and quantitatively. He established them so that they could thrive and grow in the cultural setting of the community. He encouraged them to reproduce themselves in the surrounding communities and, by extension, in distant places. Living organisms grow and reproduce if they are healthy. Paul viewed the churches in this way.
But, as I have written before, the Church has structure
Paul’s concept of the church as a living organism must not be construed to mean that it was formless, a mere blob of living cells. He saw the church as having form and structure. In creation biological organisms all have highly complex structures. One of the wonders of the life sciences is this very complexity. The deeper scientific investigation is able to penetrate, the more the awesome wonder of God’s design is revealed. Just as every living thing in creation has order and form, so the church, which is a spiritual organism, has order and form. For a church planter like Paul it was important to have the form clearly in mind, because it was his responsibility to set the pattern in the beginning.
Flemming gives a great summary of how this organic nature of church fits with the biblical structure.
In my view, the reason for relatively little Pauline teaching on church organization is that God intended it to be simple and basic. The organization was to go no further than the autonomous local church.
The symbols used indicate structure. We have already mentioned the building with its plan and builder. The symbol of the body indicated order from the head and cooperation and control of all the members. The church as a household indicated headship and order. The church as a priesthood presumes ordered activity and a high priest. The truth is that there is no organism which is not organized. Order and structure are New Testament principles; there is no room in the writings of Paul for an unorganized church that exists strictly as an unstructured fellowship of believers doing their thing.
The Organic and Organized church is central to God’s plan (Acts 15:4; Eph 1:23; 1 Thes 4:16-17)
- The church is important for the health of God’s people.
- The church is efficient for evangelism.
- The church is a training ground for future leaders.
How well does this describe church?
——
Fleming, Kenneth C. “Missionary Service in the Life of Paul, Part 3: Paul the Church Planter.” Emmaus Journal 2, no. 1 (1993): 217.
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
I always feel the need to ask "Are you also against organized education or sports?"
now that you mention it… I do know lots of people who are opposed to organized thinking!
I still tend to go back………to the "hurt" that has taken place by some in religious communities. Thus the need to "disassociate" from the "organization." Kinda like running from pain……..I have found that the running was what I thought was not from God but His people. This, however, is NOT true. I was running from what God intended…relationships. I was afraid of getting hurt again and again. When I truly gave it to the Lord, it really changed my position on church. I believe that if you run from His people, you run from Him. Humans are not perfect…that is why we all need a Savior! Any group or body of them is bound to have flaws….it is what we do for one another that reflects the Light that is the change.
So, when someone makes a claim against organized religion…I want to ask, "who hurt you? Isn't it time to let yourself free from it?"
Pam Mc
Hiya JR. New blog design here, I see… Good.
If our Lord had said nothing about community but to regularly eat and drink in remembrance of Him, that alone would have constituted a definite and repeatable form of order, i.e. organization.
He was also quite specific as to how enter and to be removed from his Church, not to mention how members were to relate to each other each day.
Truly, the recent mantra about “church as organism – not organization” is an overstatement which not only ignores the commands of Jesus but also the specific commands of his apostles. Unintended, no doubt, but nevertheless erroneous.
I think this is a very interesting line about how people who leave the institutional church are running from: “accountability, intimacy, and risk of community as God designed it.” It seems that shots get fired in both directions in this discussion
But seriously, those things are exactly why I left the institutional church. Sitting next to someone on a pew did not result in any accountability (i prefer other terms, but I’ll use yours for the sake of this post) or intimacy or community. I left the institution to go looking for these things.
Heather, here is the part I wrote in context. I said, “All kidding aside, comments like these do expose a weakness in the crazy complexity of modern church, but for some Christians they also expose a selfish ambition to be a follower of Jesus without the accountability, intimacy, and risk of community as God designed it.”
Sorry, where did I use the term “institutional” or where did I take a “shot” at any other form of doing church?
A person can leave a “house” church or a “simple” church or any kind of church for this very same reason. The point is that sometimes people use arguments about the church to conceal something deeper.
After rereading my post and your comment Heather, I thought I should offer one further point of clarification.
I live in the Pacific Northwest and am writing from that cultural perspective. I have lived all over the USA, and if you live outside the PNW I can see why you might not understand the context in which I write.
I try to be carful how many specifics I get when I blog because I don’t want to give away private information regarding many of the people I minister to on a daily basis.
Here is what I can say.
My original post is in reference to people who call themselves Christians but reject all forms of church. In its place, they choose to do worshipping God by climbing mountains and hiking through the woods.
Philosophically speaking their religion is far closer to “nature” worship.
I meet and talk to lots of “Christians” who when they speak about “organized” religion mean any faith that has a set of values or specifics even about Jesus.
These are the kinds of people I had in mind when writing this specific post. I hope that helps bring some clarity.
J.R.
Thanks for the clarification. I can see what you mean within the context you are describing .