David D. Flowers
My friend David Flowers is an “organic” church guy. His most recent post is titled, “Visiting an Organic Church“. In this post David describes various people who have visited a house church and then left disillusioned because their experience did not meet their expectation. David sees his advice as helpful to the people seeking Christ in the “organic” denomination*. I see it a bit more broadly. Visiting a “legacy church” is the same as visiting an “organic church” because we are still visiting the Church (I will have more on the word “visit” later in the post). With that in mind, I would like to extend David’s insight to all the Church.
When a person visits a church, the power of Christ can be missed for several reasons.
1.) The visitor has not given up on their attempts to “do” church and be satisfied with “knowing” Christ in familial community.
This can be challenging in a legacy church, but just like David’s experience in various organic churches, it is a mistake to paint any church with one simplistic brush stroke. David makes one specific observation here that is worth looking at more closely.
New Testament church practice comes by us making Christ our only concern. The moment we trade knowing and living Christ together for a method of doing church that we can reproduce by following some formula… we prolong growth in Christ and we forfeit his eternal purpose.
Even if it were possible to obtain a perfect church practice, it would never bring about a utopian church experience. Unfortunately, a desire for some sort of blissful experience is what drives most of us. We think if we build it… the Lord will come. The mature believer will recognize that this is foolish thinking and itself stands contrary to New Testament practice.
David is right. The moment we make church about a method, we miss out on knowing Jesus. But we need to extend that thought. The moment we turn the New Testament church into a model to reproduce, we miss out on the beauty of what God accomplished by the power of His Spirit. The moment we make church into an anti-method (ie, the “institutional” method is bad and therefore I reject that form of Christian expression) we suppress the diversity of Christ’s Body. The glory of Church is that we can live Jesus in any tradition as long as we resist the human tendency to to make our chosen method into a Divine mandate.
2.) Every organic church is a unique expression and every meeting takes on a life of its own. Visitors can’t know Christ in community and experience Body life in a short visit.
This is true no matter what denominational label we put in front of the word “church”. Organic, Legacy, Institutional, Baptist, Lutherin, Presbyterian, etc… we cannot experience church just by knowing the label. We can worship God in a visit of any length, but knowing the community and the people of the church takes time, an open mind and an open heart.
David, however, misses the wisdom of his own advice when he makes the following statement.
In the organized church, a person could “check out” a church by sitting in on a service and reading a pamphlet. After a couple of visits they could get a good idea of what that organization is all about. And maybe after a conversation or two they might decide if they want to join it.
Notice that these decisions are largely based off first impressions of worship services and those leading them (shoulder-to-shoulder events). You can’t do this with organic church life. The most obvious reason: it’s an organism not an organization. It’s not about meetings; it’s about sharing life together in face-to-face community.
First, my brother David is wrong to think that a person can “check out” a traditional church just by sitting in a chair or reading a pamphlet. Nor is he correct to suggest that a couple of visits can give someone a good idea of what the church is all about. While it is true that this visitor will get a good idea of the methods this church uses and the Gospel they preach, it is only with a commitment to know the people that a visitor will encounter the church (the people). Until we, as Christians, stop seeing our ourselves as “visitors” and start seeing ourselves as brothers and sisters, the barrier of “methods” will always exist.
Second, David’s observation obscures the difference between method and community. Certainly the methods employed by the legacy church create a different set of boundaries than those methods used by the organic church, but they also create a unique set of opportunities for the visitor to engage and experience the glory of Christ.
3.) The Lord opens the eyes of those whom He chooses. Visitors will see the power of Christ in simple community only if the Lord reveals Himself to them.
David summarizes his own experience with organic church this way.
There can be two complete strangers visiting us in a gathering. One person will rejoice that they have seen Jesus lifted up among us and that they see the Lord’s pleasure in what we’re doing. This person has seen the Lord in a powerful way and is captivated by knowing Christ. They are excited about discovering Christ with others who seek Him with a pure heart.
Again, David’s insight applies to all brands, methods and human expressions of Christ. Some people have chosen to give up the methods of the “legacy” church and embrace another form found in “simple” church. The error is made, however, when they try to make their choices and experience the only “biblical” method of being the church. Many people experience the power of Christ in the “legacy” church. They see the beauty of the cross in the weekly gathering in a big room with lots of people. This is not something that needs to be attacked or diminished or supplanted by another method. Instead, we should celebrate the wonder of how God shows himself through the panoply of church gatherings.
I will close with David’s own words of wisdom that encourage us all to keep on doing what we are called to do. As you read his words, my prayer is that we will cease to use derisive labels like “institutional” to characterize those Family members who have chosen a different method. My prayer is that we will stop trying to be the “organic church” or “legacy church” and just be the “church” who lives in unity as a community of disciples seeking to share the Gospel of our King.
…our hope is that we would be a true reflection of Christ to every visitor. Folks will come and go… many will leave. Be encouraged for our Lord is constant. Guard your hearts and remember to always think the best of others. Accept everyone as you were accepting the Lord himself. Never lose sight of Christ and His bride set free. And never forget that organic church life is a journey, not a destination.
——
*I use the term denomination in the following sense. According to the dictionary, denomination is a formal a name or designation, esp. one serving to classify a set of things. It is the action of naming or classifying something. In this case, the denomination “organic” is set apart by David from the denomination of “institutional”.
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Joe,
First, I want to thank you for your friendship. I appreciate your heart and your desire to lead others to the Lord.
I would like to encourage your readers to actually read my original post. I feel that you have constructed your own message by pulling excerpts out of the body of my post in order to make a statement of some kind.
1.) As you are an avid reader, you should know that “organic” is not a denomination. We have no creed, liturgy, or teaching unique to us. It is in no way a denomination.”Organic” describes the nature of the Body life we enjoy. (Frank Viola’s books are most helpful.) It is an adjective, not a noun.
Also, “house church” does not aptly describe anything about the way in which we gather unto the Lord… only the location. “Institutional” (i.e. top-down leadership) on the other hand does describe the nature of a church.
2.) You said, “David is wrong to think that a person can “check out” a traditional church just by sitting in a chair or reading a pamphlet. Nor is he correct to suggest that a couple of visits can give someone a good idea of what the church is all about. ”
I agree with what you are saying. I think you missed my point. What I have described is indeed what most people do when choosing a church. I’m not saying it’s right.
3.) You said, “The error is made, however, when they try to make their choices and experience the only “biblical” method of being the church. Many people experience the power of Christ in the “legacy” church.”
Again, I think you have missed what I am saying. You are reading too much into this one post. How could I ever deny that people experience the power of Christ in an organized church or denomination of man?
The revelation I speak of is not only of the power of Christ, but of Christ and His church.
The post was not intended to pit “methods” against methods. I speak against following methods. The post is for those in organic church life and those who would visit an organic fellowship. I write from the inside of this church life having also participated in vocational ministry within the organized church.
Have you experienced what I describe as a simple brother among many? Do you speak out of your own experience with organic church life? I do believe this is an important qualifier to write the things you do.
Finally, you said, “My prayer is that we will stop trying to be the “organic church” or “legacy church” and just be the “church” who lives in unity as a community of disciples seeking to share the Gospel of our King.”
This sounds very nice. As you know, it’s not that simple. We can’t “just be the church” until we are seeing the Lord and his Bride properly. Without an acknowledgment of the fundamental difference in church practice (e.g. clergy-laity distinction) that we share, a person will believe they can embrace a pragmatic view of the church and pass it off as the most spiritual view of all.
It sounds like that’s what you are saying with “just be the church.” From your article, it sounds as if you yourself believe this to be practicing whatever form fits a person’s fancy. Joe, this is where the very conversation should take place. Does knowing and experiencing the Lord in whatever context make that context acceptable before the Lord? I don’t believe so.
But I am thankful for the Lord’s ability to reach us all wherever we are in our journey with Him.
Hi David, you wrote, “First, I want to thank you for your friendship. I appreciate your heart and your desire to lead others to the Lord.”
I would hope my readers would read your whole post too. It is good. And of course I have constructed my own message from it, that is the point I made in the first paragraph. I am extending the good points you made into something else.
1. You wrote “As you are an avid reader, you should know that “organic” is not a denomination. ”
Please see the footnote on how I am using this term. Even your defense includes the term “we”. I realize how you want to use the term. And I know that as a follower of Frank’s books and as a guy who goes to his conferences, you learn a lot from him. He is a good guy, but that does not mean he is right about everything he writes. And on this point, I disagree with Frank V and you. Organic is used in a denominal way–to draw distinction between one kind of church vs. another.
2. Thanks for the clarification.
3. Sorry if my generalization here made it seem like you were responsible for all the viewpoints I was addressing. As you said at the first, I did try to expand on your post and apply it to other things. It was not my intent to make you responsible for all those other viewpoints I bring up. Thanks again for your correction and clarification for my readers on where you diverge from the viewpoints I express here.
Again, I think your post was very well done and the points you made were very insightful and not just good advice or “organic” church folks, but for anyone who seeks Jesus at any church regardless of what adjectives we put in front of that word.
David, you wrote, “Does knowing and experiencing the Lord in whatever context make that context acceptable before the Lord? I don’t believe so.”
So is the “organic” church as Frank V. defines it the only true church option and only real way to experience Jesus? Is that how you define it?
For the record, I am not saying that all forms and methods are created equal. Lemons are not a substitute for Tea. I am simply suggesting that not everyone enjoys the same flavor of Tea.
Hey Joe,
Thanks for your kind response.
1. No, I don’t believe “organic” is used by Frank or myself in the way you propose. Originally, it was T. Austin Sparks who used the term to describe New Testament church practice. It refers to the nature of the church and not to anything else that makes for a denomination. I suppose you can use a word any way you like. I’m just saying that it doesn’t describe the way in which we use “organic.”
Read Frank’s description:
http://www.reimaginingchurch.net/
Furthermore, Frank is a close friend and I try to use discernment with his words as I do with anyone else.
I am sincerely glad that we know where we disagree. It helps in discussing the issues.
2. You’re welcome.
3. Let’s be careful that we don’t give Frank the credit for “organic” or the nature of the church that many believers see described in the New Testament.
I wouldn’t say that “organic” church is the “only true church option” to know Jesus. (If this insinuates there is some ironclad “pattern” to follow, no. It is the DNA of the church that we must look at.)
I would say that the organic nature of the church (DNA) that we see in the New Testament reflects the very heart of God for his people to be a dwelling for him on the earth. It’s His design. Not to show a concern to follow that divine design is lazy and a bit arrogant. To see different forms of church as flavors to be enjoyed by different personalities is reckless, I think.
Thanks again for the dialogue. I hope all your readers will consider the concerns.
Joe,
As we talked about at church last Sunday . . . the angst and uncertainty expressed by so many who have not yet come to be stablished in the faith of Christ for their comfort and peace. One can be established and not stablished. With the former truth and fact are corporate — rooted in institutional dogma/retoric/traditions of men. The latter has an unwavering character, rooted in the truth of Scripture which, when, whatever wind of doctrine blows — returns to their original position after having been buffeted.
In Romans 1:11 Paul is telling the assembly he wished to impart some spiritual gift to them which would give a comfort which emanates from having a “mutual faith.” In struggling assemblies like those in Corinth he mentions his third reproof on the establishment of good order amongst them. But, in 2 Colossians 2 he speaks of the stablished believer:
2: That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3: In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4: And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
5: For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
7: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I agree with Flowers that denominationalism does little more than present storefront churchianity from which a prospectant member decides whether the institution will or will not meet their needs. You see, it’s all about them. And. The institution creates it’s theology and business operations to meet those expectations just to gain another farthing for the offering plate. Ergo, making the Word of God to be of none effect (1 Cor 1:17)
God’s treasures of wisdom and knowledge pertaining to His Son are diminished in prosperity gospels, sinner’s prayers, lordship salvation, latter reign mythology, false healing, walking the isle, relying on signs and wonders which are no longer in effect. They fail; the “believer” withers. The truth and wisdom of God is turned into a lie. Even in the “organic church.”
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Hi Wally,
You wrote, “I agree with Flowers that denominationalism does little more than present storefront churchianity from which a prospectant member decides whether the institution will or will not meet their needs.”
I agree and think this is also true for people who use the name “organic”. It just presents a storefront entry point, but even as David says in his article, every church is unique and takes time to know. So it seems someone looking for “organic” church is doing the same as someone who looks for a “baptist” church, they search based on the “denominational” distinction, but then they must eventually move beyond the label and discover the substance.
What is substance? If the institutional model is not Bible-centric then there is no substance. They might as well join the Lion’s Club.
Amen Wally. The weakness of the “organic’ movement is that it makes church about the forms of worship (which are NT approved and which are not NT approved methods) and has very little emphasis or concern for the doctrines of the Apostles taught int he NT. BTW, I would not include David F. in this general statement because I think he does have a high value for Scripture and the Gospel. That is one reason he is in my blogroll.:-)
Joe,
I appreciate the last two sentences. I’m glad to be on your blogroll and happy to have you on my own.
My brother, how can you say what you have said about “methods” and folks within organic churches not showing a concern for the teachings of the apostles? This may be the most unfounded statement you have made so far.
Since I am participating in this organic church life, I would hope that you would strongly consider how WE understand the church… not how you are understanding it from outside the “movement.”
I can certainly understand how the majority of evangelicals could make such a claim… since “doctrine” has been the center (and origin) of many churches since the Reformation of the catholic church. But your words could not be further from the truth.
As you have said, I believe it is a broad stroke across the wide river of “house churches.” I almost consider this a slanderous remark. It doesn’t describe any organic churches or “leaders” that I know.
Again, you have insisted that those involved in organic church life have formed a denomination even though this is not the case. Reading a book, attending a conference from a worker, or having an open conversation with myself (or even Frank Viola) would prove that “organic” is quickly defined and then placed aside to pursue Christ alone.
I mention Frank Viola simply because I know him personally and because I believe he is solid. Others may use “organic” to describe what they are doing, but Frank (as far as books are concerned) is on target with understanding that church life is born out of Christ. And doctrine comes out of knowing Christ.
I encourage all open-minded believers to read Frank’s books and even start a conversation with him. He is very approachable. But please, let’s be careful of so confidently making statements that are not founded in any experience or rooted in the actual teachings of folks involved in organic church life.
I can’t say it enough. “Organic” is a descriptive word to describe the nature of the church when life is born out of Christ. Sure, there may be folks who are infatuated with some form or method of church… but I have joined Viola and others in speaking out against it.
Finally, I firmly believe that comments carry more weight coming from experience with this church life then critiquing it from outside it. Any statements made as strong as the ones you have made above should be qualified and cited from a representative source of organic church life.
Hi David,
First, let me remind you that my post was designed to build and extend upon on what I see as a good post by you with good advice. My goal is to broaden your advice and apply it to all the church regardless of what modifiers they chose for themselves. Your advice is not just good for “organic” church it is good for the church.
Second let me say that I have no problems with the “organic: church” ideal of connecting with Jesus above methods. The main point of my post above is to say that as long as the Gospel is preached, I try not speak against a specific church and we should not use labels to divide those churches who are unified by the power of the Spirit and the message of the Gospel. As far as I know, you and Frank preach the Gospel and I know you confess the salvation power of Spirit so we are united as the one church Family. Maybe my words don’t describe the people you know, but they describe some of the people I know, so that does not make my experience invalid, just different. And I hate to be the one to break the news David, but your experience is not the one that gets to define how everyone in the world talks about “organic” church.
Third, I need to address a very simple mistake you made in your post, but an important one. David, you express concern that my comment about doctrine not be a hallmark of “organic” is “slanderous”. FYI, slander refers to a spoken statement. You need to use the word “Libelous” in reference to the written word. This is a common misunderstanding David. but just as you do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the term “slander”, I think you do not understand the use of “denomination”. You have shared your feelings and experience, but not responded with any substantial facts that dissuade me from using “denomination” as the proper word. I want to encourage you to step back from your reaction against its use and think through this with me brother.
Regarding your concern that I don’t share the requisite “experience” to write about “organic” church; all I can say David is that I am writing from my experience–not yours. As you say, the “organic” movement is very broad and your circles do not define ALL of those who use the label “organic”. You live in Texas as I recall and down south in the Bible belt, things are different than up here in the Pacific Northwest. Many of the “organic” churches I know of personally are well within the bounds of what I describe. Given my experience, are you seriously suggesting that unless I write from your perspective, my thoughts are invalid? Please recognize David that no one person has the privilege of defining how the term “organic” is used. I write from a different perspective than you, I accept your experience as valid and would ask that you return the same courtesy by not dismissing my experience because it does not fit yours.
I do understand your resistance to my use of “denomination” in reference to anything “organic” but on the flip side I resist your use of the term “institutional” as a pejorative against traditional churches. (see my review HERE) Frank describes “institutional” churches as “Pagan” and you don’t see that as libel against your brothers and sisters? I do. You paint “non-organic” churches with one giant broad brush stroke and Frank, to my knowledge, has never recanted form some of those absolutist statements in his book which attack EVERY pastor and EVERY preacher for hindering the Gospel and making the church “Pagan” (which of course is an improper use of the term, but it sells books). By your definition, I lead an “institutional” and “pagan” church, yet I have never read any balanced statements on how you classify my church David. And although Frank is a great guy, his harsh rhetoric in Pagan Christianity (which he backed away from during my interview) sparked a lot of “anti-institutional” bigotry. I know because I have the hate mail from my critique of PG to prove it. And when I say hate mail David, I mean HATE mail. Hate mail from organic church people who read Franks’s book and concluded that I am the enemy of Jesus for doing church in the “Pagan” / Institutional way Frank described in his books. Jon Zens, who you link to from your blog is a mild example of “organic” response to reasoned criticism. In the comments to my review of PG, Mr. Zens makes several libelous remarks about my treatment of Frank. When his accusations were proven wrong by Frank himself, Jon just ran away in silence. Despite his demonstrable error Mr. Zens lacked the integrity to apologize for and recant his false statements… that, David, is libel and nothing I wrote here comes even close to it.
And while I understand that you see things differently, I see no difference between the “organic church” conferences and the other “institutional church” conferences out there. Popular authors are invited to speak and others who are not popular authors attend to listen to them speak. There is some designated time to discuss topics and interact, but the format is basically the same for all of them. So just because one choses to label their methods, “organic” does not make the methods any less “instituinoal” since I don’t see any NT conferences. Do you? Of course not. Nor do I see any NT writers publishing books for sale and profit. Nor do I see any NT teachers selling their “prophetic:” messages. Clearly then organic is a mixed bag of methods where people choose what they like or don’t like–just like everyone else.
It is within that context, David, that you make “organic” a denominational term. As I wrote in my original post, “According to the dictionary, denomination is a formal a name or designation, esp. one serving to classify a set of things. It is the action of naming or classifying something. In this case, the denomination “organic” is set apart from the denomination of “institutional”.” You validate the dictionary definition yourself David in writing that “organic” is a formal term Frank uses in his books and you on your blog and therefore it becomes a designation used in contradistinction to other forms of church. As a matter of fact, you consistently use “organic church” in contrast to “institutional church” in the same way others use the term “baptist church” in contrast to “charismatic church”. They are ALL forms of branding.. Or is it your contention that somewhere in the NT where the term “organic church” is used? Of course not because the NT uses the term “church”.. that is it. Nothing but “church” and everything else is a form of denominationalism. ( FYI, I am planning a post to explore what I see as the appropriate use of such terminology)
David, the short version is this. You are naming and classifying one type of church in contradistinction to another type or classification of church. That IS the definition of a “denomination” (like a 1 dollar bill is one kind of denomination distinct from a 5 dollar bill).
And that is exactly why I am correct in my use of this term.
PS
David, you wrote, “And doctrine comes out of knowing Christ.” In my understanding, the NT teaches that the of the Doctrines of our faith come from the teachings of the Apostles who were taught by Christ. Do you believe this as well or do doctrines ONLY come from a personal and direct “knowing” of Christ? If you have blogged on this before, please post a link.