Organic Church Movement
I believe the organic church movement, at least in part, has the potential of being quite dangerous. It’s so clear in scripture that God calls certain men or woman to lead others in dynamic and strategic ways. In fact, story after story from Genesis to Revelation highlight God’s chosen leaders who have unique giftings, important responsibilities and necessary anointings to fulfill specific missions.
The recent ‘organic church’ movement is seemingly calling for the abandonment of ‘clergy’ and the advance of democratic community. Instead of being outwardly mission driven, it’s mission seems to be inwardly focused. 
As I’ve previously stated, not everything is wrong or alarming with the organic church movement, but the core of it is very concerning and is threatening the advance of key missions in the cities of the earth.
The following comments come from a document by Frank Viola that can be downloaded here: http://www.ptmin.org/findingchurch.pdf
My notes are in red:
- …“church” is a gathered community that’s having an ongoing encounter and experience of Jesus Christ together. This, though incomplete, is a good start for a definition of the function of the church.
- This community gathers often, not just once a week. Yes! The 24/7 church is emerging!
- And when the members gather, no human being is leading or facilitating. In other words, there is no pastor, no reverend, and no minister—whether titled or untitled. Instead, the members are gathering under Christ’s Headship alone. Absolutely not. Apostolic leadership is critical. God’s leaders have always received God’s mission critical revelation and has held the responsibility of leading others into that “Promised Land.” Acts 2:42-43 (NKJV) And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
- …the church makes decisions by consensus. They have no pastor or elite group of men who rule over or control them. Direction comes from the entire Body together. The members have learned to function in a coordinated way. Again, no. (except for the comment on control- leaders should not control) We have seen a form of this in congregationally governed churches, and it’s a failed system. Yes, God does talk to everybody, but he doesn’t say the same things to everybody. Gideon was chosen to receive directives nobody else did. So did Paul. So did Peter. So did Moses. The list goes on. These people then led others. In Amos 3:3 we see that we must be agreed. In Amos 3:7 we see that God reveals secrets to a select group of people at times. The prophets declare the Word of the Lord and the people, who are agreed, respond.
- According to the Biblical record, God has called, equipped, and gifted certain members of the Body of Christ to raise up—and help sustain—this kind of church life. So, the author does agree with apostolic leadership, but he and I differ a bit on function. I don’t see the apostles role primarily being help strengthen local community, but rather the local community must be organized as a military who proceed in unity toward a very specific goal of Kingdom advance.
- …planting such a church on your own is not only monumentally difficult, if you’re not called and equipped to do it, the end result could be quite disastrous. I’m very glad the author included this. This is an important point. In fact, he focuses on apostolic ministry, which is very good too. God does call people to specific missions, and we can’t simply start a church (house church, institutional church or otherwise) simply because we may want to. This point in itself does give some credibility to the author’s point of view, in my opinion.
The final point I’d like to make is this: the primary purpose of the church is not community. It’s prayer for the nations. We see places like the International House of Prayer in Kansas City or a myriad of other prayer ministries leading the way in this paradigm. My book 20 Elements of Revival (Revival Nation Publishing) discusses this in length. There is a serious difference between unity and relationship. Relationships are incredibly vulnerable to gossip, division, etc. Unity however is strong enough to survive it all. As we agree to come together and pray and to advance the mission with the expectation of city-transformation we will see revival on a remarkable scale.
Share your thoughts!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! 
16 Responses to “Organic Church Movement”
Leave a Reply
I wanted to reply to your message but I struggled to find a graceful entry point.
It's clear to me that you are involved in a “Ministry” and are rather defensive of your current position.
The church is not a militant force on directives from the 2nd in command. It is precisely what the author states, “a gathered community that’s having an ongoing encounter and experience of Jesus Christ together.”
There will be many trying to enter the Kingdom of their own accord, but it is only through Christ that we will enter in. The primary purpose of the church is Christ. With this revelation comes all the transformation required.
You cannot have unity without relationship, else you will have false unity–legalism, smoke and mirrors.
You cannot dismiss the clear biblical evidence regarding ordained human leadership. I'd encourage you to read my book Covens in the Church. I deal with this issue quite directly. God establishes all leadership, and our responsibility is to humbly serve. God establishes all authority, not only Christian authority. So, we are called to not only submit to Christian leaders, but also policemen, our boss at work, the President of the United States, etc.
The church is very much an army… it's the system that will advance into the darkest regions of the earth… and this will only work if we are in position, submitted, surrendered, alert and responsive.
The church isn't here for us to be blessed as a primary expectation… the church is a house of prayer for all nations… we come together expecting to make a sacrifice and leave an offering… to serve the nations in radical intercession.
Of course, as we serve well and love and give we will be very blessed indeed.
You can find my book at http://www.praytherevolution.com/resources if you'd like to download it or order the print version.
I wanted to reply to your message but I struggled to find a graceful entry point.
It's clear to me that you are involved in a “Ministry” and are rather defensive of your current position.
The church is not a militant force on directives from the 2nd in command. It is precisely what the author states, “a gathered community that’s having an ongoing encounter and experience of Jesus Christ together.”
There will be many trying to enter the Kingdom of their own accord, but it is only through Christ that we will enter in. The primary purpose of the church is Christ. With this revelation comes all the transformation required.
You cannot have unity without relationship, else you will have false unity–legalism, smoke and mirrors.
You cannot dismiss the clear biblical evidence regarding ordained human leadership. I'd encourage you to read my book Covens in the Church. I deal with this issue quite directly. God establishes all leadership, and our responsibility is to humbly serve. God establishes all authority, not only Christian authority. So, we are called to not only submit to Christian leaders, but also policemen, our boss at work, the President of the United States, etc.
The church is very much an army… it's the system that will advance into the darkest regions of the earth… and this will only work if we are in position, submitted, surrendered, alert and responsive.
The church isn't here for us to be blessed as a primary expectation… the church is a house of prayer for all nations… we come together expecting to make a sacrifice and leave an offering… to serve the nations in radical intercession.
Of course, as we serve well and love and give we will be very blessed indeed.
You can find my book at http://www.praytherevolution.com/resources if you'd like to download it or order the print version.
First a disclaimer: all I know about the organic church movement is from this article. The comments below are a reaction to what you've written, not a support of this movement. I don't know enough about it to either support it or oppose it.
1) I agree that leadership is essential. I also think the way it's expressed in many churches today is dysfunctional and not biblical. Leaders need to lead by example and bible-based persuasion, not fiat. The clergy/laity split has created a class system, easily abused by the immature in both camps, that I don't see in scripture and is (I'm guessing here) probably what the organic church movement is an over-reaction to. God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church as a gift to encourage us all to maturity. They are given. The roles are God-ordained. But they are also temporary. When maturity increases, their work decreases. They work themselves out of a job. In the end, the only gifts that remain are faith, hope and love.
2) I don't see the congregational church model as a failed model. Certainly there are instances of failures, but as a model, I would not call it a failure. A congregational model does not mean there is no leadership. There are elders and pastors, but the body, not an overarching, multi-church hierarchy, chooses them. (By the way, this is the model of IHOP.)
I don't like the “church is a military unit” model. It seems too cold and has a lot of potential for abuse. It implies a rigid command and control structure. It's success depends on the people that are in place. With mature, Godly people, it can work. The problem is there are not too many of those people around, so the model as a whole doesn't work well.
I think the best model is the church as a body with one head. As with a body, God designed each part to work in a unique way. The purpose of the stomach is not the same as the purpose of the heart and it's not the same as the kidneys. There is one goal of the whole, but each member has differing roles in working out that goal.
Proper leadership recognizes people’s strengths and builds each one up in the role God has ordained for them. I have seen churches where the pastor and elders had this vision, resulting in a thing beautiful to behold.
Improper leadership sees everything from the perspective of their uniqueness and roles and tries to force everyone to see things their way. I have seen churches where the pastor and elders had this vision, resulting in incredible ugliness.
3) The primary purpose of the church is not prayer for the nations. The primary purpose of the church is to be Jesus' bride. For many reasons, a major manifestation of this relationship right now is prayer for the nations. However, when everything is under Christ, when there are no nations, there will still be purpose for the church.
4) Don't setup unity and relationship as mutually exclusive. Yes, you can have relationship without unity, typically resulting in many arguments. Moreover, you can have unity without relationship, requiring copious amounts of energy to maintain control. However, I think the greatest strength occurs when unity and relationship coexist.
I know it's a fictional account, but The Lord of the Rings trilogy illustrates this. Early in the quest, the fellowship had relationship but not necessarily unity. There were arguments about where to go and how to get there. Later at the battle at the Black Gate, we see unity without relationship in Sauron's army. Sauron forced his forces to work together, they were unified but didn’t like each other. We also see Aragorn leading a group in unity and relationship. The former fell apart immediately at the removal of control. The latter survived and prospered.
First a disclaimer: all I know about the organic church movement is from this article. The comments below are a reaction to what you've written, not a support of this movement. I don't know enough about it to either support it or oppose it.
1) I agree that leadership is essential. I also think the way it's expressed in many churches today is dysfunctional and not biblical. Leaders need to lead by example and bible-based persuasion, not fiat. The clergy/laity split has created a class system, easily abused by the immature in both camps, that I don't see in scripture and is (I'm guessing here) probably what the organic church movement is an over-reaction to. God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church as a gift to encourage us all to maturity. They are given. The roles are God-ordained. But they are also temporary. When maturity increases, their work decreases. They work themselves out of a job. In the end, the only gifts that remain are faith, hope and love.
2) I don't see the congregational church model as a failed model. Certainly there are instances of failures, but as a model, I would not call it a failure. A congregational model does not mean there is no leadership. There are elders and pastors, but the body, not an overarching, multi-church hierarchy, chooses them. (By the way, this is the model of IHOP.)
I don't like the “church is a military unit” model. It seems too cold and has a lot of potential for abuse. It implies a rigid command and control structure. It's success depends on the people that are in place. With mature, Godly people, it can work. The problem is there are not too many of those people around, so the model as a whole doesn't work well.
I think the best model is the church as a body with one head. As with a body, God designed each part to work in a unique way. The purpose of the stomach is not the same as the purpose of the heart and it's not the same as the kidneys. There is one goal of the whole, but each member has differing roles in working out that goal.
Proper leadership recognizes people’s strengths and builds each one up in the role God has ordained for them. I have seen churches where the pastor and elders had this vision, resulting in a thing beautiful to behold.
Improper leadership sees everything from the perspective of their uniqueness and roles and tries to force everyone to see things their way. I have seen churches where the pastor and elders had this vision, resulting in incredible ugliness.
3) The primary purpose of the church is not prayer for the nations. The primary purpose of the church is to be Jesus' bride. For many reasons, a major manifestation of this relationship right now is prayer for the nations. However, when everything is under Christ, when there are no nations, there will still be purpose for the church.
4) Don't setup unity and relationship as mutually exclusive. Yes, you can have relationship without unity, typically resulting in many arguments. Moreover, you can have unity without relationship, requiring copious amounts of energy to maintain control. However, I think the greatest strength occurs when unity and relationship coexist.
I know it's a fictional account, but The Lord of the Rings trilogy illustrates this. Early in the quest, the fellowship had relationship but not necessarily unity. There were arguments about where to go and how to get there. Later at the battle at the Black Gate, we see unity without relationship in Sauron's army. Sauron forced his forces to work together, they were unified but didn’t like each other. We also see Aragorn leading a group in unity and relationship. The former fell apart immediately at the removal of control. The latter survived and prospered.
Viola's understanding of apostolic leadership differs markedly from your own. Viola is an advocate for house churches and the empowerment of the individual yet, for all of his rhetoric, Viola states that only someone called as a church planter can start a church. And you can bet your bottom dollar Frank is one of them.
Also, Viola states that a modern pastor and the system that they operate in have no biblical right to exist. So, Viola is way out there when you compare his understanding of apostolic leadership with the main of charismatic and evangelical christianity.
Due diligence is definitely required.
Also, don't get too carried away with the church-as-an-army metaphor. And don't limit the church's reason for existence as a house of prayer. that is only one aspect of a larger picture.
Being in ministry you seem to have some biases/imbalances in the way you view the organizational structure and mission of the church. And we all have our biases. But to say that the church is an “army” leads to other possible extremes such as kingdom-now theology.
Balance is the key here.
Viola's understanding of apostolic leadership differs markedly from your own. Viola is an advocate for house churches and the empowerment of the individual yet, for all of his rhetoric, Viola states that only someone called as a church planter can start a church. And you can bet your bottom dollar Frank is one of them.
Also, Viola states that a modern pastor and the system that they operate in have no biblical right to exist. So, Viola is way out there when you compare his understanding of apostolic leadership with the main of charismatic and evangelical christianity.
Due diligence is definitely required.
Also, don't get too carried away with the church-as-an-army metaphor. And don't limit the church's reason for existence as a house of prayer. that is only one aspect of a larger picture.
Being in ministry you seem to have some biases/imbalances in the way you view the organizational structure and mission of the church. And we all have our biases. But to say that the church is an “army” leads to other possible extremes such as kingdom-now theology.
Balance is the key here.
Hi Mate, just a few comments about your critique of Viola's writings;
Firstly, the first comment; Viola is actually correct because when read in context, his comments refer to the definition of “church”…he's not actually attempting to unpack all the church's functions..have to be careful when extracting sentences like that!
Second comment; When one experiences Christ the way Viola is describing, despite the fears and dangers and possibilities, all are priests and Viola is quite right. Actually, I believe you've misunderstood the verse in Acts 2:43 that speaks of “Apostolic Leadership”. This actually refers to the very first apostles designated by Christ Himself who definitively taught the true gospel of Christ. How and why? Because this select group was hand picked by Christ Himself and had the extra special privilege of living with and being in a personal flesh encounter relationship with Christ – they were the first hand witnesses. It's in this sense that Acts 2:42 describes “Apostles” being the guardians of the doctrines of Jesus. Apostles today are gifted in a similar way, but remember this verse is speaking specifically about the original apostles teachings. However, Viola never dismantles the idea that there are Apostles ministering, returning to minister etc. He equates elders as leaders, as we find in Timothy, being “wise old men”, gifted and serving as leaders who don't assume an authoritarian role, but function in the same way as elders did in the churches Paul planted or taught in.
Third comment; Liked most of what you had to say here except, “In Amos 3:7 we see that God reveals secrets to a select group of people at times. The prophets declare the Word of the Lord and the people, who are agreed, respond”. Great Word and right word for the people of Israel back in the Old Testament. Now, we are ALL are given the same Spirit and need to trust and balance and way and see God move through all His children, it's tough but, this is a part of the grand mystery of “Christ in us, the hope of glory”. We must learn to submit to each other and grow as Christ is the Head. There is no authority except Christ alone in this sense because He will reveal Himself to His prophetically gifted New Covenant believing children when sought out. It takes a whole lot of humility to agree when this is in action, yet, secrets are laid bare and hearts are revealed…and finally, God is glorified.
Fourth, your view on military organisation for the church is very outdated and reveals only a very small part of the many analogies of the how Paul described the functioning body of Christ. Again, your predisposition towards hierarchy will always conflict with the Organic approach.
Finally, glad we all agree on the last point. God Bless, John
Hi Mate, just a few comments about your critique of Viola's writings;
Firstly, the first comment; Viola is actually correct because when read in context, his comments refer to the definition of “church”…he's not actually attempting to unpack all the church's functions..have to be careful when extracting sentences like that!
Second comment; When one experiences Christ the way Viola is describing, despite the fears and dangers and possibilities, all are priests and Viola is quite right. Actually, I believe you've misunderstood the verse in Acts 2:43 that speaks of “Apostolic Leadership”. This actually refers to the very first apostles designated by Christ Himself who definitively taught the true gospel of Christ. How and why? Because this select group was hand picked by Christ Himself and had the extra special privilege of living with and being in a personal flesh encounter relationship with Christ – they were the first hand witnesses. It's in this sense that Acts 2:42 describes “Apostles” being the guardians of the doctrines of Jesus. Apostles today are gifted in a similar way, but remember this verse is speaking specifically about the original apostles teachings. However, Viola never dismantles the idea that there are Apostles ministering, returning to minister etc. He equates elders as leaders, as we find in Timothy, being “wise old men”, gifted and serving as leaders who don't assume an authoritarian role, but function in the same way as elders did in the churches Paul planted or taught in.
Third comment; Liked most of what you had to say here except, “In Amos 3:7 we see that God reveals secrets to a select group of people at times. The prophets declare the Word of the Lord and the people, who are agreed, respond”. Great Word and right word for the people of Israel back in the Old Testament. Now, we are ALL are given the same Spirit and need to trust and balance and way and see God move through all His children, it's tough but, this is a part of the grand mystery of “Christ in us, the hope of glory”. We must learn to submit to each other and grow as Christ is the Head. There is no authority except Christ alone in this sense because He will reveal Himself to His prophetically gifted New Covenant believing children when sought out. It takes a whole lot of humility to agree when this is in action, yet, secrets are laid bare and hearts are revealed…and finally, God is glorified.
Fourth, your view on military organisation for the church is very outdated and reveals only a very small part of the many analogies of the how Paul described the functioning body of Christ. Again, your predisposition towards hierarchy will always conflict with the Organic approach.
Finally, glad we all agree on the last point. God Bless, John
I think you've missed the point largely of what Viola is saying. I'm a Methodist pastor myself and after reading Viola, I couldn't help but agree with him. What he is out and out saying is that each Christian is in relationship with God, unique to that individual yet existing in community, and each believer is given different gifts by God. Instead of trusting that the appointed or hired pastor of the church is the one to whom God is giving the vision and the leadership function to that single (or even group of) pastor(s), we must conscientiously look for where God is speaking to other individuals. This is clear in scripture as well as some priests in the Old Testament were prophets, but not all prophets were priests, in fact many or most weren't priests. God speaks to and equips all believers differently. This is one way of emphasizing the utilization and equipping of the entire body of believers. As far as his comment on the apostles being there to raise up and equip a community instead of overseeing a community, reading the Biblical account of how much apostles (Paul, Peter, Timothy, Priscilla, Aquilla, etc.) moved to different places and were sent and called to different places by different individuals, those with the gift of apostleship were called to equip others and raise up a community and not oversee a community.
There is a difference between the church militant (church in the world) and a militant church. It is impossible to use hate, anger, or fear to win people to an authentic relationship with Christ. Rather, we must love them into it. We are at war against sin, powers, and principalities, we are not at war with those who live at the ends of the earth. I understand what you are saying in regard to what the church “looks like” to you, but using military language is always dangerous in a conversation including those from outside the church and, in my opinion, should only be used in conversations within the community of faith in calling the faithful to action in the world (i.e. and internal conversation for edification or clarification).
I, like you, agree with what some churches do. I believe that if a church follows the specific guidelines that the bible indicates that they should be free to function. Although, I have some clarifications on the matter of organic church that you seem misunderstand, or perhaps you were given wrong information by your source.
For your third bullet point: I think that the statement your informant has given you is partially true, and partially false. Going off from your verse on Acts 2:42-43, the church does require leadership – organic or not. It is labeled in the bible about God's chosen people leading in the name of Him. It may seem evident that organic churches do not have leaders, but if that is your belief, I can tell you that you are false. Organic church has more leaders than traditional church might even possess – well the one's I know off anyway. I think the difference between what you call leadership and what organic churches call leadership are those people who have obtained a degree in theological studies versus people who have taken up proper requirements as leaders without proper “paper” backing. I am not saying that all people, who potentially have organic churches do not have degrees. I am friends with many pastors who have organic churches and have attended Wheaton. Needless to say, leaders are chosen by the divine appointment from God and not degrees.
For your forth bullet point: The organic church that I have had privilege of joining and witnessing, has never gone a day without a consensual decision amongst elders. In fact, it seems more to reason that they wrestle with one another 24/7. Direction can never come from the entire body, because like you said, ” God does talk to everybody, but he doesn’t say the same things to everybody.” Organic churches face the same challenges traditional churches have as well – the only difference is that in organic churches, there doesn't seem to be anyone leaving if a disagreement exists.
The furthering and advancement of the kingdom should always be the main goal for every Christian who believes the Christ died for them. The idea is not to “strengthen local community,” but to encourage it, to love it, and to share Jesus to it. The idea about organic living is the thought of not taking away a soul from their familiarize surrounding. So a Christian works from the inside in, just as Christ works from the soul-outward. For some people it works, and for some it doesn't, but shouldn't the main goal be saving lives and not arguing where they belong. God chooses that, doesn't He?
Lastly, if the purpose for the church is not community, and just prayer, then no one will come to Christ. What is the point of faith if there are no works? or vise verse. The point of church is community, alongside with prayer, fellowship, evangelism, all these work together. What is the point of the body without an arm or a leg? is it not all parts important and work in their respective ways? Although relationships are vulnerable to gossip, unity is not what survives it all, but love. Love is the greater amongst all these things. Love ensures that we won't destroy credibility, love ensures long suffering, love ensures prayer, love ensures evangelism. Prayer is a powerful thing, and I am not disowning it in my Christian life. I am merely recognizing it as a part of a whole that God has gracefully given to us. It is through grace and love that revival happens on a remarkable scale….
I think anyway…..
I, like you, agree with what some churches do. I believe that if a church follows the specific guidelines that the bible indicates that they should be free to function. Although, I have some clarifications on the matter of organic church that you seem misunderstand, or perhaps you were given wrong information by your source.
For your third bullet point: I think that the statement your informant has given you is partially true, and partially false. Going off from your verse on Acts 2:42-43, the church does require leadership – organic or not. It is labeled in the bible about God's chosen people leading in the name of Him. It may seem evident that organic churches do not have leaders, but if that is your belief, I can tell you that you are false. Organic church has more leaders than traditional church might even possess – well the one's I know off anyway. I think the difference between what you call leadership and what organic churches call leadership are those people who have obtained a degree in theological studies versus people who have taken up proper requirements as leaders without proper “paper” backing. I am not saying that all people, who potentially have organic churches do not have degrees. I am friends with many pastors who have organic churches and have attended Wheaton. Needless to say, leaders are chosen by the divine appointment from God and not degrees.
For your forth bullet point: The organic church that I have had privilege of joining and witnessing, has never gone a day without a consensual decision amongst elders. In fact, it seems more to reason that they wrestle with one another 24/7. Direction can never come from the entire body, because like you said, ” God does talk to everybody, but he doesn’t say the same things to everybody.” Organic churches face the same challenges traditional churches have as well – the only difference is that in organic churches, there doesn't seem to be anyone leaving if a disagreement exists.
The furthering and advancement of the kingdom should always be the main goal for every Christian who believes the Christ died for them. The idea is not to “strengthen local community,” but to encourage it, to love it, and to share Jesus to it. The idea about organic living is the thought of not taking away a soul from their familiarize surrounding. So a Christian works from the inside in, just as Christ works from the soul-outward. For some people it works, and for some it doesn't, but shouldn't the main goal be saving lives and not arguing where they belong. God chooses that, doesn't He?
Lastly, if the purpose for the church is not community, and just prayer, then no one will come to Christ. What is the point of faith if there are no works? or vise verse. The point of church is community, alongside with prayer, fellowship, evangelism, all these work together. What is the point of the body without an arm or a leg? is it not all parts important and work in their respective ways? Although relationships are vulnerable to gossip, unity is not what survives it all, but love. Love is the greater amongst all these things. Love ensures that we won't destroy credibility, love ensures long suffering, love ensures prayer, love ensures evangelism. Prayer is a powerful thing, and I am not disowning it in my Christian life. I am merely recognizing it as a part of a whole that God has gracefully given to us. It is through grace and love that revival happens on a remarkable scale….
I think anyway…..