Church leaders and gurus often urge congregations to ask themselves some questions to help clarify what they are doing and what they are about. One popular question is some variation of this: “Why do people need the church?”
Coming up with an answer to that question is meant to help us plan our programs and ministries.
But what if the question is wrong?
The question presumes that the church exists to fill some need people have. It assumes that the church can be explained in terms of human need.
Maybe it can. But I’m stuck with the thought that the church exists not to meet my needs but to accomplish God’s purposes. God calls the church into existence to do what God wants done. Such a thought makes me want to ask a different question. Not “why do I need the church” but “what does God want the church to do?”
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God; and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
I love this John. I believe the church is not here to serve people’s perceived needs but to bring them to know Jesus Christ.
John,
I agree. I find that in order to help the congregation get to a place where they can engage more fully with what God wants the church to do I have to help them in how it fills needs for them.
At the end of the day, I then have opportunity to reflect with them on the adage I heard from Kenneth Carter, “Where your great gifts, and the world’s greatest needs intersect, that is where God is calling you”
Thanks for helping us ask the rest of the question, and bringing God into the picture more clearly for all
Peace,
David
Here are two legitimate purposes which the church is supposed to fulfill: 1) encourage and edify believers, and 2) enable believers to discover and exercise their spiritual gifts. (I didn’t include evangelism because “evangelist” is a particulat gift God gives to the church, and not all have the same gifgs.)
There is a truth which applies here: Form follows Function. The church takes different forms depending–not on its current members–but on what form its current members inherited.
The FORM that virtually all churches have is nearly universal, and is shared by Protestants and Catholics alike.
That FORM includes 1) a building 2) designed with rows of seating 3) arranged so that a platform and podium are focused on 4) an ordained clergy person who 5) represents of a particular brand of Christendom.
This inherited form FUNCTIONS to 1) control the message so that it 2) conforms to that particlar brand of Christendom, 3) conferring special local authority on an individual to control that message.
The church’s FORMS do not execute, enhance, or enable the church to fulfill the FUNCTIONS laid out in Scripture. The church’s FORMS more often interfere with and stymie the church in it’s desire to accomplish God’s will.
Howard Snyder, author of “The Problem of Wineskins,” correctly distinguishes between the people who constitute the ekklesia and the parachurch organizations it uses. For Snyder, “parachurch organizations” includes denominations and buildings, as well as publishing houses, seminaries, missionary societies, etc.
So, John, the problem is with what the question means.
“Who needs the church?”
Which “church” does it refer to?
“Who needs the building?” “Who needs the hierarchy?”
“Who needs that particular brand of Christendom?” “Who needs the other believers?”
Nobody “needs” the building. Nobody “needs” the hierarchy. Nobody “needs” the particular brand of Christendom.
But EVERYBODY needs other believers.
NOBODY “needs” any particular parachurch organization.
Ron, these are some great distinctions. I’d like a different word that “parachurch” since that word already denotes something that is different than the use Snyder makes of it. But this is an interesting way to break down the question.
I still what to shift the ground and ask whether God has a purpose for all these elements that you identify.
John, let me share one of my second post on my blog. It’s a parable titled, “The Hermit Crab.”
http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2010/11/09/the-hermit-crab/
This topic is one I’ve thought about all my adult life. It has shaped my life in major ways, and brought me to finally give up my misguided ambition to seek ordination.
It took me far too long to realize that my understanding of the scripture and the church were completely incompatible with pastoral ministry.
I don’t mean to put you off, but I’ve got my hands full with the Clobber Passage refutations, Luke’s Gay Apocalypse, and Paul’s Cancellation of the Law. But I will respond briefly below.
The word “church” is used in far too many ways to be a useful term. In a conversation or a blog, it is nearly impossible to distinguish which usage is in view. Each usage has a narrower equivalent. We need to use these narrower words. I rarely use the word “church” except in phrases like “Paul’s understanding of the church.”
1. a hierarchy (“The church teaches…”)
2. a denomination (“My church teaches…”)
3. a building (“See you at church!”)
4. a Sunday morning meeting (“How was church?”)
5. all Christians thoughout history (“The church’s record is…”)
6. the “Invisible Church” (“God’s true church is…”)
7. a “local church” (The pattern of the New Testament church…”)
8. congregation (“My church will never go for that.”)
9. all the Christians in a city (“The church in Corinth had real problems.”)
10. the hierarchy of an historical era (“The medieval church…”)
There are probably more.
Usually you can tell a person’s meaning from context.
But we really do need more precision for theoretical questions like, “Do people need the church?” or slogans like, “Jesus, Yes. Church, No.”
Great point, Ron. I like your list of 10 as well.
When people like Adam Hamilton ask “Why do people need the church?” I’m pretty sure he is not posing it as a theoretical question but more of a marketing question. But I take your point and it would help us think better to be more careful with terms.
Pingback: What denomination | ITSOGS