"Post Church" - what is it and where does it come from?

I have some friends who have recently opted out of church altogether. They maintain that they haven't opted out, but that the general concept of church is wrong. They are more into networking in their community etc. The church they come from is going through alot of change/upheaval/major earthquakes recently, and alot of people have been leaving. Many of these people have similar views, including one of the elders, who has now left the church. I understand that this viewpoint is one that is becoming more prevalent, and may be referred to as "Post Church" or "Deconstruction". Does anyone know anything about this, and where I can read people who agree/disagree with this standpoint? Thanks. :-?

After some brief web searching, it appears there is a growing community both here and abroad that have chosen to "deconstruct". It seems to me that they have seperated into small home churchs using a weekly community gathering of these churches for corporate prayer and worship...interesting concept...need to look into it more..Note: i have seen some churches in England that have been connected with the "Thing from Toronto" take this avenue....it tends to raise a bit of a red flg with me.... :-o

In a book by T. Austin-Sparks – God’s Reactions to man’s Defections - we find the following quote, which may direct our steps in a direction away from rigidity on the one hand and extremity on the other. When new things appear on the scene we tend to either overemphasise it, and thereby kill it or just stand as an onlooker discussing it and thereby commit suicide.We need to look for other ways to conduct Church at this time when we eagerly pray for revival, at the same time as we carefully watch out for new products which only promotes old habits and attitudes in an upgraded version.THE NEW THING WHICH IS OLD There are two things which we need to keep very clearly before us. These two things, as we put them, may seem to contradict one another or be paradoxical. I. All the way through the ages, God has constantly done a new thing. II. That which, from man’s standpoint, has always been God’s new thing, from His own standpoint has not been new at all.“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world”. (Acts 15:18)“The works were finished from the foundation of the world”. (Hebrews 4:3).In all His fresh activities and revelations, God is working backward to an original position and design. God never leaves His original premise. This is a far more important truth and law than may at first be recognised. Note included in the book in connection to these words: The term ‘reaction’, as employed in these chapters, means that acting-again on the part of God when that which ostensibly represents Him no longer truly represents Him, either vitally or adequately. He reacts against what is merely ostensible and for what is living and wholly according to His mind.

wrtbooks wrote:lwpray said:

We need to look for other ways to conduct Church at this time when we eagerly pray for revival, at the same time as we carefully watch out for new products which only promotes old habits and attitudes in an upgraded version.I feel this is wrong. Maby God has called some people apart from going to Church Denominations and starting a home church fellowship, but God is mostly calling out to 'overcomers' (they appear in all 7 letters to the churches in revelation) to step-up to there responsibility and calling amongst there other fallen or falling brothers. Sure God starts new movements and denominations, etc. but God still is working just as actively in the old denominations to bring HIS SON glory.

The revival factor at work in our lives makes us able to live more and more as servants of all, as a priesthood, as ministers of reconciliation.As ones living in fellowship before the Lord, we are presented with an obligation to strive for a preparation of settings in which all men will find an opportunity to know Christ as a living, very practical reality. A goal which takes much prayer and soul-searching to be able to reach.

I see what you mean...No it does not require of us to stay away. It does not allow us to just walk away. It rather provokes us to wait, abide, and serve.Who can say that any of us have attained....If I have attained anything at all I will seek fellowship with any professor of faith, and with non-believers too, within limits, for the sake of testimony.

Exclusiveness is something we practice as a means to keep the world out.Inclusiveness is something which is a characteristic for the family of the Lord.If we are led to do something different as to fellowship, it may only be for the sake of strengthening the testimony, for the sake of presenting an attractive, a helpful gathering of the saints, for the sake of service. There is a definition which Sparks brings to the table which I like a lot: Ours is a vocational fellowship.

Responding to the very original post by discipleonthemove... I really hate to hear about churches that are going through a problem like this, where masses of people are just leaving, including leaders. It's not hard to see that many leave because they want to prove a point, or see many who they consider to be strong Christians doing it and so follow suit. I would of course leave a church that was not teaching the Word of God, for example, but not without first bringing my concern to the pastor privately. When a church goes through an "upheaval" like you said...most just find a new and "better" church in town. But this postchurch concept is definitely a newer concept and becoming increasingly more popular. Yes, in Paul's time church houses were the method of choice in group fellowship, teaching, accountability, etc. And yes, there are still house churches today. But look at the extreme persecution in the early church and in the countries where house churches are prevelent. House churches were necessary for secrecy and privacy. In countries where there are actual church buildings and properties and huge ministries and etc, many are very large and yes, business-like. There is an apostacy in many many churches today, and sadly in a good portion of the body of Christ. But changes need to be made from the inside out. Leaving will send a message, but not the right one. Where we have the opportunity to attend a church without having to sneak around in the middle of the night, we are blessed. To leave a church and not even consider any others because "all churches set up that way are wrong" is illogical and wrong. Ephesians 4:1-6 clearly speaks of the unity we're to have...at all costs. I know I'm rambling a bit, lol, but it's important to me. Fellowship is such a gift and blessing, and vital in our walk because our brothers and sisters give us encouragement and keep us accountable. My bottom line is that I don't have a problem with "networking into community" at all, but the viewpoint that the church that comes in established building form is wrong...that's not cool. I get a "red flag" from these post-church and deconstruction concepts, too. If there are problems within a church that needs to be resolved, then it should be done so. I've found that expensive and extravegant ministries have sometimes replaced the perfect simplicity of Christ's message. When all the noise and bustle has calmed, some churches may slowly realize Jesus isn't there. There should be change big time, but not departure and separation. I'm open to correction and rebuke, as we all should be. :) This was what I believe based on my readings on unity and the church and body of Christ from the Word. :)

Church - a definition:Enough brokenness gathered in one place for Life to find an entry for ministry.Lars W.

Sounds nice, Lars, but it has no shape at all. I am sensitive to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I think He's looking for more than that....just brokenness gathered in one place. Agreed, church is nothing without His ministry, but it has to have a shape, as indicated in Scripture: Apostles, Prophets, etc. and ELDERS! Appointed by APOSTLES! The "post-church" picture, as I see it, and as I gather my friends view it, is one without accountability, or long-term commitment. No church structure at all; just following your spiritual noses around doing whatever the Holy Spirit is saying at any particular moment. This CAN'T be right, it's NOT BIBLICAL, if one interprets Paul's picture of the church in the simplest way possible.I would very much like to read something by a proponent of "Post-Church" or "Deconstruction", and would be very grateful if anyone could point me in that direction. Thanks.

discipleonthemove:Just read or listen to George H. Warnock and Paris Reidhead for those who take a very "body" oriented view (some forms of which may call themselves "post church"). Dave Wilkerson has also moved more in that direction of late.

Jason, I am confused as to your reference to The men that you have named following in the direction of post church---could you expound a little? thanks scott

Who appoints the apostles? What is the essence of service and authority?Where does the necessary amount of structure begin, if not in brokenness and in God’s dealings with man. “Old” structure or “new” structure with little or no spiritual essence and presence are equally unsatisfying.Brokenness produces accountability and commitment of a category that no endorsement, degree or succession can provide. Some of us listen a lot to Mr. Sparks, who lays the foundation for a constructing of the Church from within which promotes a soft-spoken authority, a service through what he labels a “new vessel”. This instrument of the Lord brings the function of a testimony down to a level in which all can partake for the benefit of all men.

We were looking across the great division line between South Korea and North Korea. A small team of intercessors. Being there just to lay hold of the atmosphere. We were to present ourselves to the group. One intercessor stood up and told us that she was an independent intercessor. This is the most drastic picture I have on misunderstanding Church. A praying person is or is made the most dependent person one may find. Relatedness, caring for one another is church in its fundamental, practical outworking. This takes brokenness.

We were looking across the great division line between South Korea and North Korea. A small team of intercessors. Being there just to lay hold of the atmosphere. We were to present ourselves to the group. One intercessor stood up and told us that she was an independent intercessor. This is the most drastic picture I have on misunderstanding Church. A praying person is or is made the most dependent person one may find. Relatedness, caring for one another is church in its fundamental, practical outworking. This takes brokenness.

Lars - I would be interested to know your definition of the word "brokenness". I know what I think it means, but wondered what you thought. How does brokenness replace the prescribed Biblical order of the Elders of the church who care for/have authority among the sheep? Who makes judgements in the church if not the elders? If we were all broken we wouldn't need judgements, but we're not there yet. I'm still not sure what your picture is of the church. I would love to hear from you .....in plain English....do you believe in church as a structure at all or do you believe in a looser interpretation "liquid church"?As far as apostles go - that's a good question - I don't have any Biblical answers to that one apart from saying that the Lord appoints them! But just because we don't know who appoints them or how they are recognised (the signs of an apostle?- can't remember the reference) does that mean that they are dispensed with? Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors (shepherds) and Teachers should be evident in the church. :-)

Thanks Jason for that - I'll look those guys up. Dom :-D