The glory of God in dirt

Dirt is a bad word. Getting dirty is almost always a negative thing. When my kids come in and their shoes are dirty but they walk on our carpet anyway, my wife is not delighted that they are getting her carpets dirty! There is probably nothing that is taken more for granted than dirt, nothing lower and less welcome. Here is the thing…

The glory of God is revealed in dirt

How so?

We know that God created dirt. He created all things and that includes dirt.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10)

So God created dirt and He called it good.

That dirt He created does some other stuff. It is the place that He caused plants to grow…

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Genesis 1:11-13)

All of the food that we eat comes from the dirt that He created. Those plants need rain and God drew from the ground

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— (Genesis 2:5-6)

But God wasn’t done with dirt just yet….

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Genesis 2:7)

God’s crowning act in Creation in man and man was made from….the dirt.

Dirt is amazing stuff. We plant crops in the dirt. The rain falls on the dirt and soaks the ground and plants absorb their moisture from the dirt. As animals and plants deposit organic material (i.e. manure and dead plants) into the dirt, it rots in the soil and fills the dirt with nutrients which are then absorbed by plants, plants which we eat and feed to animals that we eat. Rainwater that is not absorbed by plants filters through the dirt which removes the impurities and it is that water that many of us drink from our faucet. The dirty mud puddles in my horse pasture will some day by clear, cold water we drink.

God is an amazing God because even in dirt He demonstrates His glory!

A response to my defintion of the institutional church

What does "The Institutional Church" mean? A Response


Shawn at Aspiring PolyMathis took the time to respond to what I wrote re: the institional church defined. I appreciate that he took the time to a) actually read what I wrote and b) respond to it, which is pretty unusual. Take a look at his post and see what you think!

An Allegory

Imagine a young child who has been adopted from a Russian orphanage. We will call him Boris because I assume every Russian boy is named Boris. Everything I know about Russia I learned from Rocky and Bullwinkle and Rocky IV. He has come from horrible conditions but until he left the orphanage, he had no idea how bad things were. Now looking back Boris is starting to understand just what he has been rescued from, not because he decided to be adopted (he didn’t even know he should want to be adopted!) but because someone decided to adopt him. His new family is loving beyond anything he could imagine, something Boris had never experienced before. Sure they had some rules that were different from the orphanage but those rules were in place to keep him safe. Here is his story…

When Boris arrived at his new home, he met the rest of the family. His new family is full of adopted kids just like him! Some came from orphanages in Russia, others from slums in Port au Prince, some from unsuitable homes in the U.S. They were all different colors, ages and nationalities, boys and girls. What they all had in common is that they all were orphans without a father and now they had one, one that loved them and sacrificed more than they could understand to adopt them. They went from unwanted to adopted, from rejected to chosen. Most of them had different ideas of what this new family was like and how things should be done but they all had the same father.

There was one older boy who had been around for a while. We will call him Fred. Fred kind of knew the ropes in the family. He had been adopted some time ago and had a knack for understanding how the family worked. Because he was older and more experienced, he often helped newer adopted kids figure things out. He knew when dinner time was, the coolest toys, etc. A lot of the newer adopted kids looked up to him. He was just like they were and in fact when he was new to the family a different older brother had helped him get acclimated and learn the ropes. That boy had grown up and moved out and now it was Fred’s turn.

Right away Fred introduced himself to Boris. “Hi! I am your new brother and my name is Fred. It is great to have you in the family! I was an orphan just like you but dad adopted me just like he adopted you.” Boris was very excited. Fred was super nice and older and seemed very mature. The other kids took his lead on many things. The first few days in his new home with his new family were great. Boris met lots of other former orphans who were now his brothers and sisters, part of his family. He was so happy! He never knew what he was missing in that orphanage but now that he had a family he realized how lucky he was! Of course the kids didn’t always get along but for the most part they did because they were a family. Fred was very helpful and sometimes even intervened when one of the kids was helping another. “We don’t want you to do this the wrong way!” he would say and the kid who was trying to help would step aside and let Fred help instead. Fred was always helping and was really busy and Boris noticed that a lot of the kids relied on Fred instead of doing things themselves but that made sense. Fred was better at a lot of things!

One day during his first week in his new family, all of the kids met together in a big meeting in the playroom. One of his new sisters told him they got together once a week, same time and same day, to go over things. What was discussed impacted all of them but they all listened to Fred speak because after all he was the best speaker and had been in the family longer than many of the rest of the kids. Fred talked for almost an hour but he had lots to share and Boris learned a lot.

Boris talked to Fred after the meeting was over and told him what he had learned was very helpful. Fred beamed! “Boris, I love to help my brothers and sisters. I am just like the rest of you, I was an orphan and was adopted and now we are all one big happy family.” Boris couldn’t wait to listen to Fred next week!

A few weeks went by and like clockwork the kids got together in the playroom and sat in a circle listening to Fred. Some of what Fred said was repetitive and sometimes he used words they didn’t understand but that was OK. It was a big help. After the family meeting was over, Fred came over to Boris. Fred asked him if he enjoyed the meeting and Boris assured him he did. Fred smiled. Then Fred said something that startled Boris:

“There is just one little thing you need to understand. When we get dessert, I need you to give me some of your cookies.”

Boris was confused. He asked Fred why he needed to give him some of his cookies. Fred patted him on the head and said “Well I am helping you out and showing you the ropes. That is really important isn’t it? Because I am spending some of my time helping you and the other new kids, I don’t have as much time for what I want to do. Doesn’t it seem fair that you would share with me? It is what dad wants us to do.” Fred smiled and walked over to talk to one of their sisters, leaving Boris scratching his head.

That didn’t make much sense to Boris. He didn’t know much about being in a family but it seemed strange that one of his brothers, who after all was just like him, expected to get a special reward. Dad had never mentioned that. Boris kept thinking about it.

If Fred was really helping, why should he get a reward for that from Boris? The staff who cared for him at the orphanage got paid money to care for the orphans but they were just doing their job and besides they weren’t family. Fred was family. Boris was terribly confused. Boris noticed lots of brothers and sisters in the family helping each other out all the time. One of his younger brothers couldn’t reach a toy he really wanted and an older sister helped him get it down. Once one of his sisters was crying and another of his sisters gave her a hug. In fact the more Boris thought about it, they more he realized that the whole family helped each other. Sometimes they even helped Fred when he needed something.

So Boris asked one of his other brothers, Jacob, about this. Jacob had been around a while and he knew the ropes. He had helped Boris out a time or two and Boris noticed that he helped a lot of the other kids out all the time but Jacob didn’t get cookies from anyone else. At first Jacob smiled and said “Sure, we all give Fred some of our cookies. It is what dad wants!” When Boris pointed out that dad never said anything like that and that it seemed like everyone helped everyone else but only Fred got cookies for it, Jacob started to get upset. “Boris, why are you causing trouble? You are new here but this is just the way we do things. Jacob knows more than the rest of us and he shares that stuff he knows with us so we should give him some of our cookies!” Boris started to ask another question but Jacob, his face all red, stomped away angrily. Later that day Boris saw Jacob talking to Fred and both Fred and Jacob kept looking over at Boris. Boris tried asking some of the other kids about this. Many of them reacted the same way that Jacob did but others seemed to have some of the same questions. More than one told Boris that they had asked those questions and it got people upset so they stopped asking them and just gave their cookies to Fred.

That afternoon after nap time, Fred came over and asked Boris to come sit with him. Fred sat Boris down at the table where Fred liked to draw because it had book cases around it and was kind of private. Fred looked at Boris and said, “Boris, I know you are new to the family but you can’t go around causing trouble about this whole cookie thing. The family is in turmoil. We have always done it this way. One of the brothers helps everyone else and leads our family meetings every week and in return the rest of the kids give him some cookies. We have always done it this way and I am sure that is what dad wants.” Boris knew that sharing was important. Dad had made that very clear when he brought Boris home but the way dad described it all of the kids were supposed to share with each other, not just with Fred. Boris didn’t want to cause trouble and he was kind of intimidated so he just kept his mouth shut until Fred was done speaking.

Boris was pretty confused but he didn’t know what else to do so he gave some of his cookies to Fred. Once he did that and stopped asking so many irritating questions, he found that the other kids were more friendly with him again, especially Jacob. Boris also found that he let Fred help others even when Boris could help them. After all Fred was better at it and he got cookies for it. In fact Boris started to like the system. When someone needed help Boris told them to go to Fred. Fred was always running around helping the other kids but Boris didn’t mind. Fred was better at helping.

One morning several new kids showed up, new brothers and sisters adopted into the family! Boris recognized one of the little girls. Her name was Svetlana and they used to be in the same orphanage! She and Boris had the same background and came from the same place and used to play together back in Russia all the time. Boris was very excited to see her! That afternoon Svetlana asked Boris if there were any crayons. Boris knew where the crayons were but he told her to ask Fred. After all Fred was in charge of helping the kids figure things out. Boris introduced Svetlana to Fred and Fred showed her where the crayons were. Later that day Boris had gotten himself some crayons and was coloring away. Boris loved to color. Svetlana came over to where he was and said “Oh, did Fred show you where the crayons are?” Boris shook his head and told her that he already knew where they were and had been using them for a long time. Svetlana looked confused and asked “Why didn’t you just show me where they were?” Boris smiled and told her that Fred was supposed to help people because he was better at it and besides he got cookies from everyone else. Svetlana frowned and walked away. Boris could tell right away that she was going to be a trouble maker.

Machen on Education

I read this quote from J. Gresham Machen today while perusing an excellent post by Dan Phillips.

"A public-school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of competition of private schools. A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised.

"Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyrrany, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past . . . ."

From Christianity and Liberalism, p. 14.

A great comparison of the institutional church versus simple church

I want to thank Alan Knox for a great post this morning Examining the differences between simple church and institutional church. Unlike the dogmatic and often polemical posts I put up, Alan has an excellent comparison that points out the differences in a very fair and non-judgmental way. If you have come across my blog via a conversation at another blog and are uncertain what the definition of a simple church really is, you should check out Alan’s post. I liked his synopsis of simple/organic church…

To begin with, I need to describe what I mean by simple or organic church. A simple or organic church is a group of brothers and sisters in Christ who attempt to live together as family in the way that they understand the church is described and taught in the New Testament. [A house church, on the other hand, is a group of believers who meet in a home. A house church can be more simple/organic or it can be more traditional/institutional.]

Now, we must remember that no group of believers if purely simple/organic just as no group of believers is purely institutional. Instead, it is more like a gradient or spectrum, with some groups being more simple/organic while more groups are more institutional. So, my description will be generalizations by necessity.

I think that is vitally important to recognize what Alan calls the gradient or spectrum. Some people I have been discussing this issue with seem to think that simple church groups are against any organization at all and the fact that we even decide to get together at a particular time is a “Gotcha!”. Institutional churches, even within denominations, are not all the same. Some allow more participation, others less (although all of them far less than I think is appropriate) just as some simple churches have more formalized structure in their meeting, different views of leadership especially from a gender standpoint, etc. For example, a Plymouth Brethren gathering will seem very odd and unstructured to someone who has only experienced an institutional church setting but would seem very structured and institutional to someone used to a simple church gathering. One thing I have noticed and that I commented about on Alan’s post was that a big difference in institutional churches versus simple churches is the presence of people who are not Christians in the meeting. Here is what I wrote in a comment…

Something else I have noticed that really impacts the way institutional churches function versus simple churches is that institutional churches, by design, are a blend of believers and unbelievers. The simpler churches I have been to tend to be mostly or entirely made up of professing believers. The blending means that many institutional church gatherings are trying to do two things simultaneously and that is pretty hard to do. Not that having unbelievers in our gatherings is inherently a bad thing but the mindset is different, on the institutional side inviting unbelievers to “come to church” to hear the Gospel versus the church gathering to be equipped to take the Gospel to unbelievers.

Just my two cents. You should read the whole thing and comment, especially if you are more inclined to the institutional church.

Interesting report on tithing

I found this report from the Denver Post really interesting, Survey: Majority of evangelical leaders say tithing not required….

Most evangelical leaders encourage their church members to tithe, yet most don't believe the Bible requires it of Christians, according to survey results released today.

Tithing, giving at least 10 percent of one's income to church, was the subject of the monthly poll of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes leaders of churches, denominations, missions, universities and publishing houses.

The Evangelical Leaders Survey found 58 percent believe the Bible doesn't require tithing, which means giving at least 10 percent of one's income to their church. And 42 percent do think tithing is required.

I think it is interesting that 58% of evangelical leaders don’t think tithing carries over to the church but many of them encourage it anyway. Why is that? I wonder how much of that has to do with what the “tithe” is used for in most churches?

(HT: Paul Edwards)

How can we “tell it to the church” when the church is split into hundreds of factions?

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17 ESV)

This ties into an idea I have been noodling over for several weeks regarding accountability and community. I read something at Church Task Force on the question of The Church in a Locality and this question came up. When Jesus says that the final step in dealing with a brother who has sinned against you is to “tell it to the church”, i.e. the entire church, I wonder: how does that happen?

I think the assumption is that “tell the church” means going before everyone in the local church you are members of and announcing it from the pulpit. That can’t be what Jesus had in mind because at this point there were no local churches segregated from other local churches. In fact the church pretty much was located in a small geographic area. So if someone at Crossroads Community Church is in sin and refuses to repent, the assumption would be (if the church was even trying to engage in actual discipline) that they would boot him from that local church. Of course if he were so inclined he would drive 15 minutes away and start hanging out at a different local church and likely none would be the wiser because we have such limited interaction with one another.

What if the church was more like what we saw in Scripture, i.e. the church in Akron would consist of all of the Christians in Akron. They wouldn’t all get together every week but they would all be interconnected. There is still the issue that in any decent sized town there are going to be a lot of Christians. Wouldn’t that be where the elders would come into play? Not every Christian would know every other Christians but everyone should know some of the elders and all of the elders would know one another. If someone were cut off from the church, that would be something the elders would pass on to the entire Body so that every Christian in Akron would know what had happened and hopefully would know when that brother was reconciled and welcomed back into the church.

What do you think? Too pie-in-the-sky? I certainly think that if that were a reality, restorative discipline would actually function unlike the present system where discipline means finding a different “church”.

A follow-up thought

A comment on the prior post said that we should view every brother in the church as an elder-in-training. How do you think that would change the way we function as the church if we saw every brother that way?

What is the right number of elders?

Many in the church, across a wide spectrum of folks from simple church advocates to reformed believers recognize that the church should have a “plurality of elders”, i.e. more than one elder (pastor) and a bunch of deacons. In Baptist circles this is still looked at with the stink eye (that ain’t how Bab-Dis do things!) but the Scriptures seems pretty clear that in local churches there should be multiple servant-leaders. But how many should the church have? I am sure someone has already thought this through but I wanted to give it a stab.

Is there a magic number, like five elders in every church? Is there a magic ration of 20:1 believers to laity? The Bible is silent and you know what happens when the Bible is silent about something? We fill in the blanks! So why should I get left out of the fun?!

Here is an assertion that I am going to throw out there, regardless of the denomination (or lack thereof) or the size of your church….

Every mature man in the church should eventually be an elder.

Here is another.

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that there needs to be a small group of elders overseeing a much larger group of non-elders.

What?! That is heresy! If you have all of those elders, who is going to be in charge? It will be like that old (very politically incorrect) saying: all chiefs and no indians!

Hang with me for a bit here.

First off, there is a real problem with the view of elders as being “in charge” of the church. Men who are elders are recognized as such because of the way they live their lives, for their leading by serving rather than leading by dictating. I won’t list out the Scripture references but it is pretty clear that elders are men who lead through example and service, not through control.

Second, can the church have too many elders? Well let me ask a different question. Can the church ever have too many mature brothers who are living examples to the church?

Now if a local church is functioning like it should be, there should always be a couple of things happening. First, existing Christian men are being discipled, mentored and equipped for the work of ministry by more mature believers and are coming to place of maturity in the faith (Eph 4:11-16 ). If a man is a mature believer in Christ and is living a praiseworthy life worthy of emulation, why wouldn’t he be recognized as an elder?

Second, new Christians should be coming to faith in Christ and becoming part of the church all the time. The men especially need someone to emulate and to learn from and I am convinced that an eight week “New Believer” class and weekly sermons is not going to bring men to a maturity in Christ. The state of the church bears that out. The more elders the church has, the more men to mentor and disciple new believers.

What do you think? Is that kooky, the idea that every man who comes to Christ should be expected to mature to a point where he is considered an elder?

Was Paul preaching a sermon when he met with the church at Troas?

Back to this topic again.

Like a certain canine owned by Dr. Pavlov, there are people who will reflexively respond to the assertion that there is no command or example regading monologue sermons in the New Testament with “Oh yeah, well what about Acts 20:7?!?!” It never fails. What is also apparent is that this response is based on a knee-jerk reaction. Teacher X that I respect taught that in the account of Paul speaking to the church in Troas in Acts 20, what was going on was a sermon. In fact more often than not it will be accompanied by a joke about not complaining about how long someone preaches because when Paul preached to the church in Troas, a young man fell asleep and fell from a window! Hilarity and chuckling ensure but no one asks “is that really what happened or is that just what we were led to believe happened?”. Well, I am asking!

I think some of the problem comes from the King James translation. Most Christians are familiar with the language in the KJV (i.e. our Father who are in heaven) and in the King James language from 400 years ago, it certainly sounds to our ears like Paul is preaching which of course means a sermon. If you read the King James rendering, this is what you get (emphasis mine in all three examples):

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

The English Standard renders it slightly differently but in an important way.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him." And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.

The same is true with the NASB. The New American Standard renders it:

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him." When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left. They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.

What is the difference? In the King James translation, the word “preach” is used twice and that word has a connotation of a monologue sermon because of our cultural understanding of what “preaching” involves. But both the NASB and the ESV strongly suggest that Paul was involved in a conversation with the assembled body by rendering it “talked with” and “conversed with”. So which is correct? I am not a Greek expert but I think we can draw some conclusions from what we have been presented with that support my contention that Paul was involved in a conversation, not a sermon.

First, there is the ESV/NASB translations which imply that Paul was involved at least partially in conversation with the church, that he was interacting with the people there and not merely “preaching unto them” a sermon. Certainly Paul would have been leading the conversation as an apostle but there is nothing to suggest that the gathered church sat mutely while he spoke. Given what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14, he certainly would have expected all of the brothers to bring something to the meeting (a hymn, a prayer, a teaching, etc.).

Second, does it make any sense at all to assume that Paul was preaching a sermon for perhaps eight hours? At least twice the church was eating so he certainly wouldn’t have been preaching then. Just from a practical standpoint, there is no way he was the only one speaking. If you have ever spoken to a group you know that it is draining and hard on your voice. An hour is a long time to speak, two hours is pretty extreme. I can talk with friends for hours on end because I am not the only one talking.

Third, trying to draw a parallel between Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ entrusted with writing large swaths of the New Testament as an authoritative text and your local church pastor delivering a spiritual lecture is foolhardy. I think it is ironic that many people will embrace Paul as their role model when they think he is supporting their traditions, like sermon preaching, but not when he exhorts church leaders to earn a living by working rather than coveting money from the church, something that happens a few verses after Paul allegedly was preaching a sermon in Acts 20:7.

Fourth, the purpose of the church gathering is important to look at. The church was gathered together to “break bread”. This was not a worship service where the expectation was that they were going to get a sermon, they were there as the church for a meal. Certainly there were important conversation about matters of theological importance and certainly there likely was prayer going on (based on Acts 2:42) but the gathering was for a meal. Paul spent a lot of time speaking with the church because they were leaving the next day and he apparently had lots to talk about. Keep in mind that he was there for a week and during that time was no doubt also engaged in teaching and laboring alongside the believers in Troas.

What seems apparent from Paul’s time with the church in Troas in Acts 20 is that he was talking with the church in Troas while they were gathered to share a meal. Paul likely was leading the conversation because of his unique position in the church as an apostle but the church was engaged in conversation with him, an assertion I base on the text (“talked with” and “conversed with”) and on the sheer implausibility of Paul preaching a monologue sermon all night. Those who claim that Acts 20:7 is an example of monologue sermons in the New Testament have a difficult task because a) it is the only place they can even try to turn to and b) the actual text itself doesn’t support their contention unless you read Acts 20:7 convinced that your tradition is correct before you even start to read. if you base your notion of the centrality of sermons in the life of the church on Acts 20:7, you are on pretty shaky ground indeed.

Oooh that is good stuff

Alan Knox tweeted this today:

When the church shares life together, gatherings are natural. When the people are strangers/acquaintances, gatherings must be orchestrated.

That is awesome! So I guess that raises the question. If you feel the need to have highly orchestrated church meetings, what does that say about the state of your community?

Nothing to be afraid of

Alan wrote a great post, Who's afraid of the big, bad simple church? I strongly recommend it to you. Alan provides a simple, straightforward definition of simple churches.

But, what is simple/organic/house church, and should the more traditional, more institutional churches fear them as they are often told by their leaders, pastors, and preachers? A simple or organic church is a group of brothers and sisters in Christ who attempt to live together as family in the way that the church is described and taught in the New Testament. A house church, on the other hand, is a group of believers who meet in a home. A house church can be more simple/organic or it can be more traditional/institutional.

That is a great definition. We are definitely looking for a simple church group to meet with and minsiter alongside. If they meet in a home that is great. If they meet in a different non-traditional location, that is great too. What is important is how they meet more so than where or when they meet. I think we have found just such a group and have also met lots of other Christians in our area as well, people we likely never would have met if we had moved to the area and immediately "joined" a more traditional church.

I like how Alan concludes his post. For people who are entrenched in the institutional church, it is unlikely they will be swayed by arguments on blog posts. Better to develop a relationship with them and discuss questions surrounding the church over coffee or a meal. We are seeking to invite people to our home more and more often, not with a hidden motive to "convert" them to simple church but to get to know them. I think we could all stand to spend more time with fellow believers without any ulterior motives!