The Church: form and function!

Going back to what we were looking at with the church, the idea that the biblical church is pretty much the opposite in form to how it is now:

• Elders are members, also called pastors and bishops, their role is one of function within the church rather than position over it.
• They met in houses; buildings designed for a family gathering, rather than a public building designed for a service.
• They had a full bring and share fellowship meal rather than a token of a meal in silent introspection.
• Everyone contributed to the worship and ministry of the meeting rather than one or two doing all the ministry and everyone else playing the part of a spectator.
• Decisions were made by a consensus vote rather than the leadership or elected committee.

If we look at this picture we see that there is a difference in the "form" that the church takes. Architecture tells us that "form" dictates "function." For example if you are designing a building for a family to live in, the form of that building needs to help the family to function as a family. Where ever you go around the world you will find that the living areas of families vary tremendously, but they have the same basic forms. You will find: a sleeping area, a food preparation area, an eating area, a relaxing area, a utility area and a sanitation area. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about a tented community like Native Americans or a high rise city area. The same basic form of family dwelling is recognisable, whether some of those areas are communal areas, outside, or all in the same room, they are all there.

It is clear that the form a thing takes is very elastic to perform its function. We could argue that as long as decisions are being made, as long as ministry is taking place, as long as the last supper is being remembered it really doesn't matter what form it takes.

We would have to argue that in order to adhere to the church we have today. Some people are so determined that what we have today is better than what they had then that it makes me wonder why. Who benefits? There is a saying that people do what works - they get payoffs! Who is getting what payoffs? Is it the "ministers" who are getting status, celebrity and income? Is the the people who can turn up and be done to rather than put the effort in? Is it that they can have a religion of introspection rather than fellowship? These would be the logical payoffs of changing the form so dramatically from the original blueprint.

If I were designing a car to transport a family and put wings and a propeller on it you would say that's an aeroplane, not a car! The form has changed so the function has changed as well.

The clear functions of the early church blueprint were to create fellowship, a true sense of belonging to a family, the size and geography of which was manageable ( Not many people can have close fellowship with 500 of their best friends!!) There was protection against "strong leaders" in everyone having a vote. Everyone was encouraged and enabled to develop in sharing in ministry. So that was the function of the early church, and that is a contrast to the function of the church today!