Just finished reading James Rutz’ “Megashift“. Boy does this book open “cans a worms”! Comments flying around in the blogosphere all over the place and everyone seems to be taking flack! Not that this book “open” cans of worms, but rather Jim Rutz does strike a nerve with many - he seems to be speaking into an issue that is in fact crucial but that, I think is camouflaged and diluted by many with too much of a focus on external methods, shapes, formats and “packaging”. To use an analogy that a friend once told me, there seems to be a lot of focus on the franchise, not enough on the product.
Larry Silverman thinks that this is the “Great Debate“…the battle cry of the hour, that will pass when juicer debates and battle cries emerge. This is an opinion that I highly respect, not least because he is an instrumental voice within the house church movement itself, being a house church planter par excellence.
Noted Kingdom Rain author and theologian Don Williams of the Vineyard identifies the similar vein in the “no church, no problem?” article on his website and does highlight several very pertinent points.
An important voice within “Emerging” circles is “Tall Skinny Kiwi” Andrew Jones, who blogs his impressions/reviews of the book here and here.
Another review online is found within the forums of the revival/renewal website “Open Heaven” can be found here.
Now for my personal review:
Overall the book is a good read - I certainly enjoyed it and would recommend it to any discerning reader. I found it an excellent “Chronicle” of what God is doing worldwide. Jim Rutz certainly seems to have done a colossal amount of research for this volume, and the testimonies described in it are just faith-building fire starters!
The main strength of the book in my opinion lies in his portrayal of the priesthood of the believer, and the calling of the saints to “do the work of the ministry”. Another strength lies in advocating the flexibility of the new wineskin, and each believer’s involvement in what God is doing nowadays.
However the main drawbacks in my opinion lie in the general overtone of the book. For someone who is proposing an alternative to “structured” Christianity, he certainly places a heck of a lot of emphasis on the alternative structure, with too much emphasis on the way in which we are supposed to “do” church. I fear that some will just find in the book a voice piece for rebellion, or at least lack of honouring, of leadership within existing churches. He freely borrows from examples in which God has moved wonderfully in “traditional” churches, and then somehow manages to use that in order to bolster his ideas towards a new paradigm. I found that convenient licence on his part. Also one gets the impression that all you have to do is adopt their style and structure of meetings, and life, growth, miracles etc. will automatically flow from that. Although I certainly believe that having flexibility within the wineskin can aid and encourage believers to move in the Spirit, I believe that our emphasis should be more on the New Wine than on the “wineskin.”
All in all I do believe that this book can speak into our situations, visions, and yes, even our churches traditional or no. I applaud Jim Rutz’ line on how traditional churches could spawn church planting movements and open church networks. Somehow I believe that this is a key. In a thought-provoking paper called “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission” [PDF] noted missions veteran Ralph Winter explores the underlying theme of “Modality” versus “Sodality” that the Megashift book also deals with (but unfortunately does not identify expressly). Looking into the way in which monastic communities spread the gospel throughout church history, one sees that it is not an either-or option, but ideally a combination of both. Much more could have and should have been explored in his book regarding this link.
The lessons I’ve learnt.
How can apply this book’s message in my church/ministry? I think that what many people find appealing in Jim’s book is the tearing down of any clergy/laity ‘positional’ (not functional) distinction. The appeal is for an involvement in the “work of the ministry” – As John Wimber, late founder of the Vineyards Movement, and a voice declaring the Kingdom of God, used to say “Everybody gets to play”.
I see a great opportunity for participatory ministry in our church’s small groups – although I would like to see a lot of this ministry happening outside of the “meetings” altogether and taking on more of a “to the streets” nature. Sunday celebration meetings would therefore by necessity take on more of an “equipping” nature, imparting and equipping the saints to go out there and do the stuff.
John, just found your blog and am glad I did. (I’m glad you’re a Bill Johnson fan!)
I agree with your issue with Rutz’s book. I’ve read it and love his accounts of what God is doing worldwide, and his worldview that is also the worldview of Johnson, Heidi Baker and others who are actually moving in God’s power and seeing massive social changes occur as a result.
I think Rutz kinda “bolted on” the house-church part, as though the Spirit *must* do things this way, just because we’re in a new generation that doesn’t seem to like the current church presentation. I’m not convinced, even though I believe God has me on a path toward house church.
In the USA, I think too many people are attracted to house church not because they’ve had an Act 2 experience that overflows into their daily lives, but rather because they have been hurt by, or upset with, the typical church structure. As you’ve stated on this blog, there’s nothing special about a house-church structure by itself — traditional churches can decentralize through cell groups, and have the same success, while also providing resources that are beyond the reach of isolated house churches. Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church is a good example of this.
The key, as you’ve stated, is listening to the Spirit, not simply deciding on a church structure.
Example: An acquaintance doing “missional” work in a Washington DC suburb was hoping to start a traditional church of “unchurched” professionals - but found they were so exhausted by their daily commute and job stresses, that his “target group” didn’t want to go out to church meetings. He stumbled into a house-church structure just to serve this group. He found they’d be willing to meet an someone’s neighborhood home, or a condo’s activities building - anything they could walk to in about 5 -10 minutes. No way did they want to get back in their cars, after getting home!
@Don: Hey Don thanks for stopping-by and for your input. I certainly aggree with everything you say - everything boils down to the motivation that people have in flowing with a Househcurch model. Many do it because they are REACTING against something (Abuse, Control, Legalism, etc) that they have encountered in a traditional church rather than RESPONDING to a specific leading of God. This is not a universal judgement, its just something that I have observed along the way, having fellowshiped for the most part in a “housechurch” stream myself for years. That same thought rings true for those in traditional churches too - everything boils down to the motivation and intent of the heart behind it. They key is, like you say, to have “an Act 2 experience that overflows into [our]daily lives” - Everything else will flow out of that present reality.
I love your testimony regarding your aquaintance’s “mission” - Great God-story!
Bless you bro!