But is it 'church'?

Thom Rainer and and Eric Geiger believe a common theme unites churches that are growing numerically and, more importantly, developing better disciples. Surveys distributed to churches of varying size, denomination, and structure, revealed that simplicity captures the process these "vibrant" churches have for creating disciples, meaning the discipleship process is clear, sequenced, aligned, and focused. The result is the helpful and readable book Simple Church.

Two things struck me as I read the book, however. First, it's not really that simple. Movement is still complex and requires explanation. While I think the vibrant churches are simpler than others, and appreciated the book's desire to make this clear, I was not blown away by how simple church could be. Second, and related to the first, the authors seem to assume we all know what church is. While reading the book's descriptions, I kept asking myself, "But is that church? Could Peter or Paul have ever imagined the church being that?"

The answer, I think, is no. 1st century Jews could never have imagined that that's what the church could become. I think they would see it as a good thing with lots of potential and possible traps and encourage people to be involved with them, but would not call it church. Church is much deeper, better, tougher, and much less safe. As a result, I wonder if a different category is necessary for the institutional church? (Which, again, I think is a good thing--after all, I work for one!) In the end, Geiger and Rainer have written a helpful book to help ______s become simple. They show how ______s can be more effective. I just don't know if what they are talking to are churches.