Form vs. Function

The book Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (BarnaBooks,2008) by Frank Viola and George Barna makes for interesting discussion about the things we do in church. The book states that “a great deal of what we Christiansdo for Sunday morning church did not come from Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the Scriptures. Nor did it come from Judaism.” Viola traces many of the church’s methods to pagan roots.



The point is well made by the authors, but is not problematic for me. My response is “OK. So what?” In other words, it should not be surprising to us that many of the things we do in the church are not directly tied to some form of worship from the Christians in the first century. A Biblical view of church methodology helps us understand that the way we do things is really not most important. It can be summarized in Jesus’ statement when he said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). On this occasion (and amultitude of other occasions) Jesus was pointing out that the superficial and external things we do are not most important. It’s the meaning and values behind them that matter.

The discussion marks the difference between form and function. Form includes such things as structure, systems, methods, and programs... i.e. ways of doing things. Function on the other hand means intended purpose. In ministry, form should always follow function. We should never allow the way we do things to dictate purpose. For example, an architect designs a home with an intended function. The function (purpose) mandates a certain form. The designer tells the home how it will be formed- not the other way around.

The problem occurs when the form of the home already exists and yet a different function needs to occur- possibly a function that does not fit within the existing form.When this takes place, it’s time for renovation! Moving walls, replacing furniture, expanding rooms, etc. This is when function demands change in form. In the church, this can be a painful process.

The reason? We are quick to marry ourselves to methods. There is something within us all that is willing to adhere to the symbolic and superficial even over thesubstantial. Christians are notorious for becoming wrapped up in the way they do things- often at the expense of forgetting intended purpose. Just like the Pharisees, we tie our identities to forms of worship and if we’re not careful,we begin to equate the way we do things to the actual substance of our relationship to God. So the way we sing, the way we dress, the way we preach is “the right way” for God to be experienced. Methods then become our very identities as the people of God.

While forms have value, the ways of doing things are just that. So, when the actual method undermines the intended purpose to be accomplished, the time for change has arrived….not always a change is needed in the method, but rather in the mindset one holds about that method (i.e. the need to remember the intended purpose of the method).

Contemporary churches that are merely reacting to traditional forms can be guilty of the very things they charge traditional churches of- a dysfunctional connection to form. In this sense, even contemporary churches become quite intolerant of change…that’s because they have traded one set of traditions for another and done so without understanding the role of method in church life.

So unfortunately, for many Christian churches method becomes “methodolatry”; programs become “purpose”, and forms begin to take on characteristics offunction. The line between the two becomes blurred and thus men must submit themselves to the traditions of the Sabbath… even if it undermines the purposes of God. This may be true for both traditional and non-traditional churches.

But while Viola’s and Barna’s book has value for questioning our assumptions about methodsin church life, I also believe they may produce an unintended effect. In the process of stating that current church practices are not traced to Biblical foundations, they may cause leaders who read the book to commit the very crime they are condemning. Quite possibly they are communicating by their focus on form, that form is most important.

While I believe that many current forms may not inherently be what was practiced in the1st century, the function behind many of the things we do are Biblical in purpose. Pick a trend — megachurches, seeker churches, satellite campuses, emergent churches, vacationBible school, children’s church, affinity group ministries, contemporary worship music, big-screen projection systems, EFT giving, cell groups, downloadable sermons, sermon outlines in bulletins, etc. Or pick a tradition-hymnals, organ music, choir robes, pews, stained glass, dresses and suits forworship, etc. None of the above- whether traditional or contemporary- are wrong because of their inherent form.

Rather, good and godly worship can take place in all these forms. It’s what we bring to these forms that matters most.