In another place I just read a contribution that got me thinking about models of church; in it the author makes an interesting observation – that as much as people say that the “church” is not a place (i.e. the building), their actions or reactions on the ground say otherwise. A number of friends are pastors and priests in other denominations and the stories they tell about the scandal, and fear, and downright aggression expressed when moving or refurbishing a part of the church building is planned or suggested are on one hand hysterically funny – until you put it into context. “Church” for many people IS the place, and because that place is sacred, changing elements in that place can be very emotional, and in extreme examples tantamount to changing the faith itself.

In my own experience serving in communities in the states, and struggling to build one here in the UK – the idea of “church” as place is, it seems hard-wired into our thinking about the experience of our faith community, worship, and the sacraments. When I was ordained I specifically asked to be ordained outside – in the woods. My friends thought it was a bit odd, but once they got over the awkwardness, enjoyed it. When trying to organise a community event that included a liturgy, I found that more people would come if they new that the liturgy would be celebrated in a “church” rather than say, in a park, or someone’s home. Here in the UK, what is awkward, or odd to American believers is basically decried as heathen. If you don’t have a “church” no-one comes (at least not without first making your community jump through 3 dozen hoops).

I have also observed over the years the comedy of OC/IC folk starting a mission and then, throwing themselves into fund-raising to acquire a building. Worse still, people coming to me, seeking ordination and promising to build “me” a cathedral – only to be horrified when I tell them “No thanks, we’re not interested.”

Jesus did not have a building. He did not teach us that where two or three are gathered in a properly constructed building there am I.

The flip side of the admittedly un-scientific observation that people, regardless of what they say constitutes “church” only see “church” realised in buildings, is the fallacy of “build it and they will come”. 75 years ago, perhaps, when a church went up in an area people would come with little thought for the need for outreach. Now, as the lesson of mega-churches shows, if you want to build it and have them come, you’ve got to do some serious demographic work in advance.

The large part of what goes into creating such a place is very impersonal. It is, in a way, and extreme expression of church as place. What is more, it is a fairly accurate reflection of the ways we function in our contemporary Euro-American society. When was the last time you dealt face to face with a human bank teller? I can remember as late as my early teens knowing all the tellers in my local bank by name. How often do you order books, groceries, clothes, and music online? Do you know your GP? Here in the UK the era of knowing your healthcare workers is long gone; in the US healthcare is governed by HMO’s and Insurance companies whose accountants, in glass high-rise office blocks in Louisville, New York and Chicago determine the treatment plan for someone in McKeesport, Bryn Mawr, Baltimore, and Fort Ross. Church as place is impersonal, safe, and free of the entanglements of relationships.

Historically, our base of operation is the place “church” but in an era when the local parish church no longer serves as the heart of the community, here in the UK largely because the entire concept of community is quite quite dead, and there in the US it appears to be wilting a bit. Now we need to think of a new base of operation if we are to overcome the entropy of our hard-wired image of church as “place”.

I’ve already mentioned that in his definition of “church” Jesus did not mention a place, or a structure, rather it was the relationships among people who have appropriated his teaching. Where two or more are gathered; this is a network of people bound by a common relationship. “Network” is the new “church” . . . or rather, the old model re-discovered.

What is different here? The old model, church as place sits there, demanding that you come to it. The new model is fluid, it is not bounded space, rather it is a free, unbounded network of relationships. Change, development, growth, contraction, these are all hard-wired into the “network” allowing it to adapt, learn, and survive.

Jesus’ network moved with him – it grew and contracted as he went from place to place, encountering new people, expounding upon new situations. Where he was – there was the church. Now, post-ascension we have the Advocate who flows freely among believers and non-believers alike, urging, encouraging, planting seeds. More importantly, we have “one another”. Paul teaches us that in order for our network to be effective we must be of service to one another, just as Christ served us.

While it is the case that people witnessed and experienced the life and vision of Jesus’ network in the Gospels, the overarching example is the simple fact that Jesus took the network to the people, rather than remaining in a stationary spot expecting that they would come to him. Moreover, in this, our re-discovered old model of “church” Jesus commissions the members of the network to go out among the people and create additional links, and even new networks.

Our OC/IC tradition is perfectly placed to function using the Network model. It is true that we already, often unconsciously work within this model. I have noticed though that we often make excuses for it, we are uncomfortable with it because it is not the expected model of church – it is not founded on a place, rather it is founded on something far less physically tangible – our relationships with one another, and with Christ. The result is, that while many of our communities work by and large within the Network model, we try very hard to hybridise it with the old, church as place model; resulting in some pretty comical situations – such a community of five people trying to raise money for a “cathedral” that will accommodate 150; pictures on web pages of gothic cathedrals, stained glass windows, and glorious 19th century altars for a community of 15 that meets in a basement room of the local Methodist church.

I have previously written about our inherited culture, and how this can both hinder and hurt our OC/IC mission. Church as place is one of these elements that is surplus to requirements – it is in fact a millstone around our neck, and should be abandoned.

If we consciously, actively, appropriate the model of church as Network, and abandon the old model of church as place, I believe it will be a liberating breath of fresh air for many of our communities – to openly celebrate what is, develop what is, and thrive within the context of what is, rather than to struggle to emulate what is not. If we actively see our participation in our OC/IC communities as a living network, then I can see our communities enduring over time. Networking, however, demands that we – each of us – go to the other, the stranger, and forge links with them, to be a true apostle of the Gospel.