Jim Peterson's Church Without Walls: Moving Beyond Traditional Boundaries is a noble but flawed attempt to breathe new life into every member of the church for the purpose of bearing witness of Christ to the world.

There is no problem with his two-fold thesis - that "God's people are in the world to bear witness to the world" and that this is to be accomplished by every member, not just by professional clergy (225). The problem lies with his simplistic analysis of church history. He is intent on showing that institutions are lifeless and only Christians freed from the yoke of any church structure have the freedom to truly minister as God intends. This anti-organizational impulse distorts most of what he has to say.

The problem begins with his analysis of contemporary culture. In his analysis of the six influences currently shaping America he demonstrates his complete misunderstanding of the postmodern mind. Like many conservative evangelicals, he mistakes postmodernity for relativism. For example, he states that "since [the postmodern person believes that] reason is inadequate, truth is beyond our grasp. Ergo, truth becomes relative" (38). Does this logically follow? Postmoderns recognize the limitations of the intellect. They recognize that objective neutrality is an illusion that no one can achieve. This does not negate the possibility of truth that is external to the knower, it simply demonstrates that our knowledge of that truth is always finite, limited, partial, and biased.

Later in the book he says this about postmodern people: "There is nothing in this approach to truth that encourages, or even permits, the big questions: What is the purpose of life? Why am I here? Why is there suffering? What is the meaning of salvation? The postmodern person avoids such questions as being out-of-bounds." (181). This is a complete misrepresentation of the postmodern mind.

An Overly Negative View of Tradition

Not only does Peterson deal with the present poorly, he does the same with the past. According to Peterson, our every problem comes from the Church Fathers. Indeed, at times, I felt like I was reading The Trail of Blood. Peterson has very little positive to say about the Fathers.

Peterson blames the problems of the American church on Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine (64). He has very little to say about their positive contributions. What about what they got right?

He mistakenly limits the phrase "Church Fathers" to "the writers of Christian literature who immediately succeeded the Twelve (AD 95-150)" (88). This describes the "Apostolic Fathers." The Church Fathers extend into the eighth century.

He blames Ignatius for shifting paradigms: "from church as community to church as institution" (90). This is anachronistic. We can't read our large institutions into Ignatius' desire for sound leadership. We must remember that Ignatius was seeking to preserve a still-relatively small movement through sound and reliable leadership. Remember: Ignatius wrote his letters on the way to being martyred!

He goes on: "Cyprian, like those who went before him, believed that the solutions lay in the institutionalization of the church" (91). Peterson blames the Fathers for creating a "caste system": The "Church Fathers... divided God's people into two castes: laity and clergy. We have lived with this caste system ever since? (165).

For some reason that I can't understand, Peterson also disparages any idea of a "universal church." "The concept of a universal church, which began with Ignatius, was advocated by Irenaeus, and more clearly defined by Cyprian, was fully articulated by Augustine" (94). The error in this statement is obvious. The concept of a universal church did not begin with Ignatius - it began with Jesus and Paul.

His final blow against the Church Fathers is amazing to me. Because of the Fathers, "Christianity had become in many striking ways a mirror-image of the empire itself. It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalist" (96). With the exception of "legalistic," is there anything wrong with this list? Shouldn't all the other qualities define the church? And wouldn't Peterson's desire for a more cultural-sensitive church be more possible by admitting that the church is "catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, and multi-racial"?

Peterson's negativity for the Church Fathers is matched by his overly ideal view of the first century church. He writes, "Things got tense at times, and were it not for the humility of the leaders, the differences could have generated serious conflicts" (83). In his analysis, he completely brushes over the Hebrew/Hellenistic widows' argument in Acts 6. He also quickly dismisses Peter and Paul's argument that resulted in Paul's writing of Galatians.

Peterson's Agenda

Peterson clearly has an agenda and he constructs a history to support it. He despises institutions. According to him, both Jesus and Paul did as well.

Peterson advocates that "Jesus never said or did anything to indicate that structure and organization could serve to protect God's people" (95). Yet, Jesus called his church to visible unity (John 17).

According to Peterson, Paul "did not attempt to institute a protective organization" (95). Yet, Paul advocates elders and deacons. Indeed, he commands Timothy to make sure the right ones are chosen. Sounds like structure to me.

One cannot have an organism without organization. Certainly, structures must support spirituality, but spirituality without structure is disembodied. It sounds good in theory, but it has no bite, because it has no teeth with which to bite.

Conclusion

I find this book well-intended but extremely flawed. I believe that the church exists in order to reach out and that every member plays a role, but I don't believe that this calls for throwing stones at organization and structure.

Peterson attempts to remain balanced and occasionally does so ("we need to hold to our heritage while pioneering new forms of ministry, to preserve our traditions while being free from their control," 220), but the majority of his book is imbalanced.

[One final note: I find it interesting that in a book where the author is trying to create common ground and remove cultural binders he makes a statement such as this: "the major religions hold nothing in common by way of belief" (183). It is this kind of simplistic analysis that marks this book.]