Where Two or Three Are Networked: Toward a Rhizomatic Vision of Church

Allow me to nerd out on this post.

I have been researching the book of Acts, examining the early church as a model of a rhizome. This is a valuable framework for understanding the concept of the ‘rhizome’ introduced by philosopher Gilles Deleuze. He defines a rhizome as a structure where ‘any point… can be connected to anything other and must be.’ The ongoing debates about what constitutes ‘church’ within both modernist and postmodernist discussions reveal a structural and organizational bias rooted in hierarchical and binary thinking. I believe a conversation around the meaning of ‘church’ is essential for the Church in the United States today.

We often find ourselves debating whether churches are too large or too small. Ultimately, it's not just about the size but also about what Deleuze describes as ‘lines of flight’—the dynamics of movement and growth that matter. We oscillate between the megachurches that resemble entertaining theaters—the ‘Jesus show’—and the house churches that can become stagnant in their domesticity. But what if we explored the concept of a rhizome church? It's important to recognize that Deleuze and Guattari emphasized decentralization and dispossession. I use the term ‘rhizome church’ to describe a vibrant and evolving network that is interconnected and transformative, operating on a global scale.

The rhizome church embodies an incarnational approach, enabling the transformative presence of Christ to ‘indigenize’ in relational contexts, without solely focusing on traditional ‘Christian’ activities. The rhizomatic idea of ‘where two or three are gathered together’ becomes increasingly relevant in this context.

Deleuze introduced the notion of the ‘rhizome’ to encourage a ‘new image of thought,’ particularly in relation to signs, concepts, and our understanding of history and interpretation. As Geoff Holsclaw aptly notes, ‘because we live in a global world, we inhabit an ever-configuring space of rhizomatic processes.’ We truly need a fresh perspective in ecclesiology today, and he is absolutely right.