In 1982, my husband and I, along with more than a dozen other young adults, were commissioned by our church (a big thriving Seattle church) to go to a small, aging congregation to try to help revitalize it. We, the younger crowd, felt that the first thing to do was to start small groups that would meet in people’s homes. The older crowd at our new church, mostly born in the first two decades of the twentieth century, thought Bible studies and prayer were a good idea, but they felt that all small groups should meet in the church building. They wondered how church leaders can exercise influence over what people believe and think if people are meeting in homes. As you can imagine, their attitude precipitated a lot of discussion about how and where God works and how and where church activities can and should happen.
In recent decades, I have observed a significant shift among Christians as they talk about where God works. We understand more clearly now that God works beyond the walls of a church building. And we see that God works even beyond what we consider to be the Christian community. I don’t know if any of you have seen the musical “Les Miz,” but there’s a line in it that has shaped popular thinking: “To love another person is to see the face of God.” That line has some truth in it. But how much truth?
I want you to think hard about how you define church. The definition that Tim proposed last night in the audioconference – the church is any group of people gathered to talk what matters to them (my paraphrase) – goes too far for me. In my view, the church has to have some commitment to Christ. However, it’s clear that the popular understanding of church has changed dramatically in the past one or two generations. We no longer believe an activity has to take place in a church building in order to be called church.
So spend some time pondering. Are the people gathered at Parachute the church? Or part of the church? Or an outreach from the church? Is a home group the church? Or only part of a larger church? Some of you talked last night about Christian practices or sacraments being necessary for a group of people to be considered the church. Which Christian practices do you believe to be essential for the church?
I recently heard a British man talk about the mission-shaped church movement called “fresh expressions” that is attached to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office in the UK. He showed videos and slides of several “churches” that have been funded by the fresh expressions movement. One was a youth center with skateboard ramps. One was a group of people who gather once a week to bake bread and then eat it together. Both had arisen after ministers walked the streets of their community to try to figure out what that particular community needed as a gathering place centered around people’s spiritual needs. It was clear to me that the leaders of these two fresh expression churches were deeply motivated by Christ’s love, but it wasn’t clear how prominent Jesus was in the actual functioning of each church. So it made me wonder, in the same way that Tim’s definition of church makes me wonder, to what extent and in what ways does the place of Jesus need to be central in order for a gathering to be called "church"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Roly Scott writes:
Week 1
This blog is one week late (is there forgiveness in this paper too), I didn't read all I needed to read before starting the course because I thought 'all I really needed to know I learned in kindergarten' to paraphrase Robert Fulghum. I'd like to comment on Lynne's comments on what maintenance looks like. After 25 years in the one church, it's my observation that maintenance takes on a number of personas:
1) The 'but we've always held the annual meeting this way' persona - we've never done it this way before. This came up recently when we slotted the Annual Meeting in to a wider occasion
2) The 'this is war' persona over the choice of music and or instruments. Why some cannot see that once the hymns they love were new and threatening I will never know.
3) The 'they're not our kind of people' persona when someone strange or different comes along.
I'm not saying these are all present in my congregation but I have observed them. I'd also like to say that issue Lynne raised about the prayers people offer for the congregation is a great measure of the focus of the community also. It seems to me that often people with a missional focus are prepared to be adventurous, they accept diversity and variety in music and their praying has a wide vision.
Week 2
Starting with the people’s view of God - I like the way Newbigin speaks about ‘His mission’. And when he writes ‘one of the dangers of emphasizing the concept of mission as a made given to the Church it tempts us to …see the world of mission as a good work.’ It seems that in so many there is this tendency to adopt a religion of works. It’s not just the other ‘religions’ but it’s also possible in a Christian response to be guilty of the same thing. But mission starts with God not us and when Newbigin goes on to say the mission of the church can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian model it makes sense. Mission and missions begin with God. As Newbigin says ‘the beginning of mission is not an action of ours, but the presence of a new reality, the presence of the Spirit of God in power.’ I find great comfort in this. We’re spending some weeks at church looking at the statement ‘Jesus is Unique’ We were encouraged to invite people to be part of this – only a few have responded and it’s so easy for us to feel we have failed and all that. But if we see the whole enterprise as God’s mission maybe we can get the monkey of failure off our collective backs. I’m not sure this leads to our being lazy or sit around waiting for God to do the mission but it does give a healthier perspective - healthier in that it doesn’t all depend on us.
During last night's conference I mentioned Newbigin’s “Mission as acted doxology” from the bottom of page 127 (coursebook). I like it as one definition of church because it captures praxis (what we actually do with what we think) and couples this to a moving body of Christian knowledge (doxology). For me the trick is not to fix either of these parts to anything too firm. Both praxis and doxology move with the wind (spirit perhaps) but there are ample resources within the community of faith (meaning catholic with a small “c”) to keep them from straying too far into hyper this or that’s. I have witnessed the church meet under a tree with a couple of guitars who pray for the sick in Jesus’ name, and I’ve attended tiny Requiem Masses with 5 participants and a casket in a old school hall were the Eucharist is offered as an acted doxology. Perhaps some have witnessed the like at Parachute (perhaps not a Requiem!)…
In my own reading over the last week I came across this article, which tied in nicely with the thinking and discussions around how to move an existing congregation from maintenance focus to missional focus. http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/instilling-missional-habits-in-a-congregation-as-you-walk-among-your-community/
I think the author identifies some good challenges facing particularly the evangelical church coming to grips with our ever-changing postmodern culture. My reservation on the article is that it is written along the lines of “do this, not this” – in other words, reinforces the polarisation between maintenance and missional as preferred practice. So I was interested to hear Lynn’s comments on Mon night saying this was one of her irritations with the ‘missional church’ type discussions. I think there is a lot to be valued in the traditional church models, and for me the move to be missional is a tension between stepping out in faith to something that is radically different but not at the same time abandoning what is good and life-giving – in other words, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On that note, I’m a fan of Jon Birch’s Abso-Jesus Cartoons… and this one illustrates that point:
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/12/
and this one seems to speak into the discussion of how to define church:
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/582/
and for those who think it’s all a bit semantic, this one:
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/1691/
Commenting on "more thoughts on what is church", we must not lose sight of what Paul writes in Colossians 1:24 "...for the sake of His body which is the church" and in Romans 12:5 "...so in Christ we who are many, form one body". the church is the body of Christ and God reconciles the world unto Himself through Christ. So, if Christ is not central to the mission and the very existence of the church, then we have already lost the plot. Many years ago a wise mentor in my ministry told me that if a sermon can stand after Christ has been taken out of it, it was no good. We must not think that we ourselves can offer people anything. They need to meet with Christ. Back in South Africa where I originally come from, some "church" leaders took part in an exercise of "Truth and Reconciliation" The only problem is, they got rid of Christ and did it on a purely human level. The result was simply more hatred, more bitterness, more resentment. The ministry of reconciliation is primarily about God reconciling us to Himself in Christ and then as a result of being reconciled with Him, we are reconciled with each other. In my view Christ must always be the central focus of the mission of the church.
Ruth Johnston writes:
I have been mulling over the question as to what is church. At it’s root I agree with Tim that we could use this word to describe any group of like- minded people but we are stuck with the fact that Paul used the ordinary word ecclesia to describe the faith communities that were forming in the first century and, over time it has come to have the dual meaning of both place of worship and people who worship Jesus. And thereby, I suspect, follows our dilemma – we still confuse or conflate the two meanings. I would also postulate that there can be confusion between being church and doing church – the latter being what we do, generally , on a Sunday morning within set parameters of time, while being church can be any place anytime. Question, is it any less church on a Monday morning when I listen to somebody’s problems/questions in the office and together we sort out answers and pray together than it is church on a Sunday when we both share in a worship service?
I would like to agree that church is any size of group of believers and seekers who gather together any place any time – from 3 people walking on the beach to thousands in a town hall – manifestly neither venue is a church (in the building sense) however, the question that stops me saying this is – where does classifying church as a gathering of people leave those who, for whatever reason, are prevented from gathering with other believers? Does that make them not part of church? Or do we need to remember that, like mission, the gathering is a work of God?
From Dellwyn Moylan:
Following Tim’s comment and Lynne’s paraphrasing of it on the blog “The church is any group of people gathered to talk about what matters to them” I have been thinking about what is the church. Tim’s comment does not sit comfortable with me because there seems to be nothing about faith in that, nothing about deepening relationships, looking out for each other, reaching out to those who are not part of that gathering which I believe are all important components that the church does or hopefully tries to do. But sometimes the church does appear just as this description says. They talk about things that are important to them but what about others in the church or the community and what is important to them? In my course of studies I began to ask people in the parish questions related to the topics I was studying. In most case both ‘Joe average in the pew’ and elders had no idea of what I was talking about and say go ask the Minister. In particularly in the case of the elders I am concerned with this lack of understanding. They can sometimes only engage superficially with spiritual matters but can talk at great length and knowledge on things they see as very important and worth discussing such as a game of rugby. (I appreciate that this is a very general statement)
For some time now I have been really interested in how work and faith sit together. This was inspired by a book called “Where is God on Monday”[1]. It challenged me to think and explore the link if there was between what happens on Sunday at worship and how this inspires and equips us be people of faith outside the service of worship in what every place we are called to be at work, in leisure, in the church, with our families, in retirement, unemployment etc.
The sermon at church on Sunday evening was about marriage. We were told that there are more secular weddings now than in the past but often they still want some Christian content. There is more marriage ceremonies happening outside the ‘church’ but they still often want the Minister to officiate not a celebrant.[2] What is this telling us about how people view the church and what they want in their life and why is it important to have some Christian content in a marriage ceremony or have a Minister officiate?
A question that comes to mind in thinking about those gathering outside of the church and are they still are church is “what about those who gather in the church(and I am using church here as in the church building) but don’t always subscribe and believe in the foundation doctrines and fundamental beliefs of the Church (by church here I mean their denomination or the Holy Catholic Church)?
[1] Wayne Kirkland and Alistair MacKenzie, "Where is God on Monday?". Lawrence Allpress , NavPress NZ Ltd , Christchurch, New Zealand
[2] This was for our denomination and in particular our parish
As we have been asking the question, ‘what is the church’ I was drawn to a conversation I had with a friend when I was about twenty three. I can distinctly defending myself for going night clubbing. My friend was very against the idea that I had been, so I said to him that I went as a Christian to share the gospel: now this was not what I did when I was there. Reflecting on this I think the church is not only a group of people who have faith in Christ, but we are also a group of people who are being transformed by Christ and whose transformation overflows into the world. Therefore I don’t agree with Tim inasmuch as “a church is any group of people gathered to talk about what matters to them”, but I do agree that the church is a group of people gathered together to talk about and worship and obey (out of Joy) Jesus Christ. Going back to my experience if I had gone to the night club with this understanding, and with a few other Christians with the same understanding, then maybe we could have influenced the people there in a positive way. Maybe we could have helped someone who had been overly indulgent in the amount of drink they had consumed. Maybe we could have modeled that you don’t need to get drunk to have fun.
I like what Bosch has to say about the church. He states that “the Christian Church is involved in a ministry of mission among the nations because of its symbiotic existence in Christ.” What a brilliant word, symbiotic, the church can’t exist without Christ. He goes on further to say “People are baptized into and put on Christ in the church. Christian mission, accordingly, means the building of an intersubjective and interdependent community of those who share a common destiny, the eschatological kingdom of God. “
If we break this down then, I believe that the church is a people with a common destiny, who exist because of Christ, who have been baptized into Christ, who are being transformed and who can in that light gather anywhere, but out of concern for those on the margins, they will share the good news of Christ and the Kingdom of God in word and action.
Blog – Responses to Blogs by Lynne Baab, Craig Braun, Jennie, Roly Scott - What is the Church?
Craig Braun’s take on Newbigin’s view of Mission as an acted doxology as a definition of church is interesting. More interesting is his point about not fixing doxology and praxis – in my view our living Christian experience – on permanent structures. I agree. I also looked at the same parts of the Newbigin reading that Roly Scott quoted in the blog (p 119-20 of Newbigin, p 106-7 CB). I would like to look at Newbigin’s emphasis on the word power in the quote, “.........the presence of a new reality, the presence of the Spirit of God in power.”
Newbigin focuses a little on how the power of the Spirit has drawn men and women to Himself in countries, such as China and the Soviet Union, that have crushed the church. I think of St Paul’s words to the Corinthian Church that he came (to them) in demonstration of the spirit and of the power of God so that their faith should not rest on the wisdom of people but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:1-4). This is an interesting concept to me, one which is sparsely talked about in the approach to the church’s approach to its outward mission. The mission seems to be a cultural cultivation. I am wondering where and what place does the power that Newbigin and St Paul refers to in our approach to mission and church today.
I also had a look at the ASBO Jesus cartoon Jennie posted (the link to) and it is very appropriate. There is a fine line between throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our new approaches and remaining the same to the point of extinction. I remain cautious too that our new approaches to cultural immersion may mean leaving behind the sacramental foundation or what is sacred about the church. Indeed that is what I think Newbigin is referring to that we can only really understand the church “in terms of the Trinitarian model.” He adds in the same page that, “In the Church the mission of Jesus is continue in the same veiled form.” (p118 Newbigin, 106 CB). There are those words, form and model. Therefore in my view, the church should be change outwardly according to mood and fashion of the time whilst at the same time firmly fixed to the non-negotiable firm foundation of what the church should be. I am not reneging on my agreement with Craig as noted earlier. I think Craig is referring to spiritual fashion of the time becoming the firm fixtures away from the foundation.
This is the reason why I, like Lynne Baab and others, have difficulty with Tim’s view of church because it is far removed from the sacred that the form and Trinitarian model Newbigin proposes among others. Given that we didn’t hear Tim in full.
Seti Afoa
I really liked what Ruth said about the church as both a place and a people who gather together any place and any time. I actually asked a few Christians what they thought the church was. Some gravitated to a location or building while others spoke in terms of denominational distinctive. The most interesting was from a younger person. She saw the church as the people of God continually connecting with Christ and his mission in a faith community. I liked the fact that the concept of connection, community and mission are elevated in the discussion but remain Christ centred. I am enjoying the different blogs on the church but am left wondering how important are the traditional marks of the church in the discussion. Historically, baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the preaching of the word have been integral to any definition of the church.
I was interested during the audio conference at my unwillingness to suggest a definition of church. Perhaps, as Anderson suggests, in a post modern world giving a definition of church is as politically incorrect as mission. For fear of excluding or of imposing our truth over another we prefer to avoid definition. However at some point, despite the discomfort this may cause, the church does need to own that which makes it unique - otherwise church is no different from any other human social gathering. That uniqueness is Christ, not simply the historical phenomenon of Jesus life and death, but also that the church participates in the continuing life of the risen Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. The experience of God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, draws us to respond. Resting in the experience is insufficient for discipleship; there is also this ‘requirement’ of response. Is this not the basis of covenantal relationship, the gift of grace which is evidenced in the life of transformed communities?
Church has been identified as a community of such response. Like every community that is comprised of humans it is subject to human frailty and falls far short of living as a transformed community, as Douglas Hall in his book Setting the Gospel Free writes,” The church, like every institution, tends to gravitate toward what seems solid, permanent, and therefore secure. Without meaning to ... those who constitute the church substitute form – program, theology, disciplines, words and concepts of the faith – for the real thing. ... We put artificial conditions, such as correct belief and behaviour, upon God’s presence in our lives … All of this creates the impression that the church possesses something mysterious and special that does not exist in the rest of life ... if we as believers want to possess it, we too must adopt the closed system.”p20
Hall’s argument is that church does not have to be this way, recalling a conversation with a monk Hall later writes, “life in the monastery was just like any other life. The only difference is that in the monastery they put a frame around it. They name it holy and look at it through the lens of God’s presence. That’s all. That is what a parish does. We go through the ordinary activities one finds elsewhere … and then we put a frame around it. We look at this ordinariness through the frame of theology, symbols and liturgy. Looking for God’s presence, we peek around the corners of the ordinary. Seeking Christ we stare through the icon of the every day. Theology, biblical stories, liturgy and the practice of prayer become thoroughly mixed in with life’s richness in the parish. This affects us. We become infused with the symbols and the language of faith. We are also surrounded by the depth and breadth, the suffering and the glory of this sacred life. Together, these two intermingled forces of symbol and life can change us over the years.”p.131
Jan Clark writes:
Like others I have been thinking about what characterises the church, and the relationship of ministry and mission. Belonging to the Anglican fold I began looking at the Catechism[1]. Questions 30-39 relate to the Church and Ministry. First describing the Church as it is found in the New Testament and the Creeds, then the mission of the church and how the mission is carried out, roles of orders (lay, and ordained) and purpose of ministry.
Key phrases seem to be; body of Christ, all the baptised as members, community of faith, fellowship of the Holy Spirit, one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Describing the mission of the Church; to proclaim the good news of God’s Kingdom, to make disciples, to work for justice and peace and to strive for reconciliation and healing in a broken world. This is achieved through the ministry of all its members as they continue Jesus servant ministry in the world.
None of these statements give a definitive shape to the Church, they offer values or marks by which a group can assess its life to see if it is consistent with the witness of the scriptures and Christian tradition. Martyn Atkins [2] suggests that the four classic marks of the Church have been helpfully reworked by some writers and offers a summary of Snyders additional ‘minor’ marks, alongside one (uniformity) he adds diverse, holy (apartness) he adds charismatic (anointedness), with catholic he brackets local (contextual) and with apostolic he includes prophetic (sentness). Like Stuart and Dellwyn I want to name a clear understanding that Christ is the glue, the inspiration, spark that gives life and purpose to the church. Free to find expression in diverse ways shaped by the mission of God as it is given life in various contexts.
One of the questions I have asked of the Fresh Expressions DVD’s with their examples of emerging churches is where is the worship, where is the focus on life around Christ? One of the working definitions of a fresh expression of church is; “it will have the potential to become a mature expression of church shaped by the gospel…” Croft[3] goes on to say that this is of course the goal for all churches but seems to be suggesting that this aspiration needs to be held alongside the questions of worship etc. The Spirit is leading, the emergent church is rooted and grounded in the new context and the mission of God will create diverse shapes and expressions of church. Good news of Jesus Christ (mission of God first) then church a dynamic living Spirit lead entity.
We are back to what Rowan Williams coined as the mixed economy church that arises because of the diverse cultures we find ourselves living amongst.
1 A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa, page 931-2
2 Mission-shaped Questions – defining issues for today’s Church, edited by Steven Croft. Page 26
3 Mission-shaped Questions page 10
Random thoughts about church (I have a short attention span ):
Jennie mentions the “non-negotiable firm foundation of what the church should be.” I wonder what they are. Grahame reports the traditional elements: baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and preaching of the word. This sounds good. I wonder though if church is really what our Lord intended if it does not include some kind of outward mission. I love Catherine’s phrase “a community of [such] response to the gift of grace.” Responding includes being and doing.
Our older youth group members (15 - 24) have just been studying the church. We've only had two sessions so far - have considered the body metaphor, and what spiritual needs church meets. I'd agree with Jim Kitchens when he talks about young people not wanting to send money or resources somewhere; they want to go! (p
Our Diocese is holding two community forums as part of our 150th year celebrations. We are cancelling our next study in order to participate in the Youth Forum. The young people want to be informed so we can actually do something as a Youth Group for the young people in our area.
Our group is the most exciting part of our ministry. We call it “Going Deeper”; not very original, but they certainly are taking me deeper into God and challenging my conceptions of what it means to be a Christian. I’m learning far more than I’m teaching!
btw One of the other aspects of our celebration is our Bishop’s walk/pilgrimage around the boundaries of the Diocese. It will take him 40 days. This has truly captured the imagination of many people – churched and otherwise. See his blog http://bishoprichard.wordpress.com/
Thank you Jennie for the reference to asbo-Jesus. I love this site! The cartoonist is extremely astute. Anything that provokes self-reflection in a light-hearted way is good with me!
As I look out our living room window at the homes and people of the community I live in I am reminded that one way or another the group of people I worship with, study the Bible with, pray with, laugh and have fun with, work with, sorrow with, come from all walks of life and have a wide range of beliefs. Some of them claim Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and some of them do not. Some of them join me in the church building down the road on a Sunday and many of them do not. Not all of them belong to the institution that is generally known as the church. Some would be most irritated if they were identified with the church.
Are they all the church? No, most definitely not! I agree with a number of others who have emphasised that the church is far more than merely agreeing on a point of interest. Christ, faith, worship, prayer, Scripture, fellowship, and I guess a bunch of other things as well are all wrapped up together to form the entity we call church. It’s a bit further down the track in our readings but Reggie McNeal talks about developing followers of Jesus. It is those followers of Jesus who form the church and who practice the signs of the church, those things that we are trying to capture in our description of the church.
I asked my daughter how she defined church and her reply was a s bricks in a building dependent on one another, different shapes , sizes and tasks and held together with the mortar of the Holy Spirit.
My definition insists on Christ as the head and the presence of a worshipping community, the body of Christ. There would need to be a set of core beliefs as well, emphasising belief in common rather than difference.
On reflection my definition could be taken as a maintenance church. A body is alive, and as Christ's body it is necessarily rooted in Jesus' life,death and resurrection.It is one body, so it reflects community. As Christ's body the church ought to be true to Christ's counter cultural ways, not subject to syncretism of western culture.It should be vital and passionate and capable of owning the suffering that necessarily comes with life lived to the full. It should be "real"
Kingsley Ponniah writes:
I have been fascinated with this discussion we are having on how we would define church and have appreciated all the perspectives that have emerged. The emphasis on people, which a number of people have mentioned in their contributions, is of primary importance for me also when attempting to define what the church is. I would consider the institutional structures and practices of the church as well as its physical location or facility of secondary importance in our understanding of church. But I would add that for a definition of church there also needs to be the idea of “meeting together” of those who profess (or desire to explore) faith in Jesus Christ and a wish to understand and live out his teaching in their daily lives. They do not have to meet in church premises or even come under the umbrella of any established church institution. But this meeting together for mutual accountability, support and encouragement is a necessary part of being church.
I have also always found it interesting that there is only one reference to church in Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels. This was when, at Caesarea Philippi he says to Peter…”I will build my church”. Jesus in his teaching spoke in terms of disciples or followers. I wonder if that’s where our emphasis in our understanding of church should also be. While we do have teaching in the NT about the church and we also need to recognize and appreciate how the church has evolved through its history and the reasons for its structures and protocols, we cannot lose sight of that call to follow Jesus. This then begs the question whether a Christian community that is focused on maintaining itself and fails to engage in Christ’s mission, which is at the centre of that call, can still be called a ‘church”. Perhaps we need to take a good look at the items that dominate the agendas at our parish, vestry and diocesan meetings and ask the question - Is this what being church really about?
Roly Scott writes:
It's hard to be original when I'm blogging at the end of the week. This morning as is my custom I went to church (because I'm paid to do so of course); or did I go to a building to meet with like-minded people (like a bunch of people meeting at the tavern) or was I getting involved in some kind ancient rite that has nothing to do with living in the 21st century.
What did I do there? I met people - old and new acquaintances, friends and some members of my family. I took part in what may loosely be called worship with readings, songs, prayers, silence and an offering. Children were spoken to briefly at a level they could understand, someone spoke for 25 minutes or so on a passage reflecting on a passage from the Bible. Much was said during the time we were together about Jesus Christ and how his name and what that represents brought us together. We were then commissioned to apply this to what we do in the rest of the week.
What is the church? Is it what we do on Sunday together or what we do separately during the rest of the week? Is it when we seek to address the hopes and hurts of the community in the name of Jesus together or separately?
If the word ecclesia means as one website[1] puts it a ‘body of Christians called out of the Roman and Judean system to come together into a separate civil community under no other jurisdiction but that of Jesus’ then does any of the above fit into the question of what church is. This is indeed a huge question – one which I hope further light will be shed on as we continue the course.
[1] http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/ecclesia.htm
Graeme Flett writes:
I must say I really appreciated reading Andrew’s blog comments (March 16) after Monday evening. His raw honesty about "struggling through various definitions and attempting to encapsulate the church in a sentence or less" put into words what I felt personally but could not define at the time. How do we tame the richness of koinonia and the ongoing presence of God’s Spirit amongst a group of people? How do we encapsulate the relational dimension of church and the dynamic interplay of God’s grace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, friendship, generosity, service and sacrifice between a gathered group of people? How do define the presence of Christ in the midst of a group who are actually living the gospel story and enacting Gods’ reign in their context? Is this not what Newbigin is alluding to? There is a certain dis-ease for me in singling out a concise theological proposition – especially one that is devoid of Christ’s empowering presence as Spirit – something that is experiential and transforming. As a Pentecostal I’d want to press the point that a pneumatological understanding of the church in respect of koiniona is essential. But not as “an abstract concept, rather as a reality discovered from bottom up from within the liberating story of Jesus and the diverse field of the Spirit presence.”[1] Interestingly, the New Testament gives no systematic statement about the church. And so what is the core of this mystery? ...namely, the presence of the Spirit. With this in view, to speak of Church, is to speak in a language that expresses human relationality and divine intercourse. Expression is given to this mystery in New Testament through several models that symbolize what the church is, but in a way that defies any final description.
So how does this relate to the mission of the church? Macchia, in referring to social historian Rodney Stark, says of Stark “that early Christianity spread rapidly and impacted its world effectively in the first five centuries of the Christian era (approximating a 40 percent growth rate per decade) largely as a result of its quality of communal life.”[2] He goes on to argue, that the “basis for successful conversionist movements is growth through social networks, through a structure of direct and intimate interpersonal attachments.”[3] There is a sense that this thing we call ‘church’ is a mystery. I love what Steve Taylor said in passing a couple of years ago; “Modernity did a lobotomy on the church.” In other words, we’ve lost a sense of mystery and awe that is part of ‘being Church.’ That mystery has something to do with the mystery of Christ and the experiential reality of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (which is not impersonal but personal and particular). Yes … Church is both a human institution and also a gift from God.
[1] Frank, D. Macchia, Baptised in the Spirit – a Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, 163.
[2] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christainity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 20.
[3] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christainity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 20.
Tim Pettengell writes:
My Collins Gem English Dictionary defines faith as “strong belief, especially without proof; religion; complete confidence or trust; allegiance to a person or cause…” Furthermore, it defines religion as a “system of belief in and worship of a supernatural power or god” One could go one with words like god, belief, and supernatural power and so on. But my point is this, under these generic definitions, every sentient, conscious and rational person, has a faith and therefore a religion. Even an atheist; an agnostic; a sceptic; or an indigenous-spirituality; a Christian; a Buddhist; a Jew; or a follower of Jesus or Shinto! Everybody in this world has beliefs and convictions that they are not only passionate about, but live by and defend, whether they can articulate it or not.
So the real questions become, can a faith and/or a religion claim priority and supremacy over another? If so, how is such a claim made or stated? And just as importantly, how does it defend and enforce its claim?
One could argue that the entire First Testament narrative – as story and significance, addresses these three questions. For example - “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:2-3). Or - “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5. NRSV).
I would want to argue that what Jesus did through his life and work, is reframe these questions. That is, it is the actions, the living out, what one does and says for justice and compassion for all of creation. This is what commends a faith and/or religion as being more durable, trust worthy and beneficial to all of creation than another.
Furthermore, in the Jesus narrative as found in the synoptic gospels, it is interesting that any questions about the superiority of religion, Jesus answered either by allowing himself to be humiliated or taught – the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21-28) or the Roman centurion (Matt 8:5-13); or by reference to the need for justice and compassion – the paralysed man (Mk 2:1-12) or the lawyer (Lk 10:25-37).
One of the things Jesus’ did well, which enamoured the people to him – according to the synoptic gospels, was that he not only saw the God who is “I am” (Ex 3:16), in the everyday reality of the hustle and bustle of people’s lives! But also, that he spoke, his reaction and response, was, as, “I am” - one of justice and compassion.
So, whether people meet in a bar for drinks and a catch up, gather to watch rugby or racing, go to a community group, commit themselves to raise money for a newsworthy charity, gather for an APW meeting or alcoholics anonymous or gather for worship; there is God if we but have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, the patience to learn, and grace to be silent.
It was easy to see You
in holy faces, holy places,
God made flesh in a mother's voice
or in the gentle hands of a nurse,
or the smile of a grandfather
or the laughter of small children.
Every presence of love and beauty
proclaimed your advent.
I needed eyes sharpened by suffering
before I was able to see You
in the pain of human poverty.
The man who stared at a prison ceiling,
the alcoholic mother, the hungry child,
the old woman who died alone in her flat,
the young victims who grew up
to become abusers themselves,
the people who were in despair
at their inability to make changes,
when I could look at them
through the experience
of my own crucifixions,
I realised they all looked back at me
With your eyes.
It took much longer to see You
in places of affluence and power,
in parliament or at the stock exchange,
at the helm of a luxury yacht
or residing in a summer palace
surrounded by material wealth.
But now I discover that in these places
You have the same eyes as the poor,
the disabled, the imprisoned,
the same eyes as the grandfather,
the children, the hospital nurse,
the same eyes that I see
each morning in the mirror.
And I begin to understand a little,
just a little, of the truth
of who You are.
(“Behold the Christ” by Joy Cowley from Psalms for the Road (p. 19))
Just to add something else into this discussion about what the church is for some. For many outside the church it is something extremely odd. I mean where else do we go in society to exercise our voices singing hymns with thees and thous. Where else can people go where they spend most of their time standing up and setting down? I think that for some people church is a place of judgment rather than a place of love. I remember hearing a story about a man who was invited into his friends church. He came to the door and witness a whole lot of finely dressed people. Throughout the service people keep standing up and down, singing strange words. He then had to listen to a long speech about sin, hell and a man dying on a cross. If he had known what it was going to be like he would not have gone. later in the week the man invited his Christian friend to come with him to the TAB, where he went every week. The problem the Christian friend had was that the windows of the TAB were blacked out so he couldn't see what was going on inside. He was anxious, and when he got inside he saw people drinking and heard people swearing, it was an odd place, a strange place and he didn't like it. Have our churches become similar to the TAB, inasmuch as we have created an environment that only the same people who understand what church is about, wear the correct clothes or understand the language will ever feel welcome?
Ed Stetzer's blog has a series of 5 articles on "The Meaning of Missional". I came across these last week, and having just skimmed again the readings in the course book by Stetzer, I thought others may be interested to read his articles. I thought they gave a really useful outline of the history of the development of the term "missional" over the last century.
I've also read a critique of them by Andrew Perriman who asks "How is it that five lengthy posts on the meaning of such terms as 'missional' and missio dei, plus a large number of appended comments from leading missional thinkers, can offer no more than the occasional passing reference to the biblical narrative? Why do missiologists so often at least appear to take scripture for granted?"
I think this is a an interesting comment - it's so easy for us to get tied up in church-speak that we forget to tie it back to God and the scriptures as our foundational document. At the same time, I resist the idea that one has to justify everything directly with scripture so while it's a valid question of any of our reading, in this particular instance I think the critique is not fully justified.
In my continuing struggles with definitions I have been reading Sine and Stetzer and wondering what we risk in our search for definitions and charts and tables. Most people who have been connected with a church for any length of time will know the joking way we refer to the search for a new minister with the comment that Jesus himself would come up short in the job description. Do our definitions and descriptions give such order to the messiness that is life and mission and faith that we lose sight of the reality of picking heads of corn in a cornfield, or asking for a drink at a well, or washing feet before dinner? And in sorting and ordering things do we miss the beauty of broken men and women ministering to each other in love, trusting that God will make right what we so often fail to complete. I wonder how many churches would look at all of this material and simply put it in the too-hard basket, not realising that God is working missionally through them and as they respond to his prompting will continue to work missionally through them.
I do acknowledge that I find the definitions and diagrams helpful in refining my thinking, I am just not sure that we necessarily do the wider church a favour in holding these things more than very lightly.
On another, connected note, I think that Stetzer’s chart on 159 of the course book needs to be read by applying the whole rather than just a column because each perspective and approach adds value in the long run. For example releasing assumes a level of gathering and training and to put it on its own as in the chart is, I think, somewhat disingenuous. The same goes for much of the rest of the chart.
I still remember that when I have attended Kiwi - church service 16 years ago. At that time I just arrived in New Zealand, and I was not confidence of English, so I could worship God at home by myself with friends. But I just wanted to "attend God's presence" rather than "feel/believe the presence of God at home" on Lord's Day. Still in my mind, it is important to 'attend/go/approach to the presence of God' to me. That is the church I think. It doen't matter which places are to be, but it should be called as a church where people (like me) expect to see God's witnesses, the Words, praise and prayer. I forget a theologian who define the church as 'mother'. I strongly agree with him expecially for the foreigners and strangers like me.
Post a Comment