In The Forgotten Ways, Alan makes a pretty solid biblical case for organic systems of ekklesia rather than institutional systems of ekklesia (which he convincingly explains as a particularly western cultural development). Not only that, he uses both the first century church (ancient example) and the Chinese church (modern example) as a basis to investigate the difference in fruit between institutional systems of ekklessia and organic systems of ekklessia.
I ran a little experiment a while back with a post series called "Diversity or Dogmatism" to see what others thought. I realized that what we needed was a clear articulation of the differences between 'institution' and 'organic' and a clear articulation of biblical principles (non-negotiables) vs. cultural methods (negotiables) of ekklessia. I believe Alan's book provides such an articulation, and I highly recommend it.
I have not been comfortable with the institutional, pastor-centric, sermon-centered model of ekklessia for several years now. Not only do I fail to find this model in the scriptures, I also feel that it has seriously handicapped the development of disciples, and the maturing of the body of Christ in western Christianity. (Largely because it reinforces passivity and consumerism in the 'audience', Greek dualism, and sometimes co-dependent relationships between core leaders and the congregation instead of interdependent relationships between everyone, who all have spiritual gifts to exercise together in kingdom mission).
I do not mean to alienate others with my stance and my convictions. I merely wish to communicate openly and honestly about my journey out of western cultural forms (institutional) and into God's original (organic) design of ekklesia. I am completely committed to people (and the relationships I have with other believers, whether in or out of institutional forms of ekklessia). While at the same time, I am totally uncommitted to cultural forms that I feel are less than effective.
Can God move within the institutions and is He? Yes. But I do believe that we limit Him, and the ability of His followers within those methodologies. And therefore, I do believe there is a better way. Hirsch uses both the first century church and the church in China as examples of organic systems that have tapped into the latent Apostolic Genius* of the Church, and therefore set the foundation for the other five fold ministries found in Eph 4. Both of these examples have experienced phenomenal multiplication, and an incredible expansion/spread of the gospel. We do well to learn from them, and we can. The book examines many western groups who have begun to transition into or start from the organic model.
But I fear that we are so accustomed to our barrenness that we have accepted it as the normal state of affairs. In the west, our church growth is largely from 'switchers' rather than new converts. (And when we opt out of the system all together, western believers assume it's because we are not content with the 'product' of institutional church. Can we please move beyond a consumerist mindset?! Some of us are not happy with barrenness, or minimal results. And we don't expect different results from doing more of the same. Nor are we committed to cultural methodologies of church that are not found in scripture. Rather, we desire to get on with the business of extending the kingdom of God). Barrenness is not a normal part of the Christian life. And I pray that God shake us out of our complacency, out of our resignation that "this is always how we've done it" and "this is just how it will always be." I refuse to accept the status quo (especially when the results are less than stellar), it's just part of my gifting. ;)
*Apostolic Genius is the term Alan uses to describe the unique energy and force that imbues phenomenal Jesus movements in history. Some of it's elements are: missional-incarnational impulse, disciple making, apostolic environment, organic systems, and communitas. (A lot of these words require more definitions - so just read the book for clarification!) :)
Friday, March 28, 2008
Unconventional review of The Forgotten Ways
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with your conclusions about institutional expressions of church and the better expression being organic. I also think Alan Hirsch has some good insights and thoughts.
However, I am not certain Alan Hirsch describes an organic ekklesia even though he moves in that direction. When one puts together all of his writings he still appears quite institutional in his thinking in many respects. There are too many formulas, forms and structures that look like just a different form of institution.
I seriously doubt any first century follower of Jesus would have gone about their life in the Spirit by trying to define everything and put a structure around it, even if they did call it organic.
Relationships, which is what following Jesus as his "called out ones" is, cannot be defined and put into a box. They are dynamic, changing, unpredictable, even our relationship with the Trinity.
So, I would offer caution about looking to Alan Hirsch, or any other person, as having found the "answer" to what it means to be the church. In some senses this is unique to every person and situation, although there will be some commonalities as well.
More and more folks are coming to the same conclusion as you are and that is important for the church to be transformed and reformed, which is an ongoing process. It seems the church has been stuck in one place for at least 500 hundred years and in some ways 1900 years. It is wonderful the work of the Spirit in your life and that of others. It is my prayer that this will continue. Thank you for an articulate post.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Traveller.
I appreciate your perspective, but I didn't find the book to be formulaic in the (Constantinian) institutional sense. I do think that organic systems have structure (my body's nervous system, circulatory system etc) just as the body of Christ functions through the operation of a variety of gifts. There is organization to organic systems, but they are not mechanical nor determined by man. They are God's creation and subject to His direction rather than our control. That said, the first century apostles did organize the care of widows, the distribution of resources, and that sort of thing. Also, Paul was a pretty precise teacher and took care to explain things. I don't think these elements made the first century church non-organic.
But the book also talked a lot about chaos theory, the messiness of real life (and God in real life). Maybe he didn't explicitly say it, but I inferred from the book that any group of believers needs to hear God for the particular "answers" in their particular context and calling. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits all answer to method in order to accomplish our mission.
It seems Alan's book focuses more on our paradigms and cultural worldviews of ekklessia than on specific how-to's.
Great point that we cannot look to one leader to have the whole picture. I think there is wisdom in hearing from believers with lots of different functions (spiritual giftedness) and different backgrounds (or "streams" of Christianity). I think this cross-pollination helps us to get a clearer picture of what God is saying and doing. We all see in part. :)
I think we are far more in agreement than disagreement. It was not my intent to indicate organization does not exist in organic expressions of the ekklesia. But I would suggest from my own experience that the organization can actually be a Spirit organization, not a human one. When the gifts of the Spirit are expressed by each individual within/without the ekklesia then the need for human organization is diminished, perhaps, in some cases eliminated. I know this seems highly improbable but I have actually seen this happen, though admittedly not as often as I would hope.
Perhaps I read too much institutionalism into Hirsch's book. But I still perceive a good deal of institutionalism in some of what he says. Nevertheless, I think his book is an important contribution to the conversation that is going on. Thanks for your thoughts.
One problem that I see with Hirsch's logic is that he seems to equate his form of church with fruitfulness and institutional forms with barrenness. When one looks at church history most of the church growth took place under a church that was radically different than what he proposes. Here is a table taken from Stark's "The Rise of Christianity." While we can't know for certain what percentage of the Roman Empire's population was Christian, it surely was quite small in the first century (a fraction of a percent). Therefore, most of the growth took place after even folks like Barna/Viola admit the non-missional forms of Christianity had taken root (and I can document that many times they put these developments later than they really were).
Christian Growth Projected at 40% per Decade
Year # Christians % of Population
40 1,000 .0017
50 1400 .0023
100 7530 .0126
150 404960 .07
200 217,795 .36
250 1,171,356 1.9
300 6,299,832 10.5
350 33,882,008 56.5
Another problem I see is that Hirsch's focus seems to be entirely on non-institutional churches in China and he ignores the amazing growth (by western standards) of institutional churches taking place there. There is an incredible spiritual hunger in China right now, and institutional forms are also experiencing incredible growth (although they don't talk about it nearly as much).
MB
Thanks, MB. Actually, Hirsch doesn't say anything about barrenness. That was my own input. Have you read his book?
Hi Traveller, I almost missed your comment there. Ya, we're on page I think. I believe that the Spirit coordinates when we are surrendered and sensitive to Him (and little need for us to make it happen). We just follow along with what He is doing.:)
mamasboy,
The problem with Stark's approach is that it is merely mathmatical. Of course, the growth will be after the 4th century if one is merely mathmatically applying a 40%per decade increase without regard to what actually happened. Whether this projection reflects reality is another issue.
Second, one has to be careful to define "Christian". Many of the so-called Christians beginning in the middle of the 4th century onward for more than a thousand years became "Christians" at the point of a sword. So, just as today numbers of people on a church roll do not necessarily reflect who is actually a follower of Jesus.
Traveller,
While the table above is speculative in many respects, the primary reason is that we really don't have good statistics on early church numbers. The ones that we do have match the above table pretty well. Dr. Stark is a scholar and any good scholar gives data to back up his ideas. I highly recommend reading Stark for oneself. Like any good scholar he does a good job citing his sources, acknowledging uncertainty in the numbers, and citing people who disagree with him, but that would take too much detail to describe here. Stark also does not say that those numbers are 100% accurate, just that they are reasonable based on the available facts and show that the miraculous does not need to occur in order for the Christian Church to grow and become a very significant portion of the
population by 300 AD. The Mormons have also sustained similar growth for an extended period of time.
In response to your second comment, the table cited above only goes up to the middle of the fourth century. How many people do you think were being forced into conversion by 350 AD? Half of the empire was still pagan! That's a lot of people threaten with the sword. Even if you cap the numbers 311, when Christianity was legalized and the persecutions finally stopped, the important fact of interest is a large sustained growth rate (not the actual numbers). If the empire had been growing itself in population, it would have taken far longer for Christianity to become a significant percentage of the population, but the sustained growth *rate* over centuries would still have been very impressive.
Sarah,
Barrenness is a fairly nebulous term when applied to the Church. It can mean anything from a lack of spiritual fruit to a lack of growth in numbers. Are you suggesting that Hirsch doesn't say that the American Church today is lacking in vitality? That would surprise me. While I haven't read the book, I've read perhaps a half dozen reviews of it over the last year by bloggers and all of them contrasted the numerical growth and vitality of the church in China and the early church with the American Christian experience. Even the offical book description that I just looked up on Amazon says, "Alan Hirsch is convinced that the inherited formulas for growing the Body of Christ do not work anymore. And rather than relying on slightly revised solutions from the past, he sees a vision of the future growth of the church coming about by harnessing the power of the early church." If Hirsch says the church growth formulas of today aren't working, then isn't the church barren in the numerical growth sense? Where are you taking the idea beyond Hirsch?
If you'd rather not answer personally, but would rather that I just read Hirsch for myself, I'll pay for media mail shipping both ways. My local library doesn't have the book and I don't have $15 to go spend on it. I honestly doubt if the library will ever get it in, because they have PC by Barna/Viola and it has been out for less time than TFW.
MB
Post a Comment