Len at NextReformation has written the following:
It seems to me that there are two shifts we need to make in our church culture in order to engage more deeply in the Missio Dei, and we are well into one while the other is barely on the radar.
1. we need to recognize that the western culture is now a missional context. Ok, we got that one.
2. we need to recognize the way the private/public and sacred/secular duality has impacted our ecclesial and leadership models, and see how this duality is limiting our ability to transition from attractional and inward to outward and incarnational practice.
The way we mobilize and release workers continues to partake of that Christendom duality. Our practice, if not our words, in most churched circles, reveals our belief that some believers are called and anointed as workers, but not all. And even where we have this part down in theory, we still tend to exalt full time church-based ministry above other modes of kingdom engagement.
But so long as we work in that frame we will only make missionaries of those in full time ministry. (And some are thinking… “shades of Roland Allen.. Len, this isn’t really news”).
Nevertheless, our insulated church culture still sets the example that forms common thinking. People continue to think, “Sure, but you are paid to do it.. trained to do it… ordained to do it.. so go do it and leave me with my good christian life as it is.”
But we must confront that attitude. We have a WHOLE CHURCH that needs to be mobilized. And our church leaders are already way too busy to take on “local mission.” Until the “ordinary” believer believes themselves to be grasped by God for a kingdom purpose, we will have ten percent of God’s people feeling important and adequate and the rest uncertain of their identity and calling.
Am I making sense?
In his latest article Alan Roxburgh writes, in part..
“to this day in late modernity even when churches no longer enjoy management over the private, inner needs of citizens, the role of church leaders is still to oversee the inner space of church and the inner, spiritual needs of those who enter that spatial realm. The primary spatial metaphor for church leadership is inside the church. This is no small matter and one that cannot be sustained within a missional understanding of the church.”
My take: I find it difficult to reconcile attractional modes of church (come to our sacred space that is separate from your everyday life) with the missional-incarnational mode (we're coming to hang out with you in your everyday life, and be the church with you by loving on you in those places where your life takes place - whether that be school, the coffee shop, the mall, the hospice, or under a bridge). I tend to identify the latter more with "church" than the former - since I believe the church is people and relationships, not a special (sacred) place to go. Anyway, I liked Len's thoughts as I can really relate to the dualistic thinking. God's been addressing it in my own life at continually deeper levels (see Cyclical Learning).
Friday, April 25, 2008
Can churches be missional and dualistic at the same time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hey Sarah!! Another great post and something I need to chew over - The Churc can not be missional and dualistic at the same time.
If the chief metaphor for the church is family, like that of a mother and father - how come the established church has borrowed from the corporate business world? The paradigm used is a managerial one - is the church to be seen as an organisation rather than an organism?
Non-herarchical, non aristocratic, non-authoritarian, non-institutional, and non-clerical, this is the type of leadership I see stated in the New Testament. The leadership was functional, relational and collective.
As Viola states, the modern Pastor system of Protestantism is a religous artifact that has allowed the Body of Christ to lapse into an audience due to it's heavy reliance on a single leader
Sarah, I think you are correct. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile these two. However, it is not surprising many are trying to do so. In this time of transition it would be natural to try to hold on to some of the past traditions while experimenting with new ideas/approaches.
Over time this will sort itself out because the traditions of humans will eventually go away....well at least the current traditions....I am sure we will make us some new ones.
Mork, "to lapse into an audience due to it's heavy reliance on a single leader." Or, reliance on a team of leaders. But either way, it is difficult to convince people to engage in mission when people believe the primary goal is to sit in church (or even, that to get others to sit in church is the purpose of mission).
Traveller, "I am sure we will make us some new ones." True that. We humans have a propensity for making rules, and making it all about rules.
I think part of why we try to reconcile past traditions with new approaches is that we have mistakenly believed that these past traditions are required in order to please God. And so, not wanting to be disobedient, we hold onto something that He never built in the first place...
It's sometimes difficult to discern when to behave like a business and when to do something different in a church setting. I guess it always goes back to listening for the Spirit. I know a man (Dennis Peacock) who believes that one area of revival will occur through business. Part of his ministry is focused on gaining revelation into God's business model and ways. I'm not sure how I feel about standing against a business model of running a church organization, but I certainly understand that the Spirit's control is needed where the business model is the default model.
I do believe that the New Testament makes some strong statements for spiritual authority such as in Rom. 13 and James, but I agree with the need for more relationship. However, I temper that with my own experience of being a "pain" to my spiritual leaders at one time. I didn't know that I had problems with authority, and I treated them as my total equals, so I ended up disrespecting and mistrusting them at times. They were just trying to follow the Lord in integrity and I was making it difficult with my attitude. Just some thoughts from experience!
Good post. Every time I see a new post here, you are discussing something the Lord is teaching you that coincides with what He's doing in many places around the country, including here. Always a great sign of being in the Spirit! Rock on, sista!
mistaB, yes, I think you are right - from a holistic standpoint, God is God of all of life, including business.
On the other hand, running churches as businesses is not conducive to relationship and forming Christ in people. It's conducive to relegating people to roles and functions, and using them and their gifts/talents and finances to facilitate the business, er um, church. I think people should be facilitated, and relationships should be facilitated at the expense of a system or structure, rather than the other way around. That's just me...
Spiritual authority and how it works is a huge topic. Suffice it to say, I look at how Jesus exercised His spiritual authority as my reference point, rather than how much of the religious systems of our day understand and practice "leadership." I follow people who are further down the path than myself, and who look like and love like Jesus, because those are the ones I identify as leaders. Formal positions of leadership don't impress me.
I should clarify, "I follow people" - well, actually, I follow the Holy Spirit in those people, not those people themselves. We are all so fallible in so many ways. And, yes, I believe we are all equals. I don't see heirarchy in Jesus's message of the kingdom (Luke 22:24-27). Nor in Paul's teaching (Gal 3:28).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Romans 13 is in regards to the governmental powers that be, those who "bear the sword". So, "pay tribute" or pay your taxes and obey the law. I don't think this is a passage of authority in regards to the ecclesia.
I understand how a business run church can cheapen the fellowship of ministry, but I think I regard the whole "church as a business" thing the same way as I regard organized religion. When people speak against organized religion, I think, "so we need unorganized religion?" How does a church pay it's full time staff and ministers if they don't have some sort of business model? I'd be interested if you know of any churches who don't have some kind of business organization. Have you seen any churches like that? How did it run?
This reminds me of the whole debate about paying for ministry and Keith Green. He was adamant that it should never cost anyone money to be ministered to, so he never charged for his music or sermons while he was alive. I totally respect his stance on the issue, but on the other hand, I don't mind supporting someone like Jason Upton by buying his CDs or paying registration for his conferences. It's often expensive to sustain ministries. What do you think?
By the way, if it has felt strange calling me MistaB, my names Eric!
Oh, yeah! I was taught that Rom. 13 dealt with ALL authority, including spiritual elders. By its language, I took it to mean spiritual as well. After all, Paul does say "all authority." I'll check it out again soon with my new Hebrew/Greek study Bible!
Eric, I'm not sure that's very good exegesis, but we can agree to disagree on how we interpret Rom 13.
I love your questions! They are really important questions! And I'm glad you're asking them. I believe scripture speaks to some of that. For instance, in 2 Thes 3:7-9, Paul talks about how he and those in ministry with him worked to support themselves, rather than depending on financial support from those they ministered to. And he exhorts them to do the same ("[we] offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example"). Where is this happening? Lots of places!
The church in China is the most notorious example of rapidly multiplying churches without all of the structure and without paid staff. The first century church is another example. And here in America, there is the "organic church" movement (which is not synonymous with house church). Others are starting missional communities by opening coffee shops (to be self-sustaining as they reach out to the neighborhood), there's the new monastics - who are moving in together in impoverished neighborhoods to "be the church" in that context.
(A good intro is Neil Cole's book "Organic Churches", other resources include "The Shaping of Things to Come" by Michael Frost" and "The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational Community." These report on successful forms of ecclessia that look quite different from the institutional forms we've been exposed to.)
I should clarify that how we define "church" makes all the difference. If we define it as institutions with paid staff, then anything outside of that model will not qualify as a "church" in our paradigm. That's why so much of this is happening under the radar. Personally, I think the professionalization of ministry has done quite a bit of hindering rather than helping the church grow into her purpose and calling. Oh, another resource with examples of organic ecclessia can be found in Wolfgang Simson's book: Houses that Change the World, or in his free downloadable book: The Starfish Manifesto (that one has some great supernatural testimonies - a very encouraging read!)
Yeah, after I wrote my comment I thought of the church in China. We certainly have been in a business mode of church in America for quite a while. I like home groups, but I wonder what would happen to the large churches out there? I know that plenty of them do a lot of good and God works through them. It would definitely take a move of God to start changing things, but that's what He's in the business of doing!
Eric, yep! Agreed. :)
Post a Comment