Redefining the Church

Alan is one of my favorite bloggers, and "Redefining the Chruch" is a concise, yet poignant entry on his blog (bold added by me):

"This is not an article about the scriptural definition of the church. Instead, it is about how our terminology and use of words has worked in such a way as to re-define our understanding of church. I mean "re-define" in the sense of defining church in a manner that is not consistent with the description of the church that we see in Scripture.

What kinds of terms and words am I talking about? Well, there are many. And, I'll list a few later. But for now, when you read about the church, when you watch television programs that discuss the church, when you see churches arguing and fighting to the point of splitting, when you see Christians talking about important aspects of the church, what terms and phrases are used? What concepts concerning "church" are important to believers today as demonstrated by their conversations and writings?

I would suggest that many times you will see believers talking about these things in relation to the church: church buildings, church covenants, church constitutions, Bible study programs, discipleship programs, children's programs, youth programs, church budgets, leadership strategies, church vision, church mission statements, hiring and firing staff, music styles, use of instruments, use of technology, pews or chairs, expository vs. topical vs. thematic preaching, accountability groups, invitations, education, church membership, local church, senior pastors, associate pastors, ...

The list could go on and on... These are the things that are important to many believers today when it comes to church. But, all of these items have one thing in common: Scripture does not mention these items in association with the church.

What we (in general) consider important to the church, Scripture does not indicate is important to the church. (At least, if it is important, we must ask why we do not find it in Scripture.)

Could it be that we are struggling to understand what it means to be the church because we are focusing on issues that are not important to being the church? Could it be that we are spending so much time searching Scripture for the implications of our priorities that we miss God's priorities which are explicit in Scripture?"

Good point, Alan. And thanks for another convicting post. I think about the events in Myanmar, the quake in China... I think about the orphans Shane met in Uganda, and I ponder injustice, racism, oppression, and all the vast amount of NEED I see all around us. And I wonder to myself, "Why have I spent so much energy on re-imagining, debating and exploring forms of church? Is form really God's priority?" I've gone back and forth on "the allowable will of God" vs. "God's best" and spent countless hours pondering what God is doing in the western church. I think we are in a reformational season as His people, but somehow I don't think liturgy and method are really on God's list of priorities in this reformation. (And somehow, all that pondering still seems inward focused. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad, but I am trying to break free of inward focusedness in general).

In scripture, God says that he cares more about how we treat the orphan, the widow, the foreigner in our land, and the poor than He cares about our liturgy, assemblings and offerings (Is 1, for example). Do we really believe that?

UPDATE: Here's a great addition to the picture from a post called "missional post-Newbigin" at NextReformation:

"This is revealing when discussing whether “mission-shaped church” is an adequate alternative for “missional” as an Anglican who contributed to the initial work on the report. I believe it is flawed - it tends to focus on what the Church should be doing (in a rather earnest way) which is a relatively small part of the picture rather than focusing on what God is doing and joining him, individually and as a Church [a people]. Mission-shaped church is already proving to inhibit our missional thinking here so I would hope that others will not adopt it....

.. the Eastern monasteries organized to protest and escape from the materialism of the Roman world and the corruption of the Church; the Celtic monasteries organized to penetrate the pagan world and to extend the Church. The eastern monks often withdrew from the world into monasteries to save and cultivate their own souls; Celtic leaders often organized monastic communities to save other people’s souls. The leaders of the Eastern monasteries located their monasteries in isolated locations, off the beaten track; the Celtic Christians built their monastic communities in locations accessible to the traffic of the time, like proximity to settlements, or on hilltops, or on islands near the established sea lanes.

When we begin with ecclesiology we end up rearranging deck chairs. When we begin with the story of a sending God who enters our world and who then sends us into the world, we learn to partner with God in his mission. This results in a reworking of all our paradigms, from leadership to formation. Future ecclesial leaders will be formed in mission and for mission, helping to evolve creative partnerships that look outward more than inward."