WTWNC: From Bridge to Onramp – On a Proposed Way to Teach People Missional Evangelism

WTWNC

When They Will Not Come” (WTWNC) names the social dilemma of the church in post Christendom when we can no longer assume non-Christians will come to church even when they are seeking God. This new cultural condition forces us to change the way we think about every aspect of the church. WTWNC is a series of posts that reflect on the ways the practice of being Christ’s church/church planting must change because of this new cultural dilemma.

Illustration by Ben Sternke of http://benjaminsternke.typepad.com.

In previous posts and writings (here , here, and here) we have covered the challenges of evangelism in the new post Christendom contexts of N America: the cultural condition of “When They Will Not Come.” We have asked what does evangelism look when we can not assume they will understand? When the message cannot assume a cultural hegemony of Christian assumptions.We have seen how the Bridge Illustration, the Romans Road, the Four Spiritual Laws all struggle to adequately engage the lives of post Christendom peoples with the gospel. In fact, each one has the potential of damaging the gospel for people who have no “Story” from which to make sense of ‘what they might be doing.’ By reducing it in a way that misleads those with no background, it has the potential to cheapen the gospel and malform the new convert (narcissistically) into something other than the gospel. Like most Christendom evangelism, these tools assume too much. They look at every person as the same. Yet, up to this time, I have not really come up with suggestions for a tool/way that can replace these well worn and to some degree proven tools of Christendom evangelism (although many others out there in blogworld have made excellent attempts)

After much thinking and conversing at our church (last spring after Easter we had “think sessions” for seven Sundays before worship), I have some tentative conclusions as to how offer a way for training Christians for “missional evangelism” in the new cultures of post-Christendom. Here goes – starting with two preambles that define the assumptions on evangelism we must change for evangelism in post Christendom.

Preamble One: In our evangelism-thinking, let’s move from “bridge” to “onramp.” If there is one overriding conclusion for me in all this, it is that missional church leaders must move from a.) Training people to offer non-Christians a “bridge” to salvation, that is susceptible to making salvation into a transaction, to b.) Training people to become themselves “onramps” who through their lives offer nonChristians an avenue (i.e. themselves) through which people can enter the work God is doing in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19). This concept of moving from a “bridge” to an “onramp” is key for me.

Preamble Two: In our thinking, let’s move from justification before God “by Christ” to living life “in Christ.” A second conclusion for me in all of this is that we must understand that the fundamental issue in salvation is not our forensic guilt before God based in an oversimplified post-Reformational forensic substitutionary atonement. Instead, let’s move towards the salvation that God is doing in the world to “set the world right” (as J D Dunn and N T Wright say it). OF COURSE PART OF THIS IS  (an inseparable part of all this!!) the justification, yes the forensic pardon we receive in Christ via His sacrificial death on the cross as a fulfillment of the covenantal promises given by God to His chosen people Israel (of which we have become part). We need to make this shift however from seeing justification as the primary issue in salvation, to seeing it as part of God’s overall covenantal plan with a people to make the world right.
This move gives us the necessary perspective to proclaim the fullness of the gospel for the world without diminishing the grace, forgiveness and new life we as individuals have in Christ through participating in the entire salvation God is doing in the world.  It changes salvation from “you receive this and this” by faith in Christ alone – to “put your entire life under Christ” and live under His Lordship over the world. IN THIS WAY, no new Christian can miss that “in Christ” we are going from living for your -self, out of your self, in your self – and all the things that you have become entangled in the process – to living “in Christ” – where every thing, every area of our lives is surrendered to be lived out of one’s relationship “in Christ”

GIVEN THOSE TWO ASSUMPTIONS, here’s some rudimentary pieces that I think the church can train its people into that can shape them into “effective onramps” for the gospel.

Five Things For an Effective On Ramp To Be Able to Do (from 1 Pet 3:14-16)

1.) Listen. Let us give up all the prescribed pre-scripted gospel messages and ways of leading one pre-scripted to a certain outcome.  Let us learn how to come humbly before another person and listen to the Other as someone different than me, someone who God is working in, and someone who has issues, needs, understandings which may have nothing to do with the way the gospel has taken shape in my own life.

2.) Trust in God. Let us learn to completely trust in God by His Spirit that He is working and anyone’s salvation is completely His work. Let us give up any coercion and simply become the onramp for the Holy Spirit to use in bringing another person to Himself.

3.) Nurture My Own Participation/Relationship in/with God in Christ. This may sound trite, but we each must have a relationship with God, a vibrant real participation in life with God, in order to witness to this life and be onramps for other people to enter into it.

4.) Tell The Whole Story: We must be able to share the whole story as well as one’s own participation in it daily. We must do it with simplicity yet profound amazement.

5.) Close with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must learn that a faithful presentation of the gospel eventually proclaims the good news of what God is doing in the world “in Christ” INTO A PERSON’S LIFE. There will be a time eventually in many relationships when the hearer asks how do you live like you do? Given my situation, how I can participate? Join in? Be saved?  Here we describe God’s work in Christ making the world right (righteousness) – new creation, restored relationship with God and invite him/her in through repentance, submission and entering into a whole new cosmic way of life under God’s Lordship through Jesus Christ.

On Offering a Place to Start

I think every “onramp” must be able to offer the new seeker a place to start in this relationship we have with the Triune God in Christ. We used to offer everyone the same “sinner’s prayer.” A discerning “onramp,” I think, will have to model the gospel here, describe what it looks like in their real life situations, offer a place to start. Here’s a few “places to start” “onramps” should know and understand in leading someone onto the highway of the relationship we have with the Triune God.

a.)    START BY RECONCILING “It’s about reconciling” You are invited into a life of Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Righteousness is about putting things right. “In Christ” means that every relationship you have must always be in the process of being reconciled, forgiven and put right. This starts with your relationship with God, and now this is what God is doing through Christ in the world through you. Are you willing to engage every relationship as if God wants to “make it right” and transform them? 2 Cor 5:14-21; Matt 18:15-20.
b.)    START BY DYING “It is about Dying” – You are invited to come and die to things that are killing you and the world. Living in Christ requires the literal ever “putting to death of yourself and the things God asks you to die to” in order that new life might be resurrected in and out of you …Col 3:1-17; Rom 12:1-2 (John 12:24)
c.)    START BY ENGAGING GOD-GIVEN TASKS IN FAITH/ DEPENDENCE UPON THE SPIRIT. “It’s about the power of the Holy Spirit” at work in and through you and in the world. In the cross and resurrection, God has conquered evil, sin even death in Christ. You are invited to live in this same power of the Holy Spirit to do and be part of all these things. Recognize in each situation, that “in Christ” under His Lordship, you are the instrument to make manifest his victory over evil. (John 14:12-14; John 20:23).
d.)    START BY LIVING UNDER CHRIST’S AUTHORITY. “It is about “His Lordship Over All Things” You are invited to enter relationships under Christ’s authority, denying power to evil, praying for the sick, bringing His peace wherever you go. Put your own life each day under His authority trusting He is at work all around you for His purposes. By so doing we are participating in what God is doing to bring about the new creation until He comes …
e.)    START BY PARTICIPATING IN HIS MISSION. It is about “His Mission in the World” -participating in new creation . 2 Cor. 5:14-21(NOT THE NIV VERSION!) Matt 5-7 The sermon on the Mt (The inaugurating of the Kingdom). You are invited to participate in the new age Christ is bringing in under His power until He comes.

Well these are my still evolving (Life on the Vine) communal thoughts on training people to be “onramps” for the Kingdom of God. WHAT HAVE I MISSED? Is this too much? unorganized? Not strategic enough? How would you improve this? How can this be made compact enough to become a suitable teaching means to train people to be post-Christendom evangelists?

16 Comments

Some Things on the Horizon

For those interested, here’s a few things going on with me in the next few months. If you’re nearby any of these events and can make them, please let me know so I can look you up.

Nazarene Theological Seminary: I will be leading 4 sessions Oct 22-23 on the subject “Missional Communities in  a Changing Culture.” This is all part of another book I am in process of writing (which explains the reason why neither of them are getting done). I’m looking forward to being with the Nazarenes.

National Outreach Convention 2009: I normally don’t get invited to these kind of things, but here I’ll be in San Diego November 4-6. I’ll be leading a session on post Christendom evangelism, how the category of witness changes how we see “outreach.”

Breakforth 2010 in Edmonton Alberta: Again, I normally don’t get invited to these kind of things, but I’m really looking forward to Edmonton. I’ll be leading several sessions Jan 30-31 on “the practices of Missional Church.”

I’ll also be at this conference on consumerism (I highly recommend it) Nov 13th.

The Book - Many have asked me about the book I am working on. I’ve been working on it FOREVVERRRR. It’s title is The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission. It in essence is a proposal for a Missional Evangelical Political Theology. It tracks down how evangelical belief and practice (particulary the way we believe and practice Scripture, Church in Society and Salvation) has worked to shape us evangelicals as an arrogant, exclusionary, dispassionate duplicitous people (talk about harsh eh?) in the world – hardly a recipe for incarnational witness. I use Zizekian political theory in a way that I hope is accessible to show just how we got here – a politic empty at its core built on antagonism. In the main concluding chapter I show how we can reclaim the Incarnate Christ as the core of our politic in the world thereby reshaping our belief and practice of Scripture, church in the world and salvation for participating in God’s Mission. I’m really into this and it’s taking me much longer than I ever imagined. I posted a little rant on Zizek over at churchandpomo blog yesterday which reveals a little of what I’m up to. Don’t get too scared by the academic jargon over there. I really am aiming at making this more broadly accessible.

Of course all of this is made possible by my family,  the church I am a part of and the church plants we ‘re seeding, and the ministry at Northern Seminary in training pastors/missioanl leaders. This is where I remain committed and from which all the other stuff comes from. I’m committed to not being away from any of the above more than once a month.(The other appointments you see on my schedule are essentially day trips).

Anyway, school starts up in a month (we’re on the quarter system). I hope to see some of you friends along the way.

7 Comments

Missional Church Planting Laboratory: A Report

When it comtesttubes1es right down to it, planting a missional community is simply asking 12-15 people to get up and move to a different location and go live into the Kingdom there in the same way that “you’r already doing here.” I know – easier said than done. Of course, you’re going to a strange place so you have to think about getting jobs and a place to live, if you have children, schooling and other issues. All this means is that you’ll be forced to trust God in ways you haven’t had to more recently. Of course, you’ll be alone so you’ll be highly dependent upon the friends and comrades that go with you. You’ll have to be intentional about community because, without your normal social busyness, the isolation of your life will be more apparent if you don’t. And of course, you’ll be forced to live life in the Kingdom because you will have moved here explicitly to seek God, His Kingdom, His working to “set the world right.” You’ll be coming together explicitly to see God work in redeeming lives and shaping a way of life that is rich in Kingdom relationships. In reality then, planting a missional community with 15 others is a spiritual discipline one should engage in if one really wants to have one’s eyes opened to the power of God released in His Kingdom thru Jesus Christ and to engage deeply in that. It is a rich way of life that cannot be surpassed in this lifetime. How else would you want to live life?

Of course I don’t want to over-romanticize missional church plantings. Many go on a missions trip overseas and come back changed for a time. Planting a missional community does this same thing for a lifetime. On a short-term missions trip however, you can romanticize God’s Kingdom for two weeks and then escape back to routine making that missions trip seem even more romantic (and of course I still highly recommend missions trips). In going and seeding a missional community you must face the boredom and disappointments that come with everyday life in the Kingdom.

All this to say, last night we had a kind of missional laboratory for exploring the seeding of two such communities in the next two years. We had a meeting with seven of us pastor/church planter/leader types. We met to talk about and pray over two potential church plants – “sendings” of missional teams to live life together as witness to the Kingdom. For any one who might be interested – here’s a couple of notes/reflections on what happened.

The APEST Assessment Tool: We all took the APEST profile assessment tool and brought our own profile for discussion. We talked about our highest aptitudes between Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Shepherd, Teacher. We discussed each person’s assessment in terms of how each person saw themselves, and then how the rest of the group saw them as well. We were surprised with the overall accuracy of the assessment. We got to know each other better, especially Amy and JR who are newer (especially JR) around here. Since we’re looking to put leadership teams of three people (or couples) together, it was helpful to see how certain individuals would complement each others giftings.
Three Leaders?: We are seeking to put together teams of three primary leaders to lead each missional community who will then gather another twelve to fifteen people. We discussed why three? What does this say about the leadership of the other 12 to fifteen.
For myself, I believe sending one person out as primary leader is the former entrepreneurial approach of Christendom. For various reasons that dynamic worked in Christendom. In post Christendom – sending ONE SINGLE LEADER on his or her own will exhaust and even destroy that one person in the first three years. Jesus sent people in twos. The lists of Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28 imply a set of gifted leaders guiding the church community. The idea of a senior pastor is really a professionalization of clergy which won’t work (for various reasons) in the post Christendom contexts we seek to inhabit for Christ. Along these lines therefore, I contend we need at least three, along the lines of the 3,12,120 that I have discussed here. I contend that three people have a variance of gifts so one leader “doesn’t get gassed” doing all the things he or she just isn’t equipped for.
Furthermore, there is a support issue, social, financial and mental. On any given day or week the problems can overwhelm any one individual (or couple for that matter). Three people who are committed to a vision, who commit together to pursue God’s will in this place, who learn to listen to each other’s  thoughts, emotions, depressions, other struggles, speak truth honestly, can make it through many struggles together. As opposed to the one leader having to put the struggles of the entire community on his or her back, these struggles can be times of spiritual formation. These three will take on responsibility for organizing, leading (discussions and organization), carrying out the core functions initially (and of course training
other people to come alongside and take up these tasks over time). They will require the skill of mtual submission one to another so that they function as a body together and model that for the community. They will require a continuity of theological orthodoxy and a maturity sufficient to lead others into maturity in Christ. They will have to be “recognized” and
empowered by the wider sending community through an ordination process blessing them to lead theologically, pastorally.
Of course, the number of these foundational leaders could be four, five or more? Just not less than three.

Married Couples Versus Singles We got into a discussion on whether married couples count as one in the triad of leadership or two? There was no common agreement and more discussion is needed. For my part, I tried to make the case that we should count the married couple as one and the single person as one. BTW, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT BOTH THE WIFE AND THE HUSBAND CANNOT EACH TAKE ON ONE OF THE KEY LEADERSHIP TASKS OF THE APEST PROFILE. Instead, I was concerned that for the support we need to lead a community, we need a diversity of perspective and experience. Often married people are blinded to each other’s gifts or dysfunctions because they are closer to the other person on a daily person. Often their finances and other issues are joined together (it is good to have three people so that hopefully not all are going through financial crisi at the same time). There is a dynamic created by having three distinct perpectives with no agendas – becuse it is often an issue of two people having to tell the one what he/she is not seeing. Imagine a disagreement going on in “the meeting of three” and this three is one married couple and one single person. Just imagine with me the dynamics here. I see the conversation gets tilted in ways I don’t see as happening (at least as regularly) if there were three people unmarried talking, or three married couples or a mixture of both. (BTW we need single people in leadership to balance the numerous ways married couples get bogged down in various inertia – single people should be viewed as premium leaders for missional community). I think that looking at “the three” in this way insures the diversity of perspective and support that is needed during the struggles of birthing and nurturing a missional community. But I’m open to be wrong on my understanding of the group dynamics.
Steps Along the Way: We outlined the following steps in preparing for a church plant. These are very basic and up for discussion.
a.) First the three. Find the right complement, the right mixture of three leaders to be ordained as the pastors responsible for the overall guidance and leadership of the “missinal order.” Although there will be other leaders among the total missional order team, these leaders will be charged with ordering their lives financially, rhythm wise to take up the tasks of ordering and leadingt eh day to day life of the community.
b.) Locate the place. The leaders of “the Vine” have already located places where a.) that lack the gospel often because the church has fled to more affluent places, b.) mid to lower middle class where we can live beneath our means, and c.) where we can live in proximity. This is along the lines of the Missional Order approach we are following. We talked about how step a.) and b.) go together. The leaders, after several visits, discussions, prayer and envisioning, agree on a vision for this place that God is calling us to. There will be factors that matter like can the people who are moving get jobs? Are there other indications that God is opening doors here for us?
c.) Write up a simple plan. Take time to pray, walk through the neighborhood, and get a sense of things. And even then, most of the planning for how one will engage this place missionally will only take shape after a year or so of living there. Yet we can sketch what the rhythm of “life together” look like in the first year? We can sktech how we will establish the rhythms together that we talked about here. How will we begin to get to know the community, the people, where the hurting are, the places where the gospel is ready to be ministered?
d.) Call 15 more in. The next step will be to call 10-15 people into this new community. It is amazing how we move all the time in our society for career or better weather or something else. But we are scared to move with 15 other people to live life in arich and deep and significant way in God’s Mission. Of course there will be hurdles, and frankly some people will not be able to uproot. But many more should be able to.
e.) Get jobs, find housing, set up budgets
f.) Move! And spend the first year establishing rhythms, knowing the neighborhood, seeking out the poor and the hurting, learning how to manage life in the Kingdom including how will we grow spiritually, how will we nurture community, how we will shape our lives to participate daily in God’s mission. How will we do these things in ways that are sustainable and a joy to be a part of?

This is the outworking of the various “missional order” ideas we have been talking about for several years around “the Vine.” This is planting churches as missional orders. What are my naïve expectations? I expect a full year to get these communities on the ground. I would say, in about ten years, that if issues of financial survival, initial expectations, and missional rhythms are properly prepared for, that each community should have be thriving community of 120-200 practicing peace, living the salvation we have in Christ and sharing that salvation as gospel to all we get to know and serve in this community. And then, if we have continued to bless, empower and send out leadership, we start er up all over again until Christ returns.

Of course, this whole thing could surprise, and the multiplication might take place a lot quicker. But this is the work of God. The times are in his hands. Amen, and may God bless these and  bless all the other efforts to seed missional communities around the world.

If you have any questions, suggestions and added wisdom … please comment. Hopefully others at the merting will chime in and lend some balance to my account of this whole process.

13 Comments

Ordination and the Lord’s Table: PROVIDING SOME “SHAPE” FOR “THE THINGS TO COME”

There is for better or worse, an anti-institutional bias that simmers in some parts of the missional church. This can be seen in books like George Barna’s Revolution and Neil Cole’s Organic Church. Many think the same of Alan Hirsch’s The Forgotten Ways and Hirsch and Frost’s The Shaping of Things to Come. On “The Shaping”, I applaud this book, love it and see it as the first off my shelf when trying to guide someone into the missional literature that unfolds what missional church is all about. (BTW for a new groundbreaking guide to missional church, don’t miss this book coming out shortly). And of course, I consider Alan Hirsch the best of allies and a good friend. But I have to jab a little (good-naturedly of course) that perhaps “we could use a little more shape for the things to come.”

In this regard then, I offer two principles concerning organization and ecclesiology to all missional church planters that can clarify the “incarnational” implications of the form of  church practice and its organization.
1.) Structure/organization should always be an “after-development” and inextricably connected to the “gifts of the Spirit.” Yet we still need it and we should never avoid it. Structure actually grounds the “charisma” (gift) into day-to-day historical life which is another way of being incarnational (not fleeing the day to day).
2.) Ecclesiological form – certain core practices – serves to ground the church in history, i.e. preserves its continuity with Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son. In this way – church form is actually incarnational preventing the church from becoming a mystical society of individuals all into their own thing even if it might go by the name of “Jesus.”

Throughout the entire history of the church, there has always been a tension between the spontaneous and organized. And if there is a swing too far to one side or the other, bad things happen. If a church does not rely on authentic Spirit driven contextualized ministry it will become rote, dead and unengaged with the local context. If a church, as Spirit filled organism, does not provide sufficient organization enabling what the Spirit is doing, it is doubtful whether it can ever gain traction in the context. The lack of organization will frustrate and produce a never-ending chaos. The individual gifts of the Spirit (charismas) will eventually implode in their own narcissism  (read 1 Cor 12,14 as Paul’s corrective). Likewise, if the church retains no historical continuity with those who have gone on before, it becomes arbitrary and so syncretistic that it is hard to recognize anything that might be Christian. If a church adheres to historical form to the exclusion of contextualizing, it becomes so separated from the culture to which it has been called to minister that it becomes incapable of participation in any Mission.

My observation is that among missional churches, house churches I have visited over the past several years, the impulse has been anti-institutional, so that there is even angst in doing the minimal organization work they allow themselves to do. Some get too anti-institutional, too afraid of organization, too detached from the historical questions. Indeed I get accused of this often by people in the church I serve as I continually push for organic forms of organization that keep the church de-centralized and attached to various forms of ministry taking shape in the locales where people actually live.

All this to say, it helps if we must understand how organization and historical form can indeed be incarnational. I think the two principles articulated above help in this regard. I think “ordination” and “the Lord’s Table” illustrate these two principles well. So here goes with my two principles.

1.) Structure/organization should always be an “after-development” and inextricably connected to the “gifts of the Spirit”: The Case of Ordination.

Alan Hirsch – in his recent book with Michael Frost: ReJesus p.75f. – uses Max Weber’s famous “routinization of charisma” to illustrate the fact that there must be a passing on of the charisma from the founding gifted leader to the resulting “organization.” “The link between the Founder to the Found” must be preserved at all times for the health of the organization to be preserved. Within NT scholarship, Bengt Holmberg back in 1980 IMO, did the best job of appropriating Weber to Paul. Holmberg showed (among many things) how the spontaneous gifts of the Spirit breaking out in the Pauline communities became routinized through a process of the recognition and formalizing of the gifts and their functioning in the church. Routinization was a positive development as long as the giftedness, the actual empowerment of the gift for authority in the church by the Holy Spirit is never separated from the office itself.  The danger is to avoid all routinization saying, “we need no structure because we daily depend upon the Spirit!!” This is an over realized eschatology believing we are already in the new age entirely instead of the anticipation of it proleptically before the end of history. This is what was happening in Corinth and was the occasion for the writing of 1 Cor 12-14. Instead we need this “formalizing” – this recognizing of the gift to facilitate its flourishing in the community. This testing, recognizing includes its testing for character and orthodoxy and then blessing it. This is the function of ordination. This keeps the church grounded in history (apostolicity). This keeps the church from a Gnostic mysticism where individuals all by themselves seek to become individual Jesus’ without the historical embodiment of that in a community. At the same time however, church structure can become ossified and somehow ensconced in the church – no longer an outflowing of the life of Jesus Christ and His Lordship becoming manifest by the Spirit in a local place and time. This happens as the result of a futurist eschatology that sees the Spirit and the Kingdom as wholly future. “Jesus died, forgave our sins and will return for us in the rapture. Until then let’s live as good as we can and bring as many with us when the rapture comes.” We are therefore just biding our time until he returns. Let us organize for efficiency.  Either avenue is a failure to live in the “already-but – “not yet” tension of the Kingdom breaking in through Christ’s Lordship as manifested in the Spirit in a context, place and time. I feel the false reliance on business leadership is frankly another example of a leadership notion based in a futurist eschatology.

In any case, formalized leadership (and its structure) is always an after-development of the manifestation of the gifts. It must at all times stay directly connected to the gift as empowered by the Spirit. This is how the Founder stays linked to the Founded (Eph 4). Perhaps this then is what could be meant by the phrase missiology precedes ecclesiology. If so, then I can agree with/and encourage that!

2.) Ecclesiological form – certain core practices – serves to ground the church in history, i.e. preserves its continuity with Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son: The Case of The Lord’s Table.
There are certain “things” that form the church that DO NOT CHANGE FROM CONTEXT TO CONTEXT. Instead, we do them and the shape and language of these “things” are translated to accomplish the function. These “things,” call notae or marks of the church within church history, are seen everywhere the Body of Christ comes into being. In this sense, ecclesiology is not determined by missiology. It is missiology. By becoming a people of Jesus, His Very Body, in the context we inhabit, we are sent as an apostolic community into a context to bless the world with God’s salvation in Christ.

In order for this “body” to take shape, there are these “marks” that must happen. I won’t list them now, but one good example is the Eucharist, the Lord’s Table. Kudo’s to Frank Viola and his post on Out of Ur about the post church generation. I agree with him on several things. He offered various tests in part 2 here. I might suggest that the Lord’s Table to be such a test. Here is a “ritual” that we learn that ever grafts us into the history of Jesus and Israel that shapes our lives into the Triune God and His Mission. Like the Jews and the Passover Feast, the Lord’s Table is a well-defined practice, and takes the Passover into the next dimension (in salvation-history). It keeps us in essence grounded in the incarnate Christ. It actually, through practice, forms us into a reconciling community, members of one another. It keeps us in history instead of again, becoming individualist trying ourselves to be little Jesus’ as individuals in the world. Such “little Jesus mystics” in the end, apart from His Body, eventually turn in on themselves. They seek Jesus for themselves and it usually turns into each individual’s own version of Jesus. Instead, we need the corporal existence of the Body organized for growing and shaping people into His mission in history in the world. Missional disciples (Christians shaped to participate in God’s mission in the world) do not grow on trees, they are shaped via the church through practices like the Lord’s Table into the stature of Christ (Eph 4:11-16) To reject so-called “rituals” and formal organizing principles of the church that define our very sociality, is not following the principle of incarnation, it defies it… for it pulls us out of history into self generated ecstasy. This is why I wince when I read Alan and Michael Frost say something like, “The more one replaces a fresh daily encounter with Jesus with religious forms, over time he is removed from his central place in the life of the church. The result of this removal (by whatever means) is the onset of dead religion in the place of living faith.” (p. 71 ReJesus). Now Alan and I have debated this in front of a group before. And of course Alan is right! But we shoudn’t forget that the problem isn’t the form; it is the rote and detachment from the Founder that has been allowed to happen that is the very foundation and basis for the rite in the first place.
Summary
In summary then, I want to argue that ordination and the Lord’s Table (as an example of a “ritual” which is universal for all churches in all places) make “incarnational” church possible. They do not work against it. They ground us in history, which is the essence of incarnation. Of course, in each case, these things can become dry rote. But instead of throwing them out with the proverbial bath water (for the sake of either contextualization or ridding the church of dead rote), we should seek to reinvigorate them, connect them again, and contextualize them. We are ever working at Life on the Vine to make the Eucharist the powerful grounding shaping forming event of the week that sends us out for participation in His Missio. We are ever looking for ways to make the processes of leadership recognition communal, servant oriented instead of positional, and yet historically grounding. I contend that this facilitates our participation in the Mission of God. How do you navigate this tension, between institutionalizing and spontaneity, between Spirit and form, in your own missional context? What other examples of these principles have you encountered?

P.S. on another ecclesiological vein, Bob Hyatt’s posts on video venues are a must read. To me, he illustrates the ways video venues defeat the local incarnation of a church into its immediate context. They turn a practice of the church meant to ground us into history, into a mystical Gnostic experience that detaches us from the local context. Nice post Bob! Perhaps I’ll comment on this more next time.

16 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here