The inappropriate question “are you a church yet?”
Are you a church yet? If you are a missional person, you are not supposed to ask this question. It is presumptuous, assuming what you’re doing is not already church. Meeting in your house, eating together, serving in your neighborhood, studying the Scriptures, praying for each other and your neighbors – what could be more church than that? In addition, this question sometimes assumes you must first be a “self- sustaining congregation” of sufficient size that meets regularly in a building of some sort and can pay a pastor a full time salary in order to be a church. For many of us these assumptions are an anathema to the missional cause. Indeed many of us renounce the idea of a full time salary as the foundation for a church. We see no reason why a community is not sustainable from day one.
Yet is there some validity in this question
Yet I suggest there is still something in this question that might be worth a second look. If we define the church as mission, then a community only acquires the status of God’s church when it is in fact inhabiting God’s mission. The question “are you a church yet?” then forces us to ask about the community’s participation in God’s mission. And this I suggest is a good thing.
I’ve noticed that there are times in every church plant when we are tempted to enjoy community as an end in itself. I have seen it happen: people start gathering locally in a house community enjoying kingdom living. Kingdom living is rich. The relationships are incredible. The realness of seeking Christ can be a high for those used to programed church. We have been dying for this kind of community. And so we turn inward. And we lose the sense of our identity as God’s mission, that God is doing something in us only as it is part of something much larger that God is doing in the whole world. So it is good to ask “are we a church yet?” if we mean are we participating in God’s Mission?
How might we tell? The Necessity of the Community’s Political Manifestation
How might we tell we are a church on this sense? Well, we could examine our lives in mission. We train ourselves, as members of a missional community, to pay attention to the rhythms of each others’ lives, to pay attention to what God is doing, to ask “what is God doing, saying? How will we respond?” We pay attention to the patterns of our week noting what God’s is doing as we are intentionally inhabiting – the coffee shop, the PADS center, the McDonald’s, the bar, the community center, the park. We establish a presence in the neighborhood out of the lives God has already given us in this community. We can certainly then check in on how well we’re doing in these practices.
And yet even here at this point I don’t think this community has developed to the point where I’d call it a church in the way we are defining it?
I’m convinced a second stage is necessary. This is where the community develops a political presence in the neighborhood or town. It establishes its public face, an identity as a political entity. This political manifestation is the manner in which our way of life is identified, made visible to those outside the gospel. When someone sees us engaging (as individuals) the homeless, or resisting the corporate takeover of the local school or ministering prayer to the hurting person at the local funeral home, they are able to understand what is going on as more than one person’s thing via that person being a part of a local visible social presence – the church community. It helps the person outside the church community make sense of why we do what we do. It is the social witness of the gospel.
Such a social presence builds credibility and wherewithal to engage injustice. With such a public presence, we can sponsor and participate in community events, resist corporate evil, muster financial assistance when needed. I suggest whether it’s a web site, a “church” name or an open meeting – this public face makes possible an incursion into the neighborhood not possible otherwise. I suggest such a political manifestation is essential to what it means to be church in the world whatever that might look like. (I know it’s different for every context – but even in Communist China – eventually the underground church has to have a way to make itself politically present in order to offer resistance to the powers).
If we take Acts 2:42-47 as a model of community formation we notice how much of the beginnings was about the formation of the community. And yet something about the words “and they enjoyed the favor of all the people” reveals they became known corporately in the community. Strangely, this early community took on the name “The Way” to identify itself, a name that sounds so cool that a current hipster church might have just as easily come up with. (Acts 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).
What do you think? What makes up for you the dynamic that establishes the political manifestation of your missional community? Is it OK to ask this question“are you a church yet?” in these terms? Is a political manifestation necessary for each community to truly engage the local neighborhoods for mission? How does your church, your missional community take on a political manifestation in your social context?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
I agree with the thrust of your argument in terms of the true calling of the church and a need for an identifiable public witness that points people to God. But asking the question “Are we a church yet?” too can turn too easily from a question of intentionality and purpose to a question of identity. And when identity is defined by performance, everything usually goes downhill from there.
Agreed. It is a question that is so common … that I am wondering if it isn’t worth reframing it … and avoiding the other side of the danger of dumping it entirely …
Don Everts said it very well in his book “Jesus with Dirty Feet” when he reminded us that Church isn’t about a place or institution; it’s just the plural of “Jesus Follower” (the root of what it is to be a Christian). It’s about community, family and fellowship; not about a building or a particular ritual. We all need this constant reminder! We’re not out “institution building”, instead we are supposed to create a community that harbors love and shares Christ’s teachings to all people, accepting all who will come to Him just as they are. I’m humbled to be a Pastor who doesn’t collect a salary, or depend on donations to keep our community going. Thank you for sharing this important reminder, Dr Fitch! (also posted on Facebook)
I’m very glad that God graced me with a secular job that allows me to be His servant without being dependent on needing an “institution” to pay a salary.
in the Ch of England, Fresh Expressions are recognized as church when they implement the sacraments.
This is helpful to think through. I have a question (or perhaps more than one question) in all of this:
1.) Does the community *aim* to *make itself* politically present or does a political presence *emerge* from an *active and tangible joining with God in his mission* in a community through the various examples you gave? Put another way, do we aim to join God in his mission or do we aim to be a political presence or can the two aims not be separated? I know there can be an unhealthy desire in me to *aim* be a political presence in my community *above* my *aim* to join God in his Kingdom purposes.
Here’s a second one:
2.) Is it helpful for an established church to ask the question “are we no longer a church?” when they have a.) ceased to have a political presence by being so insulated from their surrounding culture or b.) ceased to be a positive political presence by being so defined by what they are against in the community (see Fitch’s “The End of Evangelicalism?” ;o))
I’m more interested in question #1, as question #2 leads me to too much negative critique (although I think it may be a valid question).
- Matt from The Cleve
I think you both raise valid points but I want to push back the other way a little now. First, I think your right on in recognizing our need to aim at joining God rather than aiming at being politically present. The latter should be the result of the former.
Now, at the risk of sounding extremely cliche, I would caution us not to dump the baby out with the bath water. The dark side of a strength is a weakness, but this does not mean our strength should be ignored. We are human beings, as such we like to name things. This is good because it helps others identify who we are. A website may also help the anonymous or curious person to eventually join our community. I guess a question would be, is your community worth joining or should they go to the mega-mansion down the road? If you’re a community worth joining, then make it available.
Back to what I think Fitch’s main point is here, however, I believe what he is doing is giving us a warning to not become a cul-de-sac. We’re not create separate cut-off communities that are safe for our liking. This I believe is the more important issue.
Burly, I’m right with you on question #1. I was getting ready to pushback there, but you said it better than I could. The political presence of the early church in Dave’s example is, I think, an emergence, not an aim (thanks for these terms). I think we have to treat these things (church names, websites, etc.) with some degree of wariness because in too many churches I fear they have been used as vacuous signifiers of political presence; they claim or point to a body politic that doesn’t actually exist in the neighborhood.
In the end I think Dave is right that the church’s body politic should be visible in the community, but this isn’t a separate movement from our individual rhythms. It’s a natural outgrowth of inhabiting the neighborhood, if we’re together following where God is leading. But in a culture where politics (both inside the church and out) is so often form without substance, I think it’s right to resist the “normal” rush to throw up a website with a catchy church name.
Good word John B. Thanks
I agree with you in spirit. However, the “body politic” is somewhat problematic for me. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that “in favor with the people” indicates the kind of activity you are advocating. We are to engage our culture and serve and seek justice–I do not advocate a separation between sacred and secular. However, I just don’t see that kind of activism in the first few centuries of the church or even suggested in the writings. It is not that they did not have opportunity. People stood against injustice in public ways throughout the ages. But I do not see the church in the first few centuries doing this. They engaged culture and people, they served, they fought injustice by loving and serving–but they were not known for militancy or political activism.
Credibility is built by serving and loving and caring for those who are victims of injustice. For example: the volunteer groups who set up abortion counseling services, clothing rooms, free OBGYN care, and adoption services as opposed to those who march, lobby, and insert themselves into the public eye through the media.
I hope I haven’t missed your point (I’ve been known to do that).
It’s a great post, though. And it is making me think. Thank you!
I like this. We are continually wrestling through this issue. I was also thinking as I read the post that established churches may benefit from asking the question “are we still a church?” Specifically when an established church has lost a sense of mission and presence in the community. Burly’s point that this could devolve into critique, is valid but provides a caution rather than a reason to avoid the question.
As we critique institutionalization of the church, we must be careful not to see structure as the enemy – it is an essential and morally neutral component to any living thing. We talk a lot about growing organically – what organic thing grows without structure? I’ve heard someone say “we shouldn’t structure it until there’s an it to structure.” This gets to the issue of whether it is structure driving our mission or the mission is informing our structure.
But I can say this much from personal experience, unless we all live on the same street (and perhaps even then), without intentional structure, it is incredibly difficult to participate in the things David is talking about as a community rather than a collection of individuals.
So, whether it is a communal Rule of Life, public worship gatherings, an online worshiping community/virtual connection or whatever, I agree that we need an intentional and visible social presence – for the benefit of both the “church” and the larger community.
I agree whole- heartedly. This issue has worried me for many years. I have been searching for the perfect church. I now know their is none what you guys said helps us to understand all of the necessary ingredients needed to be a Christian that is the church. Thanks Dr. Fitch for raising this question and giving an answer.
I agree with K. that political activism of the kind suggested seems an unnecessary adjunct to the work of the Kingdom. We as followers of Christ are commanded to follow His example. He loved the Father and gave Himself up for us. Sacrificial living on our part is His expectation.
I happen to think that government is a much greater force of evil than greedy corporations. But this in no way colors my approach to ministry or church. (by whatever name) I believe God want us to reach out to the dispossessed and downtrodden, the hurting and the seeking, out of love for and obedience to the Father who desires their reconciliation and healing. I am less convinced He desires us to fight the culture wars in His name.
The structure, action and identity of groups of people who worship and minister together is too often suborned to the traditional strictures of American Christianity. I think, to the detriment of the Kingdom. Meeting lost people where they are and accepting them as who they are is a difficult job for most of us. I’ve been down the missional road for a while and it often seems to be “kicking against the pricks”. Perhaps using a word other than “church” to describe who we are and what we’re doing is a good thing. A freedom thing. “I’m a Christian” should mean something primarily other than church attendance.
Like it. Agree with it. Community living is wonderful, but Community presence is quite another. They must go hand in hand if we’re going to have the local presence that God desires a church to have.
Looking forward to seeing you in Toronto in May.
Jonathan
K. and Scott,
I think we might be talking past one another … for indeed I was assuming that what you were talking about when you say “they engaged culture and people, they served, they fought injustice by loving and serving” … was in essence “political activism.” To be political is in essence to make the truth public … to make the gospel more than something private … and since I’m a pcacificist .. I view the act of resisting forces (both state and corporatist) … as essential to being political although many, stupidly IMO, regard that as withdrawal.
Peace DF
As is usual (especially between me and my wife) most disagreements are matters of semantics! But I am not certain we are totally talking past each other. “…I view the act of resisting forces (both state and corporatist)…as essential to being political”–how is that done without the political activism Scott and I are speaking of?
In the Churches of Christ (my background), there was a leader during the Civil War named David Lipscomb. He was pacifist (most Southern C of Cs were pacifist from the 1800s to throughout World War I–some of their universities were shut down by the government during WW I because of this) and he opposed involvement with the government for he saw all governments as “kingdoms of the world.” He did not participate in the political process or vote. However, he was active in caring for the poor and down trodden. He did not support slavery–he was anti-slavery and was opposed to segregation among Southern churches. During the Cholera epidemic of Nashville he cared for the sick and even hitched up his wagon and transported Catholic Nuns who worked as nurses during the epidemic.
Once a Confederate Captain was dispatched to sit in his church and listen to him preach to hear if he was loyal to the South–his response to his superior officer was something like “I do not know if he is loyal to the South or the North–but I do know to Whom his allegiance lies.”
The pre-20th century Churches of Christ had a lot of similarities to emerging and missional churches. I would say that he was involved in the culture and stood up for victims of injustice–but he was definitely not a political activist in the common use of the term.
Just a little push back…I don’t think it’s correct to bifurcate the issue between mission and community. That’s a dichotomy that I don’t see in the Scriptures. Bonhoeffer said that he who loves community destroys community, but he who loves the brethren builds community. I think the real issue is between people as an end and purpose as an end.
Community is a unity of persons as persons. Only persons are worthy of being an end. Community is the expression of persons regarding each other as an end. The aim is directly at the person and community is the result. If, however, I want community or the benefits of community then people take a back seat. They are replaceable. If I can achieve community with a different set of people then that’s fine since ‘community’ is my goal. In other words, the purpose of community is the end, not people.
Mission is not high enough to be thought of as an end for the same reason community can’t be an end. If we make mission and end, then people are replaceable as long as we can accomplish the mission. This leads to all kinds of cruelty.
We don’t think of a marriage as having to have a purpose. It is a good in itself because it is the dance of two people choosing each other as an end. The central definition of God is love. As Trinity God has His being in communion. This is the exemplar of personhood being an end. The Church doesn’t need a useful mission to justify its existence. Its existence is its mission; love experienced and expressed reflects the nature of God.
This whole idea is what I believe Dag Hammarskjöld was getting at when he said, “It is more noble to give yourself completely to one individual than to labor diligently for the salvation of the masses.” It doesn’t mean we don’t labor for the salvation of the masses, but we do it because the masses contain real people and real people is where our focus should be.