Reclaiming the Mission » Missional Ecclesiology

davidfitch on February 15 2011

Yoder’s Jeremian (dispersed missional) Ecclesiology: What Yoder got right according to Leithart

I’ve been reading Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine lately. A lot has been said about Leithart’s bashing of John Howard Yoder. To me, it’s just not that big a deal. I think Yoder’s proposals for ecclesiology in post-Christendom are exactly right (I’m a “homer”). And since the new post Christendom cultures of N America is where I believed I’m called, I’ll follow Yoder. The squabbles over history and assessing Constantine’s Christianity are certainly interesting. But I don’t see it as much of an issue. The question is, how do we Christians be the people of God when we are not in power, or losing power, or indeed when we are in the missionary situation. I agree with Leithart that the question “what do we do when the emperor converts to Jesus as Lord?” is more complex than Yoder would have it. And indeed there is something positive to be learned from Constantine about Christians “in power” in these ways. But we’re not there right now. And I don’t see the pursuit of the world’s power, the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon, as the legitimate pursuit of Christians. So let’s get on to how we are to be Christians in the post-Constantinian cultural situation we find ourselves in (which is large parts of N. America).

And here is where Yoder got it right eh? Let me quote Leithart on Yoder’s description of how to be church. This is what Leithart describes as Yoder’s Jeremian ecclesiology based in Jer 29:1-7. Leithart says:

For Yoder, the Jeremian model of Jewish life and identity does more than simply provide a way of making sense of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. It provides a model for the church in its relation to the powers …Yoder’s Jeremiah instructed the people to settle into the galuth, exile, not as a temporary “hiatus” before a new kingship and temple were established, nor simply as a punishment for their sins. Jews were to “seek the salvation of the culture” of Babylon by accepting their dispersion as a call to mission. They were to retain their separate identity by adherence to a peripatetic moral and liturgical life, … (they) established places of worship without priesthoods whenever ten households gathered, … (they) found the “ground floor of identity” in the common life, the walk, halakah,” and confounded kings and emperors “with the superior wisdom and power of one authentic God.”

Jeremiah’s vision for Israel in exile was neither an effort to “Hebraize” Babylon … nor a retreat from cultural engagement. Jews served “the entire ancient Near East world as expert translators, scribes, diplomats, sages, merchants, astronomers.” … Far from being a place of resignation and lament, “Babylon itself very soon became the cultural center of world Jewry.” … (according to Yoder) this is the cultural and political program that the church inherited from Judaism.” 294-295.

Leithart says that Yoder’s vision of Christian engagement is “invigorating and just right in many respects.” He disagrees with Yoder over whether such a vision is the permanent social strategy for Christians. There is the goal of history, Leithart says, to move back from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Leithart asks what happens when the emperor becomes Christian.

This is good stuff. I’ve enjoyed the book. But for right now, I want to emphasize two things that have become clearer after reading Leithart. 1.) Leithart’s critique aside, Yoder’s vision of the church is the one most apropos for the current cultural situation many of us are living in – i.e. N America’s New post Christendom cultures. It is compelling. 2.) We can learn from Constantine something similar to what we learned from Yoder – We should not seek power as dictated by “the world,” the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon. This applies for in the church as well as outside. For whenever we do this, we doth separate ourselves from the gospel. We should not try to compete or win (for Jesus) against the existing people in governmental power on the world’s terms. That very second, the world has won, Jesus has been lost. Our witness absorbed into the ways of sin (Did not pres. George Bush lose his ability to rule as a Christian the moment he slung the sleaze and the mud at John McCain, nevermind Al Gore or later John Kerry.) We should never seek to exercise power in the world’s terms. Instead, the most subversive thing we can do to change the world is seek the salvation of the individuals in government, and ask them to renounce the world’s corruption at all costs. When one of these people, truly gets saved, happy days!! But as Hauerwas reminds “Yoder also encouraged Christians to believe that emperors could be Christians. He observed that if they tried to rule as Christian, it might result in an earlier death than they had anticipated- but, he observed, most emperors die early anyway.”

I think the Jeremian vision for the church is the way of the gospel for the challenges the church faces in Mission in the West. What say you? I’m off to Ambrose University for a few days, but I’ll try to chime in when time and internet allows.

Filed under Missional Ecclesiology,Neo-Anabaptist,Post-Christendom,Stanley Hauerwas,Uncategorized 19 Comments

davidfitch on July 13 2010

The Diversity We Seek: The Danger of Manufactured Pre-Determined Diversity

I had a conversation with someone the other day at “the Vine” about diversity and seeking diversity. At “the Vine,” we’re in the process of planting/reviving 2 missional communities and I argued that one of these contexts – Hyde Park – had to be the most diverse place in the Midwest. She said no, that a different place – Waukegan – was. We were working with two different concepts of diversity.

The actual demographics of each place can be debated. But I argued numerically that Hyde Park was more diverse because its inhabitants included a wide range of ethnicities (white people are probably in the minority here), a wide range of economic classes (from wealthy to poor across all ethnic spectrums), and a wide range in levels of education (from the intellectual elites of Univ. of Chicago to the under educated poor of the Chicago public schools system). I said as far multiple kinds of diversity, Hyde Park had to be the most diverse place in the Midwest.

My friend said Waukegan is more diverse than Hyde Parke. What she meant when was that Waukegan is a place which is more “not us.” We are middle class suburban (majority) white people with the comforts of education, stable families, homes and jobs. Waukegan is more on the “margins,” people who are struggling for all those things. When I said Hyde Park is more diverse, I was referring to the makeup internal to that community, and its broad differences within one community. When my friend said Waukegan was more diverse, she was saying Waukegan was more “other” than us: diversity as a function of a relation external to us.

As we plant communities what are the opportunities and pitfalls of each? Which diversity should we seek to plant in? Diversity a.) or Diversity b.)? What different things should we consider in terms of God’s redemptive purposes in each? Which diversity should we seek as the most appropriate context for a church like ours to seek to inhabit?

I think these are important questions. There are opportunities and pitfalls in both. I offer a comment in relation to both kinds of diversity.

In the case of Waukegan, there is an opportunity to go to the margins and minister the gospel. Given the ubiquitous poverty, this represents “the deserted places of the empire.” These are the folk God has called us to be mindful of. There is the great readiness here, fertile soil here. “Blessed are the poor, the open handed, the ready to receive, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Just as important, here is where we can learn the Kingdom, for God is at work here in unusual and different ways than we are used to. Yet there are dangers. How do we go here and not be people of privilege? Coming with the answers? Coming with our value systems we learned in the suburbs? How do we enter with proper humility? Most importantly, we must resist the temptation that we know, can predict, what redemption will look like here we inhabit these places for the Kingdom. There is a temptation it will look like our pleasant lives back in the prosperous suburbs. This is the false promise of “the American dream”.

In the case of Hyde Park, we have opportunities here as well. We have the opportunity of calling this community into the diversity of the Kingdom, the community of reconciliation and renewal that God is bringing thru Christ. The ones who are wealthy will learn from the poor and vice versa. The ones who are educated will learn from those not and vice versa. The various ethnicities will learn to love and care and understand and learn from each other. Yet we must be careful here not to allow a manufactured diversity to take shape where somehow we all look the same. We cannot appeal to some preconceived notion of what such a diversity might look like in this context. We cannot assume what our music will be, what wealth will mean. We must avoid the mistake (and this is true of many communities) that those who are successful in economy must somehow be minimized, what their success in the world might mean here (I’ve learned this from the Afro-American church communities). They surely must model how to live differently with wealth but they also must teach us how to live in the economy for witness. There is a danger of a manufactured pre-determined flattened diversity that is often shaped by the bland vision of American democracy. God wants to create something anew here through His life of forgiveness, reconciliation and renewal.

I have noticed (a times) a manufactured diversity in large churches in majority white suburban wealthy communities. Here people of different ethnicities and social backgrounds are hired to be visible and lead from up front. Is this a good thing? Sometimes this can work for some good. Sometimes, I’m afraid it is manufactured and is niot the diversity we seek. Kingdom diversity is a culture of renewal worked out on the ground in real relationships. I tend to discourage such attempts at manufacturing diversity. What about you? Is this a temptation where you minister? In what ways do you see manufactured pre-determined diversity taking shape in Christianity? Are you against the ‘token hires’ to promote diversity? How can we avoid the tendency to do manufactured pre-determined diversity? Do we need to?

Filed under Ecclesiology,Missional Ecclesiology,Uncategorized 9 Comments

davidfitch on July 6 2010

The Emerging View of the Church in Society: Alan Hirsch/Michael Frost and the Danger of De-Ecclesiologizing The Church in Mission

This is my last of three treatments on the theology of the emerging/missional church. As I said on the three previous posts here, here and here, I’m currently winding down my book project The End of Evangelicalism? by writing an epilogue probing the possibility what a new faithfulness might look like to emerge “from the rubble” of evangelicalism. I applaud the emerging and/or missional church movements. But I contend they must avoid three dangers, three traps if they (we) are to elude the traps that evangelicalism has itself already fallen into. That’s when I came up with these three clumsy terms, de incarnationalize, de-eschatologize and de-ecclesiologize. Today, I’m examining one of my favorite persons in the missional church movement – Alan Hirsch and his co-writer Michael Frost. I love these guys. I hope they take what I wrtite here as an act of love and appreciation for what they’re doing. Here’s some of what I wrote (edited for a blog post with citations etc. deleted) on third of the 3 traps using Hirsch and Frost to illustrate what such a danger might look like.

_______________________________________________

Emerging/Missional leaders have criticized evangelicalism’s practice of the church as too defensive and inward looking. The evangelical church, they say, has become an organization set off over against society as opposed to being a people in and among society in God’s Mission. Missiologists Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost, two of the main leaders of the missional church movement in N America, have challenged evangelicals in this regard to embrace a “missional ecclesiology” in N America.

Early on in their writing, Frost and Hirsch chided the N. American church for its obsession with attracting people to come to its services and programs. In The Shaping of Things to Come, they labeled the N. American church as fundamentally “attractional.” It is structured primarily around a building which is to be the center of all its various services and programs. This “attractional” modus operandi has engulfed all of the church’s functions including evangelism. According to Hirsch and Frost, we even seek to reach the hurting and those seeking faith by inviting them to church to a program we built to meet their needs. For Frost and Hirsch, this notion of the church is fundamentally flawed. It depends upon the social orbit of Christendom society where the societal expectation is that the church would be the center for all things having to do with God. This Christendom world, however, is slowly passing away. Today, this attractional “indrag” works to close off the church from the hurting and the poor and the ever-increasing world of non-Christians.

For Frost and Hirsch, the N. American church is carrying on the bad habits of Christendom. We still believe we possess power and influence in our culture “to compel them to come to us.” We organize ourselves into hierarchical business like structures that centralize the church’s operations instead of dispersing it into the world. In order to preserve our own culture, we divide what is sacred (the church) from the secular (the world). It is a power play requiring those who believe to come to church to meet God. As a result, the church is self-enclosed trying to defend its own view of the world. It has not only withdrawn from Mission, it has become antagonistic to it. In many ways then, Frost and Hirsch agree with just about everything I have written in The End of Evangelicalism? concerning evangelicalism’s practice of “the Christian Nation.”

In response to this state of affairs, Hirsch and Frost preach a dispersed notion of the church where it inhabits its neighborhoods and contexts of everyday life. Recounting some the core themes of missional thinkers, they unfurl how the church is to live missionally as an extension of the Mission of God in the world (not as a church that does missions as a program). We are to follow Christ and the incarnational model of God’s sending the Son into the very context, rhythms and language of everyday human life. We are to live inhabit the context and witness to the Kingdom. These are “the forgotten ways” of Jesus and His disciples, which bred the first mission into the world. It is only after we inhabit and identify with those we are with that the church can then take shape in terms of its programs and services. To do the reverse is to revert to the attractional ways of Christendom.

This brief summary does not do justice to the contributions of Hirsch and Frost to the burgeoning missional church movement in N. America. They have provoked the church, especially the evangelical church, to rethink its position in society and take up the posture of Christ in the world, who came humbly, vulnerably to serve, seek and save the lost. They offer us a practice of church that shapes us out of the dispassion and protectionism that has plagued so much of our churches. Their work is helping to shape among a politic of faithfulness for mission in our time.

Nonetheless, there is a potential ideological trap that lies within the missiological practices of Hirsch and Frost. It is the trap of de-ecclesiologizing the church’s relationship to society. By the word de-ecclesiologize, I am not referring merely to Frost/Hirsch’s resistance to the institutionizing of the church. Indeed some of that might be warranted. I refer instead to the separating of the practice of the church from any continuous work of the incarnate Christ in history as extended in the forms of the church by the Holy Spirit. If this happens, I contend that the church is set adrift from any determination in Christ and the work of Christ in the world. It becomes de-ecclesiologized.

This trap is not immediately apparent in Frost and Hirsch. On the contrary, they have written extensively in sympathy with theme of The End of Evangelicalism?: the restoring of Christ to the center of a politic of Mission in the world. The central task of their book ReJesus is to “reinstate the central role of Jesus … in the life and mission of God’s people.” They do not wish to separate the practice of the church from Christ, they seek to “reinstate” it. They often summarize their approach to this issue with the formula: “mission must precede ecclesiology and that Christology must precede missiology.” For Hirsch and Frost, this phrase requires that Christ must come first and be the source of the church’s formation in the world. It is Christology which drives Mission from which the church is birthed in the world.

It is this formula, however, and the assumptions behind it, that reveal the potential for the de-ecclesiologizing of the church in their ecclesiology. Implicit in this formula is that we (anyone) can know/encounter Christ determinately apart from the ongoing form of the church. The continuous forms of the church, including Eucharist, the preaching and interpretation of the canon of Scripture, the fellowship of the gifts, are therefore dispensable for Mission. Jesus forms the church directly in Mission and the church is de-ecclesiologized in Mission.

Hirsch and Frost of course are following the founding theological mantra of missional church theology, that “it is not the church that has a mission to bring God’s salvation to the world, it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church.” That the church should be defined as an extension of God’s Mission in the sending of the Son should not be questioned. Yet for Hirsch and Frost, this doctrine means that the church carries no continuous form from context to context. According to Hirsch, first comes entering the cultural context, identifying with its people, getting know, understand and live among the context. Only then, after one’s life takes shape in the culture, after redemption has taken hold in the culture, can the church take on forms. The church, as Alan is fond of saying, “comes out the back of mission.” The forms in which the church takes shape in the world are all a matter of post facto development after “we” have inhabited a context. The questions however remain: who are the ones who engage the context prior to being the church? Does not this missiological engagment assume the prior existence of the church? And how does one know Christ in this context apart from the continuous forms of the church to carry on His presence in the world?

Hirsch and Frost imply in ReJesus that it is through “a direct and unmediated relationship” between the individual believer and Christ that He is known in the context (ReJesus 55). They go to great lengths to “debunk the many false images” of Jesus that have existed in the church down through the ages. They then seek to “go back to the daring, radical, strange, wonderful, inexplicable, unstoppable, marvelous, unsettling, disturbing, caring, powerful God-Man” (ReJesus 105,111). They recognize here that we must allow all the various images of Jesus in the gospels to drive our encounter with the world. There is a serious attention given to the texts of Scripture in defending the “wild Messiah” Jesus they advocate as the basis for Mission in the world. There remains the question however, how do we seek after this Jesus without ourselves becoming victums of another encultured view of Christ? this time the Wild Messiah as portrayed and argued for by Hirsch and Frost. For Frost and Hirsch it is a fresh encounter with the living Christ which over comes the forms of the church instead of being made manifest in these same forms as Christ has given them to the church. The danger here is that Christians are left without a basis for our very connection to the ongoing presence of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in the Triune history. We become a bunch of individuals seeking a personal mystical experience of Christ via our own interpretation of the gospels. We become individual worshipers of a self-described Jesus devoid of the means to be immersed in the work of the Triune God in the world.

The church however has been given practices from Christ and in continuity with Christ as the Sent One to embody Christ in the world by the Spirit. Within these practices of the Eucharist, the preaching of the Word, baptism, the fellowship of the “gifts” through mutual submission, ordination, service to the poor (Matt 25), the presence of Christ in mutual discernment (Matt 18:15-20) the body of Christ is materialized in the world. These various practices must be contextualized for each place we inhabit God’s Mission. Yet it is here in these practices that we learn that the incarnation is more than a principle to be applied as a missiological method – it is a reality extended in and thru the church. These practices should not separate us from the world, they should incarnate us as His body in the world. To somehow separate these practices from the extended work of Christ in history into the world via the Spirit is to risk setting up on high an ideological picture of Jesus as the possession of each individual. Instead through these simple ecclesial practices, we are enabled as individuals to submit to and participate in the full Trinitarian Mission of God of which the church has been sent and is a part. In these ways, missiology does not precede ecclesiology, missiology is ecclesiology and vice versa..

The danger in all of this is that the church falls into the trap of becoming ideologized. Without the forms of the church, we Christians are left without a source of political formation in the world. Without a practice to be formed “in Christ,” we as individuals instead gravitate around compelling causes, which often can be used and manipulated for ulterior purposes, whether it be the building of a large organization or the accumulation of power for purposes devoid of Christ. If the church has no stance from which to engage the world, discern the issues, and engage God’s work in the world, it is susceptible to disappearing as it is contextualized out of existence. It can then become an ideology or worse, the instrument of an ideology. Either way the church loses its faithfulness. “Mission” becomes an ideological banner because it too is undetermined by a concrete practice in the world. It in essence becomes a concept to be applied. We can be lured to put it to the service of the pragmatics of making the church more successful in terms and for purposes that have little to do with God’s Mission. In all these ways, de-ecclesiologizing the church’s place in the world makes the church susceptible to the trap of becoming the instrument of ideology, repeating (what I show in the End of Evangelicalism?) the evangelical mistake of “the Christian Nation.”

Hirsch and Frost rightly want to guard against the Western habit of imposing a form of imperialism on the host cultures we seek to inhabit. They want to guard against the church thinking its got it all figured out before it lands in a culture. They want to guard against the tendency for the church to think that the Holy Spirit is only working in the church and its practices. For all of this Hirsch and Frost are to be applauded. With Frost and Hirsch, we should understand that the practice of the church needs be contextualized although not discarded. The church has failed often in its history at this. We need to realize that God’s Mission is at work outside the church, that Jesus is Lord over all things, and the church exists to inhabit, discern and be responsive to His work, not our own pre agendas. The church has failed at this. We need to listen to Hirsch and Frost. Yet we must do so while taking heed to avoid the trap of de-ecclesiologizing the church stance in society.

There is no question in my mind that Hirsch and Frost are leading post evangelicalism towards a new faithfulness for Mission. They teach us how to be Christ’s body, His very incarnate reality in the world. They teach us the ways of compassion, of being among the poor and the needy, they teach us how to be an hospitable witness that embodies the justice of Christ in the world. These are truly the beginnings of a politic of faithfulness. If there is to be such a politic in our future however, we must avoid the trap of de-eccelesiologizing our belief and practice of the church in society.

_______________________________________

What do you think? Does Alan and Michael fall into the trap of de-ecclesiologizing the church? Have I fallen into the error of Catholicism (please describe what that might be for you eh?)? Does this matter?

Filed under Ecclesiology,Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Theology,Uncategorized 27 Comments

davidfitch on May 25 2010

Untamed: Reactiving a Missional Discipleship by the Hirsch’s: A Review and A Question

I’ve always been a fan of Alan Hirsch and his wife Deb. I like that they have risked a lot in their lives, lived a lot among “the least of these,” that Deb is now a pastor in the city of LA, that they read incessantly. Alan is much more irenic than I. I like that too. I think Alan’s gift is his ability to read a lot of things, condense them and make them concrete to missional living. I don’t always agree with him on everything (duh). I think a lot of our disagreements come from him being a missiologist and me being primarily a pastor/theologian. I’m theologically driven ( I admit it) and Al is missiologically driven (which makes him holier).

All this to say that I read Alan and Deb’s newest book, Untamed on the plane ride home Saturday. I jotted down some highlights I’d like to share. Here goes.

THE REVIEW

The Hirsch’s book is about “reactivating a missional form of discipleship.” On page 99, they describe the modus operandi of the book: “this book has to do with overcoming obstacles inherent in our thinking about God, present in our culture, and programmed in our psyches. It is a book about idolatry, false worship, deception, and the lies we tell ourselves to get off the hook.” I like and applaud this approach to discipleship. I found it helpful.

The book runs through some of Alan’s signature themes (I recognize the book is written by Alan and Deb here BTW but up til now these themes have beem articulated by Alan et. al.)) and, I might add, what have become dominant themes in the missional world. You know them as “Christology precedes missiology,” “the bounded set centered set,” as well as others. These ideas are reflected upon here as to their implications for discipleship. The way these themes work themselves out is via four central ideas: 1.) Jesus shaped spirituality: Jesus comes first Christology precedes missiology and missiology precedes ecclesiology. 2.) Shema spirituality: a discipleship based on Jesus’ commandment to love God – love your neighbor .. of course Deb and Alan are beginning with Deut 6 here, 3.) No Mission No Discipleship: Discipleship cannot happen unless the invitation to participate and be formed by the Mission is central, and d.) the deconstruction of idolatry as a core practice of discipleship. Can I say AGAIN! – this is an excellent outline of what discipleship can be and I highly recommend it!! And the Hirsch’s do a extraordinary job of fleshing out what this looks like within the missional life of a community. Again, it’s well worth the read.

Allow me to mention a few more highlights. I like Allan/Deb’s question on page 45 “what is it about holiness of Jesus that caused sinners to flock to him like a magnet and yet managed to seriously antagonize religious people?” I like the Hirsch’s chapter on sexuality. Coming from a significant ministry and life among the sexually hurting, this chapter is substantive and really helpful. I appreciated their soft chiding on the place the family has taken in American culture (ch. 6). Thank-you thank –you. Thank-you. These ideas will help me in discussions within my own home and around us as we are in the midst of planting missional communities.

So, all in all, this book is a good contribution to discipleship in missional communities. It’s not a manual or a specific method or strategy. It’s a bunch of creative ideas about discipleship we should be thinking about as we plant missional communities. It’s good and I’m glad I read the book, especially because I’ve been pondering the issue of discipleship a lot lately at our church.

THE QUESTION

Of course, there are some theological issues here that I am unsettled about. But this is not Alan or Deb’s problem. I don’t think they would self-describe themselves as putting forth theological foundations for the missional movement. Yet I still think we need these foundations badly.

For instance, I continue to growl when I see the “Christology precedes Missiology precedes Ecclesiology” theme. This theme is of course foundational to the book. NOW I KNOW that when Alan or others use the term ‘ecclesiology”in this way, they are talking about the form and function of the church. The form and function of the church should follow from the gospel’s engagement with the context because mission defines the church. Mission isn’t a program of the church, it is the church. In this sense, I agree. But for me there’s a significant unrecognized problem with following this logic. By splitting Jesus from His ongoing incarnation in the “body of Christ” the church; i.e. by saying Christology precedes the church, we are left with the epistemological problem: how do we know Jesus? To Alan and Deb, maybe this seems obvious –i.e. by reading the gospels, praying and allowing the Spirit to teach us. This seems to be in line with charismatic evangelical epistemology they are already comfortable with. But without the church as the manifest ongoing social embodiment of orthodoxy grounded in Christ and the apostles by the Spirit, do we not leave ourselves open to self-creating Jesus in our own personal image – the very problem Alan and Deb wish to remedy. Are we not open to all the cheesy consumerising of Jesus all us missional types deplore? Without the organic body, in succession, working out the gifts in check “one with another,” are we not left to our own psyches and or exegesis of the gospels. The Spirit certainly works this way yet there must be more. I contend there is a prior order and shape to the church that runs all through history that makes possible the incarnation of Christ into the world again and again. The charismatic individualized receiving of Jesus can really only happen within this ongoing shaping body of the church. So to put Jesus or missiology before ecclesiology opens the Christian to the same grand epistemological problem. This is why John Howard Yoder famously pronounced that the church must “precedes the world epistemologically.” Priestly Kingdom, 11.

When Alan and Deb put forth the problem that “we tend to create Jesus in our own image” 40, that we domesticate him for our purposes, that we need to “free” Jesus from these cultural, Christianized boxes, what Alan and Deb must answer is “how do we know that “the wild Messsiah,” the Untamed Jesus, is not the Jesus created by Alan/Deb Hirsch?” This is the question I have posed before right? Alan is not surprised by this. He’s heard (or read) me blather on about this elsewhere. Do they find the true Jesus through better exegesis? better cultural analysis? Is it through the direct Holy Spirit illumination as one reads and prays the Scriptures?

I contend Jesus becomes present in the practice of His Table, the proclamation of the Word (not the informationalizing of it) and the practice of the gifts, the resolving of difference and conflict, of fellowship etc.i.e. the core practices of becoming His people in the world. Jesus incarnates Himself in the world via the community, as it carries on in succession from Christ Himself as His body into the world. Out of this place of His presense at the Eucharist, the proclaimed Word, and the gathering of gifts, binding and loosing (Matt 18), His authority, His forgiveness, His reconciliation, His life giving renewal and healing of all things, His very presense is incarnated into the world. From this place, Jesus manifests Himself uniquely for each context and pushes us out as His Sent presence in the world. This is the defined ecclesiology which, for better or worse, Yoder says precedes the world epistemologicallyTHIS IS THE LOGIC OF INCARNATION INTO THE WORLD.

We can avoid the whole problem, therefore, by simply saying that ecclesiology is missiology (or vice versa) and that without Jesus as the incarnate center of each, they are empty and void.

Despite any theological push backs on the nature of missional ecclesiology, I continue to advocate leaning on Alan and Deb for their marvelous missiological explorations. I recommend this book. Anyone else read the book? Any other great nuggets from the book out there you care to share? Questions? Push back? Debate?

What do you think the greatest theological challenge is for the missional church and its authors?

In the meantime, thanks to Alan and Deb for a job well done. Keep er going!

Filed under Books Reviews,Ecclesiology,Missional Ecclesiology 11 Comments

davidfitch on March 22 2010

6 Reasons Not To Go To Church

2958546316_0aa6879fdc The phrase “go to church” is a “no-no” in missional circles. Some 20-something chastises me every-time I let that phrase slip from my mouth at our church. Church is not a place we go. It is a way of life we live as being God’s people in the world participating in His Mission. Acknowledging that, why get up and go on Sunday to the gathering of His people? I must admit often awakening Sunday morning and experiencing the inertia of getting going to the Sunday morning gathering. And I am a pastor! Why go to such a gathering?

To combat this inertia, I think we can get into some bad habits for “going to church.’ If we got rid of these habits, we might actually be able to see the gathering as a more natural part of the rhythms of our life with God in His Mission. Here’s 6 bad reasons to “go to church” Don’t go to church …

1.) OUT OF DUTY/OBLIGATION. Spiritual disciplines are good if they are openings for God to work and shape out lives into His life and Mission. Too often however, disciplines become duties, devoid of the life they were meant to connect us to. Don’t go to church out of duty or obligation. It should be a regular spiritual discipline that shapes us into His life and Mission.
2.) IF THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN. If you think being a Christian is what happens in this hour-hour and half – stop going to church and ask what it means to follow Christ when you don’t go. This is where we gather to encounter the living God corporately, respond to Him, be shaped by His vision and His work, and then be sent out to continue this life into the world.
3.) TO GET MY NEEDS MET. If you think some problem in your life will be solved or some need met by “going to church” – don’t go! Because more than likely you’ll be disappointed. Sometimes needs, physical and otherwise, get met at the cross (or around the prayer bench) in instantaneous fashion but most often there’s some suffering that needs to walked through in the death and resurrection of Christ. Most of our needs are ministered to over time as we submit them regularly to Christ and what He is doing.
4.) TO FEEL GOOD, GET INSPIRED. I recognize a lot of times I come away feeling inspired and good after the gathering. But I try to check myself on this. For if I get addicted to a certain “feeling good” worship experience or some inspiration from the sermon – my relationship with God starts to look like – an addiction to a feeling that has become narcissistic. It stunts the growth of my character into God and what He is doing. Maybe I’m too uptight on this?
5.) TO PERFORM. Occasionally I will notice that I’m going off to the gathering to perform. I’m going to go preach, or teach, or guide the children’s ministry. I feel like other people can get into this rut too. I’m going to sing, play guitar, be cool, whatever (BTW I haven’t played the guitar in 20 years). We’re getting a buzz from performing. Something subtle occurs and it’s about my self-accolades. I feel better about myself after doing something for God. I suggest, if this is happening, don’t go to the gathering. Shrink back. All our service in the gifts and to the world should be out of our life with God. It should be an offering unto Him out of the gifts He keeps giving. Of course, we need affirmation in order to recognize what God is doing and calling us to. But that’s a different dynamic. After I preach a sermon, I discipline myself to leave that sermon in God’s hands. I offered it to Him. If and when I receive feedback, it is for the furtherance of His work in my life and the community.
6.) TO GET SOMETHING FROM THE EXPERT. If we go to church to get something on the Christian life from the expert in a sermon or something, I think we miss the point. The so-called expert is most likely gifted to proclaim. He/she has been recognized for God’s work in this regard in his/her life. But the real formation happens in the response and the working out of that proclamation among a people. The expert, on his own, often disappoints or worse starts acting like he/she is the only one who knows Scripture which breeds distrust of any authority in the community. The thought process –GET SOMETHING FROM AN EXPERT – defeats God’s work in community and should be discouraged. Don’t “go to church” if this is the way you think it works.

Over against these reasons NOT to “go to church,” I still believe that the church gathering is a part – just a part – albeit and important part – of the rhythm of Mission. For it is at the gathering, we come as broken people in order to submit ourselves to what He is doing to be shaped for Mission. Here we are led into His presence, the reading of Scripture, the liturgies of submission, affirmation of truth and confession, the proclamation of the gospel and the feasting on His forgiveness and new life at the meal, in praise and thanksgiving and finally into the sending out into Mission.

Are there any more reasons “not to go to church” which might actually prevent church from becoming a part of a Missional rhythm for a people of God. Can you think of any more?

Filed under Ecclesiology,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology 30 Comments

davidfitch on December 8 2008

The Attractional/Missional Debate Won’t Stop: Three Take-Aways

This attractional/missional debate just won’t stop! And I think we might be getting somewhere. Thanks to Dan Kimball and Out of Ur for starting this whole thing up again. Here are some highlights for me.

1.) This is a question about the right way of church in post-Christendom. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Pres. NYC, in one of his comments on my last post, raises the issues of the Models of the Church. He says all of the various historical models of the church have different strengths, weaknesses, gift mixes, and are appropriate for certain times and contexts. We need them all. I agree! What I want to argue is post Christendom requires of us an Anabaptist missional ecclesiology. Indeed what I want to argue is that the attractional and consumerist driven ecclesiologies have not got the contextualization right, what Keller refers to as “not over-adapted or under-adapted.” I think prof. Keller’s approach to cultural engagement (in that comment) has some problems in it in that he uses the word “adapt.” But I know he wasn’t working out a theology of culture there. So I’ve got to give him the benefit of the doubt.

2.) Part of this talking past each other (Attractionals talking past Missionals) has to do with the assumptions that underlie Reformed versus Anabaptist (as well as Pragmatist) missional theorists and practitioners. On my comment (in my last blog post) to prof. Keller, I hinted that I thought some of the talking past each other (in this missional/attractional debate) was due to some assumptions that lie deeply embedded in the Reformed leanings that back some missional thinkers (I’d put in this camp Keller, Driscoll and my buddy Stetzer – depite his denials) and the assumptions that lie embedded in my own and others’ Anabaptist (postmodern cultural) leanings. I want to explore that in another upcoming post. Ironically Andy Rowell has mapped 60 theologians on the spectrum of high church-low church. I think he’s ranked me wrong. For in terms of strong ecclesiology I, like the theologian who has most influenced me (Hauerwas), find myself committed to a very Mennonite communal ecclesiology along with a very high church (Catholic) view of liturgical formation. Having said that, I’d like to see Andy rank the missional thinkers along the Catholic – Reformed – Anabaptist theological spectrum. I’m going to address this in a future post.

3.) In the end the attractional apologists must still answer the consumerist question! Bill Kinnon’s post today is a highlight. In response to Redeemer Pres. NYC pastor Tim Keller’s comment in my last post, the irrepressible Bill Kinnon says some things that must be responded to directly. It’s got to be one of the highlights of this entire blogalogue on missional versus attractional. I urge Dr Keller, Dr McKnight, Rev Kimball, and other missional thinkers to respond to Bill. I urge a response that does not by pass the issues he presents regarding consumerism. Yes it’s a tired critique. But answers like “no one can avoid being a consumer,” or “people are coming to Christ in these churches” or “different models work for different contexts” simply don’t cut it when a guy like Bill Kinnon speaks so forthrightly.I hope everyone else has learned as much as I have from this dialogue. What do you think about these proposals? Agree? Disagree?

Tags: Stanley Hauerwas

Filed under Church Planting,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology,Post-Attractional 14 Comments

« Newer Entries