It happens on facebook when I give the slightest indication the church is God’s instrument in the world. It happens frequently when I am speaking and assert that God has empowered the church to extend Christ’s presence in the world. It happens when I coach church planters that are missionally oriented and ask them when they gather for worship. It happens when I engage my missional friends on one of the variants of the formula “missiology precedes ecclesiology.” It happens each time I meet someone who has been abused by the traditional church. Each time there is a out-sized reaction against organizing people into practices traditionally associated with being the church (this is especially true of the public worship gathering, or the ordination of clergy).
OF COURSE IT IS TRUE that in many cases the local church has become stuck in paying for buildings, “hell-bent” on attracting people into worship services at all costs, authority structures that gum up the works via the hierarchical clergy. It is true that the Church has abused the eucharist, has tried to colonize whole people groups into a specific enculturated way of being the church, thereby making the gospel a piece of Western propaganda. It happens every time a mega church pastor exerts control over his behemoth enterprise for his/her own personal glory. It happens every time the church has used spiritual authority to abuse people so as to enrich its coffers and expand its enterprise. I think I’ve written enough on all these things to convince you all that I am well aware of these dangers. I’m no fan of what has become of the institutionalized church (especially its mega church consumerist varieties). If you don’t believe me, read The Great Giveaway for example.
But, unfortunately, this wise caution against organizing people into Christendom-tainted-functions of the church has turned into a phobia, an unhealthy fear. I call this ekklesaphobia. And I believe it is time to ask whether such an ekklesaphobia is hurting the furthering of fresh expressions of the gospel over N America as the missional movement matures into its third decade. I say yes.
This ekklesaphobia manifests itself in dysfunctional leadership that cannot recognize the Kingdom authority invested by Christ in the 5 fold gifting structure of leadership (although hierarchy is still bad IMO). It manifests itself when we cannot understand the forming event of the Eucharist where the presence and authority of the Kingdom breaks out and forms a community of the King to spread reconciliation and renewal of all things. It manifests itself when we cannot see the formational effects of true worship (read chapter 15, p. 217 in NT Wright’s Simply Jesus to get a taste of what I am talking about). There are no missional people apart from the place in which these people are formed into His Mission. Anyone who thinks this can be done solely individually one to one does not get the nature of how sociality under the King shapes people into the Kingdom. For all these reasons and more, I have a new phrase when I see signs of ekklesaphobia manifesting itself. I say “DON’T BE AN EKKLESAPHOBE.”
The sources of ekklesaphobia come from various places. I’ll just name 3 which I hope to expound upon in my next post. First, We’re afraid of repeating the colonialist mistake. Second we’re afraid of the protestant principle (a version of the ecclesial mistake of triumphalism in culture). Third, many of us have been abused by church authority and we’ll do anything to avoid that hell again 
. These fears lead us to throw out the practices (like worship, ordination, discipleship/baptism) by which God forms His people as the means to extend the presence of Christ in the world.
Of course, I have a fourth fear, and that is that once people are given permission to not fear the church practices anymore they will revert back to the default ways they have grown up with doing church. They will then repeat all the things that have gone wrong in N American ecclesiology these past 40 years (I’ve seen this way too often). I think therefore we must learn from each of these historical problems. So I will post some thoughts on each of these three fears in the next few weeks. Til then I urge people: Don’t Be an Ekklesaphobe
What do you think? Is there an eklessiaphobia in the missional church? What drives it? In what ways is it healthy? Is it unhealthy?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Yes! there is eklessiaphobia in missional circles. More so in “Missiorganic” (my term) arenas. Those are are missional, but with a greater focus on organic church. The label “institutional” is easily laid at the feet of those who want to gather in any sort of predetermined way with a programed delivery of music, message, or mantra. Some are so focused on not being attractional, that they become unattractive.
I think Ralph Winter’s PDF deals well with this:
http://pcms-usa.org/articles/The%20Two%20Structures%20of%20God's%20Redemptive%20Mission.pdf
Great Post! Looking forward to seeing the comments.
This is definitely a reality. I love the term! I agree with your reasoning as to why it has appeared, too.
I think one of the most clarifying activities for anyone really wanting to see God’s kingdom come is simply trying to start a Missional community. One very quickly realizes the powerlessness of just “hanging out” and how much rhythm and routine and “tradition” is needed to form people as disciples of Jesus.
I have at times been an ekklesiophobe. There was a period of two years in which my family and I were not regular attenders of a congregation. We had just come out of nearly a decade of full time ministry, and had been burned in various ways, by people. We were also having trouble finding a congregation to become a part of. So we watched sermons on the internet. We went through Mark Driscoll’s series on Ruth, and several T.D. Jakes messages. Heh.
What I have come to realize is that hell is in fact other people, as Sartre told us. But we are those others. That is, in relationship and community we get down to the business of living together, and in so doing we hurt each other. When I live closely with others, I blunder, I sin, I offend, I get angry, etc. But without those relationships these flaws in me are not brought to light.
Being in relationship means having yourself reflected back to you in all your awfulness.
Abandoning the church altogether is to deny the truth. That is, it is not other people who are the problem, but I am. Chesterton said this in response to the query ‘What’s wrong with the world?” He said, “I am.” Same goes for the church. Never join the perfect church, because you’ll be sure to mess it up!
We need to be close to others, so that we have occasion to confess and be forgiven. We are going to sin, regardless, but if we do so on our own, we never have to admit it. In relationship, there is something bigger than ourselves at stake, so we have to own our flaws, confess them, and repent, becoming sanctified, rightly formed, through community.
We are accustomed to seeing this in marriage, or in raising children, but the familial metaphor has been extended to the church, and we are to live in it.
When church is just one day a week, and not actively working together in the trenches of mercy, mission, and sacrifice, we still have no occasion to blunder and then confess. This is what seems so right to me about the missional perspective, and how it leads to formation. Worshiping together is formative, and essential, but it needs to occur within the context of ministry together so that we have the chance to live together. It is absolutely essential that we offend one another. There is no other occasion in which we can demonstrate Christ’s forgiveness to one another, and live out something radically different from the world. But this cannot happen unless we are doing things together. Living together, working together, playing together.
Nathan
This is something that I experienced as a participant in the Sentralized conference in Kansas City this past fall. Several of the participants ranging from new comers to old timers had this disdain for “traditional church.”
The hopeful thing is that these folks were talking about reconnecting with Jesus and his mission. They were seeking ways to be faithful to his calling to disciple and be disciples. They wanted to throw away practices, beliefs, and values that hindered them from connecting with God’s activity. Their aim seemed to be of great value.
Yet the methods they were aspiring to were Marcionistic in function. I was hearing folks who liked Jesus but hated what they caricatured as “traditional church.” At the time, I named my observation an “unhealthy discontinuity with tradition” following Pelikan’s definition of tradition. Your word seems much better than that phrase.
Thanks for the thoughts and I look forward to reading your follow up post.
Paul, I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on your comment that you heard “disdain for traditional church” at Setralized from some PARTICIPANTS and not from any of the SPEAKERS. Is that correct? I don’t believe we had any speakers that do not believe in the true nature/essence of the church. There is certainly a place for a strong/clear prophetic voice, but that is not the same as having “disdain” for the church.
Yes to PARTICIPANTS and No to SPEAKERS:) Several of the participants that I spoke to were not working with the the level of theological skill or amount of time for reflection as the speakers. I found the main sessions for Sentralized both challenging and refreshing. I merely found the personal conversations in the lounge area troubling at times.
Fair enough, thanks for further comment
Paul,
If the impulse toward an “unhealthy discontinuity with tradition” is of interest to you, I would commend looking into the discussions surrounding “restitutionism” among Anabaptists, starting with Franklin Littell. This ongoing discussion is very interesting stuff, because here the restitutionist impulse (most often an assumption) is being named, critiqued, and yet defended at times, in open dialogue with the likes of J H Yoder, Walter Klassen, Neil Blough, etc.
Thanks for the reference Mijk.
the command to love our ennemies is to be first practiced in the church.
very good article. so much truths.
But I have a question: what is the “protestant principle” ?
Yes, there a fear of hierarchical institutional churches. This is, I believe, the Ekklesaphobia which you are referring to. This phobia is a healthy one. The institutional churches turn people into oblivious obedient zombies, not obedient to Christ but obedience to the safe, switched off and unhealthy passive life. I will gladly hold on to my Ekklesaphobia because I choose not to be a ekklesazombie. I say this as an ex-ekklesapastor. The Church is alive and well by the power of Jesus Christ.
John, I am sorry for your terrible experience in the institutional church. I too have been on the receiving end of institutional group think and will never return to that type of situation.
However, it seems you have exchanged the pulpit for a paintbrush, casting about with broad brushstrokes vis-a-vis ALL institutional churches turning their people into “ekklesazombies.” This is flat-out wrong. I belong to a denomination (one that sits on the Evangelical/Mainline fence) that allows all the latitude in the world – in Scripture, rather – when it comes to liturgy, programs, discipling methods, even hiring practices! The denomination only asks of its ministers that they uphold ministerial integrity regarding sexuality and financial practices.
I have certainly participated in some churches that put the “eeeek!” in ekklesaphobia for me and for others … sort of an anti-magnetic persona-ality that says good stuff officially but acts the opposite … but what’s behind the curtain eventually always gets revealed. Meanwhile, it takes a lot of Spirit-empowered fortitude to go back into the ecclesial fray after repeatedly being battered in bad churches.
For those of us who do, and who find a home in a more missional-oriented group, I can understand all too well the fear, reluctance, trepidation in trying something else. However, our avoidance of “organizing” because of past abuse means nothing really redemptive came out of those destructive experiences … and that could be a bad “barometer indicator.” If we simply skirt around issues of organizing because of past hurt, what makes us think we’ll be intent on finding a providential and constructive edge in difficult things that happen to us in our future together?
I know I harp on this, but I really do think it would help missional people *immensely* to understand more about different people’s learning styles and how that affects the ways we organize our life together, and what we are providentially “wired” to need for those experiences. Many of the organizing abuses we likely have experienced come from one kind of thinking style becoming dominant over the others (and/or being allowed to become dominant). That’s the essence of “colonialism,” isn’t it? One power or authority or personality takes control, superimposing it’s perspective and will on the others? Well, we aren’t going to fix our phobia of colonialism by avoidance and doing nothing; if we want to construct something positive out of that deconstruction, we should look at integrative multiculturalism (i.e., interculturalism) as an opposing paradigm to what leads to colonialism.
Anyway, it would sure help to be trained in how to forge something creative together that actually integrates us as a group that is unified without uniformity, creative without chaos, intentional without institutional. I’m trying to turn my eeeeek! experiences into something constructive and am working on resources that hopefully will help some parts of this problem…
a reflection by F. Viola on the topic:
http://www.ptmin.org/postchurch.pdf
I enjoyed this post, David. I wonder if ekklesaphobia is a sign of not really making a true missional change. Hanging out, having a bible study group in a coffee shop, and other such practices gets us out of the buildings but we still may hove more of an attractional motive than we think. Taking up a lifestyle of discipleship with a rhythm of encountering God in community and the eucharist will, I think, make us more able to see God at work in the lives of those who “are far off and those who are near.”
Well said.
As someone who has been hurt by institutional church in my life, I am deeply sympathetic to those who you mention in point 3. At the same time, this is the group that most worries & frustrates me as well.
It worries me because it is the expression of the phobia that is most likely to find resonance with others (as there is no shortage of people hurt by the church) and thus contribute to a trend that can be quite unhealthy.
It frustrates me because, for many, especially those who are finding a career in being the voice for the wounded, “leaving the church” becomes a badge of honour, almost without any qualification. For some, it is almost as though those of us in the institutional church just haven’t seen the light yet.
It is far easy to define oneself over and against something than to be meaningfully identified with and committed to something.
Yes, good contribution to the conversation, Jamie.
Dave, this is such a needed addition to the conversation. An obsession with organic forms has characterized the missional conversation over the last 10 years, and even the recent “evolution” towards missional communities, gathered and scattered life, etc., are still missing the mark when it comes to the robust ecclesiology of the NT. In our short lifespan as a missional church plant, we’ve tried lots of formal ways to “be missional”, esp. the gathered/scattered missional community model, but we’ve found that it becomes strangely programmatic, a little bit disjointed, kind of ingrown, and, in the end…not very missional.
We are leaning back to something simpler – a kind of parish approach that heavily emphasizes the worship gathering as formation for mission, then offers a smattering of creative opportunities to ‘dwell’ together in the city for centering on Jesus, celebrating with friends, and serving the poor beyond the gathering.
As it happens, missional is simply the heart and the art of a people being formed and organized as the church of Jesus for God’s mission.
I’m Anglican all the way. More communions, more symbolism. We live and die by the resurrection of Christ. Build community inside and outside the church. Weekly small groups and Sunday services. Maybe its time for another 95 Theses’?
So, having read the post and the comments it seems that this is a more polarizing deal than I realized. Can I just say, all of you are nuts.
There is plenty about church practices which is harmful and should be tossed, and we’ll all have different opinions on what those things are. Holding on to loaded terms like worship(what does that even mean to people, 4 songs and a sermon?!?!), ordination(because all people are gifted and special, but us more than you), and baptism(take a bath fool, you stink) as the marks of the church just sets this up as an easy write off to me. What if you aren’t afraid of some organization and some structure(provided it has a purpose) but don’t want to buy into all the baggage that “church” entails? I’m all for gathering together to do things to show God we love him/her. I’m all for there being “point people” and leaders in said gatherings without feeling any need for creating a priestly class. And I’m all for public confessions of allegiance to Jesus(they can even involve bathing in a river if you want). But what is the obsession with traditional church language and forms that only church people even begin to understand?
Daniel,
…
It’s hard to summarize an answer to your questions. But maybe some questions can help clarify some things. Given the ecclesiology you seem to have, how do Christians avoid becoming narcisstic, self ordered, consumers of a Christianity that suits their own personal tastes and lifestyles? Given the eccelsiology you seem to have (assumptions about how Christians are shaped into life with God as a people), what is the source of belief? personal Bible study? why even study the Bible? on what basis would one find the Bible to be true? whose interpretation of the Bible will we follow? Given the ecclesiology you seem to have, how is God’s justice made manifest in the world? As individuals who follow Jesus in the way they see as best? It seems to me, in a pluralist, post foundationalist world, an individualist non-ecclesiology (like you seem to have) dooms us to be absorbed into the social political cultural structures of the day.
So, as brief as I can say it, all of the above tells us why we need to think through ecclesiology. The problems posed by these questions above are just some of the reasons why we have the canon of Scripture, the community of interpretation, the shaping cultural encounter with God in worship, the passing on of tradition through the apostles from Christ Himsel, i.e. the practices of church. In short, ecclesiology cannot be discarded except by the most naive of sorts who claim individuals have immediate access to God (without any ecclesial continuing work of God in Christ through history)
So dude, really, isn’t it time for a little careful reflection on these matters
Hmmm… I guess I communicated poorly, because your perception isn’t the ecclesiology I think I have. Much of that comment was tongue in cheek. *Throw out the church but do the same things*
I do have some issue with the loaded terms thrown around so far without definitions. Worship, ordination, and baptism mean very different things to people in this conversation. I love them all as I define them(don’t we all!), but they are still terms not agreed upon and not generally understood by post-christian society. Defining what is meant by those and what is essential would go far to bridging some of the gap between the sides in this conversation.
I’m all for submission to a faith tradition, and I don’t want to encourage an individualistic deal, but I am one of those who did not grow up in a faith tradition, so I(like many others) don’t have that built in. By being in a position to “pick a tradition” I’m already in the consumer mode some unfortunately. :-/
Daniel,
I think we agree. It’s probably your words “Holding onto church language” that threw me off. I took you to suggest that we start all over with new words for “worship” “baptism” “ordination” … granted we need to define, and contextualize these practices, and we need to liberate these practices from captivity to Christendom structures, but I resist separating these practices entirely from their history in Christ through the apostles … from whence they have autority … otherwise .. we are left to our-selves …
As for “picking a tradition” … I’m a firm believer that everyone came into the Christian life via a tradition, a socially embodied history … and that is the place you cannot escape but must allow God through the Holuy Spirit to work oiut His salvation and Mission in your life and with others … in other words .. no one really gets to pcik their tradition … or else they end up picking their own “enjoyment” … Of course, that’s another discussion for another blog post.
Yeah, I did a poor job presenting the tongue in cheek part, apologies.
I came into the Christian life through a combination of mostly independent non-denominational, charismatic, and baptist churches as we moved around a lot growing up. I find the most resonance with anabaptist traditions currently, and I’ve got some connections to baptist and mennonite groups in Virginia, but I’m definitely an outsider to all of them. Again, I don’t think I’m alone in that sense of feeling somewhat homeless sometimes in this regards.
Yep,
This is the weakness of the non denominational. charimsatic and baptist churches … to some extent, this is the weakness of my own denominational up bringing … Many cannot find the girth there to find a home and stay within a trajectory … I have therefore had to “import” Anabaptism, and even Catholicism into my own church life to critique it and bring it some girth … Blessings on your journey
In Catholicism and Anabaptism, the church is essential; in Protestantism, it’s optional. Therefore, Protestantism, with its individual striving, works best with a capitalist economy.
I’d have to disagree with your caricature of Protestantism as a whole. The Wesleyan tradition has a rich ecclesiology that draws from Wesley’s practical theology of the means of grace which was influenced by his reading of the early church fathers, the Anglican tradition, and his missional posture in his culture. I’d say that Evangelicalism in the late modern period best fits with the individualism you mention.
Also, I want to affirm that reformation is a good thing. Especially when it is driven by a community of folks who are discerning God’s activity in their neighborhoods. The thing we mustn’t forget is our “discernment” is always a traditioned thing. We always only interpret from a tradition. So let’s not have an unhealthy discontinuity with the reality of our situatedness.
Paul,
Aren’t you really missing james’ point?
The seeds of the reformation certainly minimalized the church in numerous ways. This caused few problems with the ecclesiasical structures of medeival Europe in place but once transferred to America, it set Christianity on an individualist bent that cold have never been anticipated by Luther or Calvin. Of course, Wesley is a different animal. Nonetheless, Methodism with its experientialism as part of the quadrilateral surely set in motion an individualism as well. It is Catholicism, and the Anabaptism that seeks the recovery of the community as a place of authority for the individual, that provides resistance to these forces in America. Evangelicalism is a direct outworking of Euro protestantism transplanted into America.
peace bro,
DF
If your interpretation of james’ point is what james was pointing to then yes, i missed the point. Thanks for your clarification.
I’ve been hurt by Christians and churches, but I’m still a Christian and am now, thankfully, participating in the life of a very healthy church. There is no mission without the church, although there are many churches with a very poor grasp, if any, of the mission of God.
The church is Christ’s bride. People who have been hurt have every right to complain and to avoid churches that abuse. They have no room to try to be solitary Christians, though. Such cannot exist voluntarily.
Hi Dave,
I don’t expect a full discussion on this, but an important issue has been raised here.
I fully agree that no one can pick their tradition, anymore than they can pick their biological parents or grandparents.
That being said, is it possible to locate oneself in a theological tradition without first attending to that tradition’s sociology? Maybe, but I think not. Yet we are still treating theological traditions as abstractions, and their accompanying sociologies as embarrassing side stories.
I’ll cut to the chase here. As expressions of Anabaptist theology grow in popularity, I’m meeting more and more self-identified “Anabaptists” who don’t belong to a historic Anabaptist group. Or if they do, they resist the parochial label of their group in favor of the cooler and more vague “Anabaptist” one. Given Anabaptist theology ala Menno, this is somewhat ironic.
From my limited perspective, ekklesaphobia is real, but it’s more a symtom of a larger phobia of anything too particular whatsoever.
I’m looking forward to the coming posts!
Mijk V
A couple other sources for ekklesiophobia:
1. The desire to fit in with contemporary culture, to not be perceived as separatist, to enjoy all the advantages of our age unhindered. An emphasis on the church as our primary social reality tends to create a tension with such things.
2.The misunderstading that ekklesiocentric Christianity is not adequate to the task of promoting social justice and social ethics.
[...] the rest here, and part two here. More to [...]