I am a believer in Asset Based Community Organizing. I have learned much from John McKnight and Peter Bloch and others (read this for instance). When I was at Northwestern doing a Ph D, McKnight’s office was in the building right behind Garrett seminary. So I’m not an expert, but I’m familiar. I suggest Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) is one of those great studies of how to do things in cooperation with God and what He is already present pushing for. But having said all this, I still don’t think ABCD replaces the church. I love Asset Based Community Organizing, but it’s not the church.
Many times the church in effect look likes it is nurturing something that looks a lot like ABCD. The intersection between ABCD kind of activity and “body life” (church life) would make for a wonderful research study. The church’s natural life of reconciling people in the neighborhood, of advocating for resources, of nurturing leadership within the community, may/should look alot like ABCD. But there is still a difference between the two. I love Asset Based Community Organizing, but it’s not the church.
I submit that whenever the church of God, Christ’s body, sent into God’s Mission, is present in a place, it brings something above and beyond what ABCD claims to be doing in a context (ABCD in its purest form claims to bring nothing to a context. They claim “everything is already there.” This claim I suspect can be an overstatement but I understand what they’re saying and to some degree applaud it). The church in effect carries the keys of the Kingdom. It can be and should be the vehicle for God to extend the particular reconciliation, new creation, and/or justice made possible in Jesus Christ in ways that are only possible in the work of the Triune God at work in and through Jesus Christ. Again, I love Asset Based Community Development. It is certainly God’s work, but on it’s own, it is not the church.
Wendy McCaig recently posted a response to my proposal for the Luke 10 Project on her blog last week (read it here). She applauds a lot of things. She is less enthused on others. After reading her blog and seeing her work, I‘m an admirer. From what I can tell (and I know very little about Wendy so far), Wendy is a community organizer who advocates “asset based community development.” I affirm asset based community development as God’s work, but I personally place more emphasis on planting local communities of Mission where people gather to witness to “the Kingdom” (it’s my calling, while still applauding those called to ABCD). Through the humble gospel presence of communities of Christ, we participate in what God is already doing in our local context to bring the Kingdom into visibility. Wendy argues that Kingdom work means “living out Jesus mission and continuing his work of bringing sight to the blind, good news to the poor, etc…” If a worship community forms out of that presence that is wonderful.” But even if there is no gathering, the Body of Christ still exists in that place. I disagree. I don’t think ABCD is the body of Christ. I think “the body of Christ” refers to a social reality formed in some basic core practices of participating in Christ’s inbreaking Lordship over our lives and the context we live in. I agree with people like Kathy Escobar and the idea of “Kingdom Outposts” (mentioned here). I have used this way of describing church activotyu myself. Although, I strongly reject the way the forms of church have been reified in Christendom (and ensconced in power), nonetheless, the social practice of coming together under God’s reign in Christ births His presence into the world in a way ABCD does not. I think we need more thought and reflection here on ecclesiology. Having said this, I agree with Wendy on many things. For instance:
1.) Wendy disliked the idea that the Luke 10 Project “assumes the community (we are planting in) is lacking something.” Luke 10 Project needs to “learn to build on what God is already doing – they should learn to see the glass as “half full.” I agree with Wendy that we always should be present in a context assuming God is already working!! And so I regret not emphasizing that enough in the Luke 10 project. I think I missed on that aspect a little bit. I did talk about how “the three” leaders inhabiting a place would seek to submit and connect with existing church leaders and seek to work with them, on invitation. I should have placed more emphasis on connecting with all community leaders. To me it is the very nature of the incarnation to inhabit by listening and discerning what God is doing.
2.) Wendy disliked that the Luke 10 Project emphasized “relocation” and underemphasized “indigenous leader development.” I think I may have missed something here as well. I am very committed to raising up leaders in the community for both the building up of the body of Christ as a sign foretaste of the Kingdom, as well as for the prototype “community development” activities that feed Kingdom work in a community. I think I have an established record on this for those who know me. But I can always learn more.
3.) Wendy disliked the emphasis in my post on “gathering Christians.” In her next post Wendy argues that Kingdom work means “living out Jesus mission and continuing his work of bringing sight to the blind, good news to the poor, etc…” If a worship community forms out of that presence that is wonderful.” But even if there is no gathering, the Body of Christ still exists in that place.
It’s here where I think Wendy and I differ. It’s a tension I admit. But I believe the church is a social reality that releases God dynamic work of His Kingdom and authority into our midst. Community organizing is God at work. It is doing God’s work and participating in and among His people. But I want to press further on that. I want to argue that when people come together under His reign (in a local context) and are then sent into a local context (ala Luke 10) the authority of the reigning Lord is unleashed. There is posture God can use to enter in. It’;s much like the incarnation. It is this authority of Christ’s reign that overcomes sin, death and evil. This brings another dimension to the Missio Dei. I think this is what NT Wright is addressing in his new book Simply Jesus in chapter 7,9, and 15 and somewhat discussed by Scot McKnight in this post here. I think tis is what Lesslie Newbigin describes so well in ch 8 of his book The Open Secret.
I think therefore there is something to “being sent” that in humility and vulnerability brings an announcement of the Kingdom. But Wendy’s right in my humble opinion: we cannot enter as if where we go the people in this new context are somehow our clients. Quite the opposite, God is at work in every person. But I push back on those who say the church is equal to community development work. God is working there, THERE IS AN OVERLAP WHICH SOMETIMES IS HARD TO DISTINGUISH, but it is not the church. CCDA is an excellent example of this overlap (I know CCDA from teaching alongside some of the key leaders in this movement – see here). I love the way CCDA describes the relationship between the church and community development. I think to not understand this distinction is to reject the very idea of “Sentness.” To all my community development friends, what say you? Again, I love Asset-based Community Development, but it’s not the church.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
“It’s here where I think Wendy and I differ. It’s a tension I admit. But I believe the church is a social reality that releases God dynamic work of His Kingdom and authority into our midst.”
But what is the sign of that social reality, David? I was following you and enjoying the challenges that Wendy offered as well as your engagement with them. Still, at this point you lose me. Maybe it’s because I want to know if the sign is “worship.” There is a sociality, but if it is simply a sociality, then Wendy is right that all we need to do to be Christians is to get out into the muck. It’s a powerful vision. You seem to think, however, that there is something missing, an activity or something perhaps, that is missing from Wendy’s equation. I’m curious as to what you think that is.
Otherwise, you are talking about an internal sensibility and that feels a little disembodied to me.
Well there’s only so much one can do in a blog post (wink, wink). But I’m a believer in the Body practices as Yoder outlines them. I see them as sacramental, but somehow got encaptured by the Christendom edifices. yet each one of these “practices” is intensely missional. The ones I think illustrate this missional engagment and transromative sending the best are Eucharist (Luke 22), Reconciliation (Matt 18), Being with the poor (Matt 25) and the fivefold ministry (Eph 5), the proclaiming of the good news (Luke 4, 10) … but there are more (not the least of which is baptism) … I think each one becomes the means to form us into the mean whereby God’s reign in Christ can break in and transform .. as a sign of the Kingdom … That’;s a brief snippet of where I believe we can go with this …
It’s an interesting list, David. Your list somewhat differs from Yoder’s here, but I like that diversity. I am thinking of blogging through Yoder’s 5 practices. I’d love to see you do the same.
In this post-Christendom/post-Modern world where people are longing for true community, but have no experience with church, or are outright hostile to their preconceived notions or previous experiences of church, they can point to community development (which may or may not have anything to do with God and God’s realm) as another form of church or even lordship. But a danger exists when we make a “community” a “lord,” rather than Jesus.
David, I’m with on this post. My only question is this: Do you really see that much of an emphasis on ABCD in Wendy’s responses? I agree that ABCD is not the church (though I also agree that there is much overlap), but not sure why it is so centrally poised in this post. Maybe I am just not connecting the dots.
Jamie,
we’ll see? After reading Wendy, this is where I see our “philosophical” and/or “theological” differences. Perhaps Wendy can clarify. Of course, even if I’m wrong about Wendy, this sure helped me to put these ideas down and hear feedback and.or pushback!
Fair enough, David. I love the idea, by the way. I’m glad you clarified, as I knew you would agree with most of what Wendy was saying. Luke 10 looks promising. Wish it was happening on this side of the border.
I SO need to learn about ABCD! Excellent post, and I’m glad it gave me the opportunity to find Wendy’s blog as well.
David and Jamie,
First of all Jamie thanks for asking the question because that was my thought. “Why is David so focused on ABCD and implying that I equate ABCD as being equal to the church?” If anyone read that in what I wrote, then PLEASE know that is NOT what I am suggesting.
What I am suggesting is that ABCD principals and practices can inform our church planting and if we are moving into a new neighborhood, as the Luke 10 proposal suggest, then I would suggest that church planters be informed about ABCD principals and practices.
I also would add that I have witnessed and am currently participating in a “worshiping” congregation that is growing out of our Community Development work. So I also see ABCD work as a vehicle for birthing a “worshiping congregations.”
However, the day of the first “worship” experience will not be the day the church was planted nor will it be the first day we worshiped God as a community. We have been gathering, praying, studying, sharing life, doing mission together with the neighbors in that community for three year. Worship grew out of our community that has been on mission together for years.
So I totally agree with you ABCD is NOT the church. But, ABCD can be a useful tool in developing a church.
The bigger question is what defines a church. You wrote:
“It’s here where I think Wendy and I differ. It’s a tension I admit. But I believe the church is a social reality that releases God dynamic work of His Kingdom and authority into our midst.”
I would agree with your definition. I would also suggest that you can be a part of a social reality that releases Gods dynamic work of His Kingdom and authority into our midst without having a worship service.
That may be where you and I disagree and I thank Tripp for asking for the same clarification.
David – I know you don’t know me and if you simply read the vision and mission of my non-profit, I can see how you think that all I am about is ABCD. But I guess you could say I am bi-vocational. I am a pastor who runs a non-profit that teaches church leaders how to do ABCD, I also empower residents in communities to use their own gifts, but my real passion is the church and seeing the church engage in the world in a healthier way. I think ABCD can help us do that better and based on what you wrote, so do you.
So I think we are in agreement on everything except perhaps what the definition of a “church” is. Which is of course a pretty big question.
Wendy …
Then I don’t think we disagree? Which is OK too. It’s this line “But even if there is no gathering, the Body of Christ still exists in that place” (and some of the verbage around it) that I may have over-interpreted (for which I repent). Nonetheless, I’m glad I got a chance to thin through this again in this way. Thanks for provoking. I make it to Richmond alot, perhaps we can connect. Blessings
David,
It has been an interesting discussion. I did not set out to start a “church”, I set out to develop a community. What I found was the “church” emerged out of the community. I agree with you it would be very interesting to study the intersection of Christian Community Development and Church Planting. I really think that those anticipating planting churches in under-resourced communities should receive training in ABCD. It helps you to see “the Body of Christ” that is already there even if it is not a gathered body. I think that is where you misunderstood my comment. I did not say “there was a church” but that “there was a Body.” I think that “body” becomes a “church” when it gathers. In my case, we gather to build up the community by tapping into God’s Kingdom vision.
I would love to meet you if you ever get to Richmond.
Thanks Wendy. I weighed in on this a little more today:
http://www.missional.ca/2011/12/blessed-are-the-shalom-makers/
I really do believe that ABCD can, with some adaptation, deeply inform church planting. I blogged a little on it here:
http://www.missional.ca/2011/05/churches-neighbourhoods-1/
http://www.missional.ca/2011/05/churches-neighbourhoods-2/
Thanks for keeping this so life-giving!
[...] I have no intention of guessing what David’s definition of church is and I am hoping he will clarify that on the comment I posted on his blog. [...]
Based on David’s response to Tripp’s question regarding practices above, and his affirmation of Yoder’s Body Practices. I wonder if David is willing to go one step further and say with Henri DeLubac (and many others of course), “The Eucharist makes the Church.” I know it is risky to reference a major voice form Vatican II in conversations such as this
.
John,
I deal with my agreement with deLubac and how I appropriate his work on the Eucharist in ch. 6 of The End of Evangelicalism? So, in short I am willing to go that one step further with some theological nuancing/adjusting …
John, great question. Of course, I would have to ask (and further complicate matters): What makes the Eucharist?
In short the “two-hands of God” make the Eucharist. This sacrament is the gift of God for the people of God instituted by Christ and constituted by the Holy Spirit. I recognize that questions of validity have drawn lines around the very gift that God intends to be the place of the Church’s visible unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. I also recognize that there have been times and places where the discussion of validity (or appropriateness?) is necessary. Yet, I think Christian tradition has also revealed that questions of validity have always been the cause/result of schism and a breech of love (i.e. leavened or unleavened bread between the east and west). At this point I fully agree with folks like Robert Jenson. He says that the Church should humbly, and with full recognition of our respective distinctions, gather together at the Table trusting that the Spirit of Christ who gives resurrection life to bread and wine is the Spirit of unity. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 10 is instructive… “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Of course if we don’t go on and read 1 Cor. 11 we will be tempted to settle for an ethereal unity that bears little witness to the embodied practices of the kingdom. Participation in the Eucharist is participation in the Triune life of God. So if the Eucharist makes the Church, the Church will subsequently manifest God’s love in and for the life of the world.
David,
I think you have identified a clear tension when traditional Anabaptism and Missional theology come together. I think you are right on the mark to center the discussion on ecclesiology (and not about forms of Community Development, though that is the presenting symptom here).
Traditionally, Anabaptists have seen community development as a form of service/mission. The effect has been (at least in my tradition) to think that “Service makes the Church.” So for us Brethren the effect has been that we are really good at local service, but really weak at extending that into being a church. The Mennos have been a little better in that many of their volunteer houses in cities resulted in a congregation.
I think you are right on that community service and development are key, yet when Christians get involved the extension (or added dimension) is their worship life. Yes, God has been in the neighborhood long before a church emerges. The question however, is related to what end. Yes, community advancement is key, but it is flourishing in the Kingdom of God that we as Missional Christians are seeking- and in that vision, vibrant life includes a worshiping community. As the Brethren have tried to say: For the glory of God and our neighbors’ good.
Josh
The kind of future I’m imagining for the church, and am learning about from Church of the Savior here in DC is one in which these things are fully synthesized…whether it be older style needs based community development, or the newer asset based community development, or just good old fashioned charity, that the church in the local context exists both for inward spiritual journey – worship, eucharist, etc. and for outward spiritual journey – CD/ABCD/Charity, etc. That the same 20 people in a local congregation are involved in both together in community and that this is the Kingdom…and importantly, thinking it’s just the inward journey of worship and eucharist is the huge shortcoming we’ve all had for all these years in Evangelicalism (me the most) and that this new way embracing both, rather than polarizing them (a third way?) is what I think God is doing in this big emergence we’re experiencing.
[...] online debate with David Fitch was the first event I began to wrestle with. I began asking myself, “Why did I find his words so [...]