Below is the e-mail I have already sent ... I will add new info shortly.
Regarding Michael Frost and Alan Hirsh's Book - The Shaping Of Things To Come
Let me start off by saying I loved this book. I thought it was a wonderful discourse on a vitally important, imperative topic. To me, there is no question that traditional church methods are failing people in general in the West. The moral decline and lack of understanding of the basic principles of Christianity – let alone the absolute perversion of the all-encompassing, forgiving nature of God, demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the fractured, institutional, misdirected, overly materialistic modern church.
My first comment regards a fundamental premise stated in the introduction – on Page x:
The challenging context in which we live in the West requires that we adopt a
fully missional stance. While some established churches can be revitalized,
success seems to be rare from our experience and perspective. We believe
that the strategic focus must now shift from revitalization to mission, i.e.
from a focus on the “insiders” to the “outsiders”; and in so doing we believe
the church will discover its true nature and fulfill its purpose. Perhaps
an established church can plant a missional congregation within its broader
church structures. Others might sponsor and support the planting of new
congregations on their doorstep to reach those not interested in the
conventional church.
This is the premise the entire book is built upon. I agree that a missional stance is needed. But is a “Fully missional stance” the best choice? Yes, the early church and some of the most successful movements in Christian history resulted from a total missional focus. But isn’t there still a place, a necessary place for the established church? A church that can be found by those in need, those who are seeking it? This is what the book defines as “institutional church.”
Granted, the most effective conversions may happen when Christians reach out and find “outsiders,” but many people, especially hurting people, need someplace to go – someplace where they can find (where they BELIEVE they can find – where they KNOW they can find) that something that is missing in their lives.
Take the pub example to the extreme – yes some people will find a legitimate relationship with Jesus as the Christ from a first contact with Christianity that is experienced in a pub … But do you really think you could write a book and tell people whose eternal destiny is at stake that in their moment of need – when their soul is tormented – go find a pub and hope that it is connected with one of those subversive organizations that actually operate a pub as a front – but is all about soul saving on the inside.
No – I can not endorse a “fully missional stance” as an excuse to “stop doing church” the old fashioned way. Just like every other discussion we will have – this is a wonderful ALTERNATIVE. Maybe it can/will become the PRIMARY type of church. I would be fine with that. I definitely believe that evangelism should be a part of life.
8 comments:
In response to the email discorse about people in need knowing they can go to a church to find help: psychologists are doing really well these days but churches are declining. People in need are actually leaving churches it would appear for the social scientists (psychologist/psychiatrists/social workers/etc)
And maybe a traditional church can be a fully missional church (ie. Willow Creek draws baby boomers by the thousands for it's method of worship) maybe the book calls this attractional but I see it as contextualized for the baby boomer generation. It works and it does lots of good in individual lives, in the community, and in the world.
Previously Jennifer had responded:
Do you think people really go to Church when they are in need? If they do then that makes me recognize an even bigger problem in people and society at large today--the need for conections and relationships. If people are going to churches when they are in need that says to me that they don't have anyone else to go to. I think that's a huge tragedy.
And Daniel had also Responded:
I am empathetic to the tensions that you address in your comments. In
fact, I have had this same discussion with Charles and he expressed the
need he believes there is for a duality of existence of the church. He
contends that when the twenty something gets married and has a family,
they look beyond the context of the pub to a more institutionalized
context for church. He thinks that both models should exist, but maybe
their function is different.
I wonder if there isn't a way to marry the principles of the "missional
church" to one that is more institutionalized? I think being
"incarnational" no matter where you worship on Sundays, results in a
"buildingless church."
We need to blog this stuff.
Daniel
Daniel – on page 12 the book defines incarnational as “not attractional in its ecclesiology. By incarnational we mean it does not create sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel. Rather the missional church disassembles itself and seeps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know him.”
Of course I believe that the church should be incarnational by this definition. But I also believe in creating spaces – sanctified or not – where people can come to encounter the gospel. This is the duality of existence that you mentioned.
On page 42 the authors say “If they won’t come to us, we have to go to them.” I think that is a great statement, but McDonald’s hamburgers is a pretty successful model. People have to want what you offer – but then you have to have some means of getting what is offered to them. I have no problems with a buildingless church – but I fully believe there must be a recognizable way to “find” it.
On page 54 discussing the Incarnational Approach the authors spoke about ‘letting your light shine before men’ and ‘make the teaching about God our Savior attractive’ and that sounds very attractional to me. It does not have to be attractional towards a single purpose antique edifice with a tall steeple and stained glass windows.
The authors quote Andrew Jones on page 69 – “Any church that cannot get by without buildings, finances and paid experts is not fully being church.” And then they elaborate: “Having a building, some shared money, and some paid staff doesn’t preclude you from being an effective church, but if your church would be lost without them, there is a core problem.”
I really appreciate the comments they make in this section. Further down this page it says “listen to all the language that betrays a belief that we come into the church building to “meet” God.” The sacred-versus-secular argument is well presented. The building is not the problem. The building may be a significant symptom of the problem.
The week Jennifer was visiting – we sang both the John Thompson/Randy Scruggs song, “Sanctuary” with the lyrics, “O lord prepare me to be a sanctuary …. I’ll be a living sanctuary for You” and “We come into His House, and gather in His name to worship Him …” Expressing both the attractional and incarnational elements of the church.
This led to a conversation regarding the word Sanctuary – the ‘Living Sanctuary’ ideal is the primary definition she was aware of. I grew up Catholic and the difference between the various parts of the church building were significant. When I was very young, the sanctuary was the area immediately surrounding the altar, which at our church was still enclosed by an altar rail and never entered into by the general members of the congregation. I do not believe that God lives in dwellings made by human hands nor do I believe that you are any closer to God in one specific building than you are in another. A third definition of sanctuary is that of a wildlife sanctuary where declining numbers of animals that can not adapt to changes in their environment are protected and allowed to live relatively undisturbed in an artificially secure protected area.
Do you see the application?
Jennifer - I liked your question about whether it is attractional or properly contextualized. Both are similar concepts.
Can we each focus on contextualizing the message in an effective manner to different diverse demographic groups? Can we still feel related as members of the same spiritual body? Can we shift between groups comfortably?
Thanks for responding.
On page 18 - speaking about church planting; the authors make the statement 'It's more often than not been the case that Sunday services are planted rather than missional Jesus communities.'
I see this as a real problem within our cluster of churches because so much of their identity is tied up within how they do Sunday services.
Any opinions? How do we get beyond that legalistic front and focus on the primary need of people needing to meet Christianity before they get bogged down in legalistic rhetoric?
In my distorted opinion, Restoration movement churches should be the very first to embrace the concepts proposed because they are built upon the very foundations of the Campbel movement - specifically that everyone has got it wrong, it's time to go back to the origin and get the correct intent of Christianity.
Restoration movement churches should not be entangled in the legalistic rhetoric, should be willing to go to any length to reach out to their fellow man and willing to be different. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
Suggestions? Comments? Positions>
Arthur
Beginning on page 23 the authors discuss the Church in the Missional Mode. Regardless of anything else the readers get from this book - the missional mode is an absolute neccessity.
I always thought this was a basic premise of the church, but the more I look at recent church outreach efforts - it has been minimized greatly.
This well written section focusses on Proximity Spacem Shared Projects, Commercial Enterprises and Emerging Indigenous Faith Communities.
I fully support the proximity spaces trait. If you stay huddled in the church building, you can not properly interact with those outside.
I have a slightly different take than the authors however, in that I believe that the church building can be an efficient proximity space involving non believers. I see many churches who effectively use their gyms and soccer fields in that manner. SP has seen the meeting rooms getting more diverse use.
I have always been disappointed with the wasted land use to the North of our building. It should be a community garden, a landscaped park with exercise equipment and walking track, home to soccer team or even a putting green and chip shot practice area .... anything but wasted space - it appears inhospitable.
I am all for shared projects - Angel Food is one great example. THere are countless others that can easily be embraced - medical mission trips, housing renovation. As a group we do okay in this area - but always room for growth .... the classic Bono quote on the bottom of page 25 needs to be put into action locally - "If Jesus were on earth you'd find him in a gay bar in San Francisco. He'd be working with people suffering from AIDS. These people are the new lepers. If you want to find out where Jesus would be hanging out it'll always be with lepers."
Keep up your good work JP - and I won't be content until at least three fourths of our elders willingly reach out their own hands and welcome the disenfranchised wholeheartedly!
I have more questions about the Commercial Enterprises. I see this as a direction that needs to be pursued - but I am skeptical as to whether it should be pursued by para-church organizations or by groups of concerned Christians. You may not see much difference - but I am very wary of litigious and financial considerations. Let me know what you think......
The last section in this topic is the "Emerging Indiginous Faith Communities" and I will address it separately tomorrow or later this week because it involves some different terminology and distinctions that may get too lengthy. I already feel like I am way too wordy compared to other posts....
Please encourage others to comment - I don't want this to be "MY" thoughts, but a dialogue. The reason I started the blog was hear other peopl'e input on these topics.
Arthur
If anyone reading this blog has not read the book - see this link for a quick overview of the book and the authors:
http://jsbandura.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/the-shaping-of-things-to-come/
I'm still having trouble joining the blog team. I would like to hear some discussion on the questions about the Commercial Enterprises that you touched on. I don't know anything about running a business but I love Jesus and I like coffee and I feel a connection with people who like coffee shops so that will hopefully be a springboard for missions for me. Disscuss the distinction you see between parachurch organizations and concerned Christians.
Also, being in Chicago I have great opportunities and I utilize so little of them but I went to the Emergent Village Cohort meeting (up/rooted) in the west suberbs last night and representatives from Psalsters and the Camden house were there. These are both intentional communities of Christ followers. One of them is a nomadic group and the other live in the highly industrial city of Camden, NJ. These young people were radical. Everything about them was incredible, their devotion, their single-minded purpose for serving people in all kinds of capacities in the name of Jesus. Neo-monastic groups are amazing. I'm working on a paper about a few of these communities currently that will be complete just after thanksgiving. If you have any knowlege, journal, book, or other info you could pass along it would be appreciated.
jp
Ched Myers, an activist theologian in California, advises Aiden: "Have one foot in the church and one outside. And keep your weight on the one outside."
This was a cool quote I ran accross in my research of neo-monasticism. I found it at the Geez magazine website. You should check it out. I actually subscribed so after I read the magazines I'm planning on sending them south so they can be passed around SP or whatever. Geez is dedicated to stirring up holy mischief in an age of fast faith.
Okay - I had never heard the term "neo-monasticism." Interestying thought, especially when I found its roots did not begin in 1994 - but with Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1935.
(See: http://prayerfoundation.org/brief_history_new_monasticism.htm)
Most stuff I see on a quick Google search are MonkFish and The Prayer Foundation - but I will look for some with a little more depth and content after church.
I'll be very interested in reading your paper because it id a concept that is totally new to me.... Even as my daughter you are probably not aware of the time I spent within the Monastic Community of the Cistercian Abbey in Irving while I attended the University of Dallas. Definately old style monasticism.
Arthur
Post a Comment