Prayer for Pioneering Ministry

We need disciples, we need churches that will dare to risk their very existence for the advancement of the Kingdom of God and the Good News of Jesus Christ. Join me in praying this prayer (Thanks to Brian Anderson for sharing it).

"Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves, when our dreams have come true because we have dreamed too little, when we arrive safely because we sailed too close to the shore. Disturb us, Lord, when with the abundance of things we possess we have lost our thirst for the waters of life; having fallen in love with life, we have ceased to dream of eternity and in our efforts to build a new earth, we have allowed our vision of the new Heaven to dim. Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly , to venture on wider seas where storms will show your mastery; where losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask You to push back the horizons of our hopes; and to push into the future in strength, courage, hope, and love." Attributed to Sir Francis Drake 1577

Ecclesia vs Church Part 2: The historical roots of the Ecclesia

Read part 1: Ecclesia vs Church

This is my ongoing look at Emil Brunner's prophetic discussion of ecclesiology in his little classic entitled The Misunderstanding of the Church. In this blog, we will look at chapter 2 entitled The Historical Origin of the Ecclesia.

Brunner's principle thesis is that the Ecclesia of the New Testament is something other than and has little in common with the institution of the Church that has emerged out of it. To more fully appreciate that, we need to better understand the historical foundations of the Ecclesia. The first step is to look at its relationship to and distinction from God's people as revealed in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God chooses a people to act as the supporting character in His divine drama of redemption. They become known as Israel. In short, Israel is "the covenant-people of the covenant-God." This, too, can be said of the Ecclesia. Brunner writes:

It would seem, therefore, that according to the purpose of God the Ecclesia was to be identified with the elect people of the Old Covenant. And yet the fellowship founded by Jesus realized that it was something wholly new, namely, the fellowship of those who through Jesus Christ share in the New Covenant and the new aeon. . . through the present fulfillment of what had been previously merely promised, not simply a new [mode of dispensation] but an utterly new dimension of salvation has been vouchsafed, namely, life in the Holy Spirit, concerning which the Gospel of St. John roundly declares "for the Holy Spirit was not yet given". When Paul affirms: "if any man is in Christ he is a new creature" he is alluding to a new mode of existence not yet known to the believers of the old covenant.

This new existence, Brunner observes, leads to three observable facts in the New Testament Ecclesia.

1. The ceremonial and cultic laws of Judaism are no longer valid for the Ecclesia. This becomes particularly important in regard to the issue of circumcision as Christianity spreads among the Gentiles.
   
2. There is clear distinction between membership of a nation or race and membership of a community of believers. The newly baptized Gentiles are as fully citizens of the Kingdom of God as are those who were circumcised.
   
3. The Ecclesia no longer stands under the jurisdiction of or subordinate to a theocratic government. The Ecclesia renounces "the fusion of Christ's rule with the law of the state."
   

This last point is particularly interesting as we consider the current state of the Church within our culture. Especially, within the United States, Christianity is straining under the weight of the accumulated negative perception of society gathered over years of misguided efforts to establish a modern day theocracy. The Kingdom of God will never be equated with a secular government. The Ecclesia understood this and it informed how it related with the world around it.

I believe the emerging church movement is, in part, contributable to a renewed awareness of this life in the Holy Spirit and a reformation of the role of the Church as a delivery agent for the Kingdom of God in contradistinction to the laws-based pursuit of a Christian society. What do you think?

Related articles by Zemanta

• One (Growing) Perspective on Evangelicalism and Politics (gatheringinlight.com)

Sustainable and Reproducible Discipleship

Recently, there has been a lot of talk around the blogosphere about multi-site ministry and its effectiveness or lack thereof. Neil Cole, author of Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens, among others, has a running series on the issue. I've already commented on one of Cole's posts over at his site. Today, I'm going to add my own thoughts to Cole's 4^th installment in his series, The Multi-Site Church Model.

Cole, as well as most others I'm reading, is not fond of the multi-site model. In his 4^th installment, Cole tackles the issues of whether a church is self-perpetuating and self-propagating. In short, is the church able to support its own ministry and is it able to reproduce groups that will plant, grow, and do the same. Cole, based on these criteria, links the success or failure of the church site to how independent the church is of external resources for its survival. The more dependent it is, the less likely it is to ever be self-perpetuating and self-propagating. Check out Cole's site for the full read as well as his other insights on multi-site churches.

As the pastor of a church plant that began as a multi-site, I feel as though I can bring a rather unique perspective to this discussion. Rather than self-perpetuating and self-propagating, within Threshold Church, we talk about these issues in terms of being sustainable and reproducible. Our categories are similar to Cole's, but there are important differences. First, being sustainable and reproducible is an attribute of discipleship rather than the viability or health of the church. Of course, the two are closely connected, inseparable. But, by making it an issue of discipleship, we are bringing the battle to the least common denominator within the church, i.e. the disciple.

Consequently, sustainability, as opposed to self-perpetuation, is concerned with the health of the disciple rather than the health of the church. Again, the two are inextricably connected, but the starting point is important. The Church is the fellowship of Jesus Christ. It is the community of disciples. To be sure, I am not recommending a focus on the individual. Rather, it is a focus on the person in the midst of community and how, together, we foster a model of faith that is sustainable. That faith is sustained by living in connection with the Vine, by living in Christ.

A branch that abides in the Vine, quite naturally produces fruit. So, will the disciple be reproducible. Every disciple should be following someone a little further along the journey then they while leading some that are behind him, this while we all are following Jesus Christ. When such a culture is built within a church it will quite naturally become self-perpetuating and self-propagating.

I don't believe Cole would disagree with any of this. In fact, he may see these as two separate conversations- the health of the multi-site church movement vs. the health of discipleship within a church. However, having been involved in both, I see it related in this way. When I was operating within a multi-site model, I could see over time that our ministry was neither self-perpetuating nor self-propagating, to use Cole's terms. However, I truly feel as though it had less to do with dependence on resources as it did to a lack of missional identity unique to our community. Our community failed to take ownership of our mission as a church. With that came laissez-faire and a lack of responsibility for the mission of the Church. It was not so much that we were dependent on resources, but that we were dependent on the "main campus" for our vision and values. Yes, resources and programs were handed down to the site, but more importantly the site's identity was dictated to it by the main campus. This was not a heavy-handed thing in any way. Rather, it's the nature of multi-site, i.e. one church, multiple locations. It sounds good and biblical. In principle it is. However, the practice often leads to impotent children of an otherwise potent mother church.

The decision by a majority within that site, with the blessing of the mother church, to re-locate and plant itself as a church with its unique calling within the context of the larger Church, breathed life into the ministry. More than no longer relying on others for our resources (largely, in fact, we still do), we could no longer rely on the mother church to tell us who we are or what we are to do. We needed to take ownership and responsibility for our vision and values. The biggest result of that has been a commitment to building a sustainable and reproducible culture of discipleship. Such a commitment will lead to health among the parts as well as the whole, providing fertile ground for the growth and multiplication of the Church and the proclamation of the Kingdom of God.

Do you have any experiences of multi-site ministry? What do you think its merits are? What about its shortcomings? What do you think of Neil Cole's and my critique? Agree or disagree.

7 Tips for Joining the Emerging Church Movement

The title is, of course, tongue-in-cheek. Most emerging churches are zealous in their defense of the organic development of their ministries. The notion that there are seven easy steps to anything is a decidedly modern, non-emerging way of thinking about things. Additionally, emerging churches are exceptionally diverse in their praxis. However, in my own journey, I have identified some common marks within the movement. Some are generally accepted, others are my contribution to the conversation. So here they are, my 7 tips for joining the emerging church movement: 

1. Be missional

"Missional" has become nearly synonymous with "emerging." To be missional as a church means to understand that the culture is increasingly distancing itself from the Church. Therefore, churches must move from an attractional model that expects those outside to come in, to a dispersed model where churches go to the world. In this way, they embrace the root meaning of the word "mission" which is "to send," as they proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God in the midst of the world through both words and actions. Thus, they reclaim the essential nature of the church as a movement, not an institution. 

2. Build an environment of low control/high accountability

While Robert may have been a Christian, his "rules" are not canon. Yet, most churches are organizationally top heavy with structures based on corporate business models, not biblical principles. The result is an organization that operates with a high control/low accountability mentality. Consider the typical church structure. It consists of committees (sometimes we rename them teams to make ourselves feel better) that typically do little ministry, yet they often exert significant control over what ministries get done. It is high control. This might be palatable if we could be confident that the people making these decisions were disciples committed to growing in their faith. But, too often the people that make up these committees are warm bodies. Their qualifications were that they had the time and they were willing. That's low accountability.

Emerging Churches try to build structures that serve the organism rather than the organization. That means that out of a commitment to mission, the church tries to build structures wholly committed to that goal. A greater emphasis is placed on releasing and mobilizing the church, God's people, to do ministry. Low control is exercised. However, because of an equally great emphasis on discipleship, those doing the ministry are kept accountable for their walk with God. The desired result is a restoration of the priesthood of all believers with a very flat structure of government. This is low control/high accountability 

3. Create ministries that are light weight/low maintenance

Because of the emerging church's desire to put ministry back into the hands of the people, it is important to emphasize the development of ministries that are light weight and low maintenance. Our culture, including our church culture, has typically engrained in our minds that bigger is better. More is better. So, in the church, we often talk about "the value of excellence" which is, frequently, the codename for bigger and more. However, in a priesthood of all believers, low control/high accountability environment, this model of ministry is often not sustainable, nor, in the end, desirable. These churches keep the values of simplicity and authenticity in the context of discipleship at the forefront of all their ministries. 

4. Throw out the programs

Emerging churches embrace the process rather than programs. Though programs may be used within the emerging church, they are always subjugated to the larger vision of what it means to be the Church. Many emerging churches are non-programmatic. Sometimes this is a conscious decision to avoid feeding into the provider-consumer mentality that permeates much of Christian programming. Instead, there is an emphasis placed on community, generosity, and spiritual discipline. 

5. Emphasize transformation

In the emerging church, discipleship is a matter of death and life. The disciple dies to the Old Adam and becomes a new creature by the grace of God and through faith in his Son Jesus Christ. There is an emphasis on the transformative power of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Christ follower. Moreover, that transformation is manifested within the entire Body of Christ. Thereby, the Church becomes an agent for transformation within the culture as it proclaims the good news of the Kingdom of God and brings that Kingdom to bear on the world. Thus, the emerging church is action oriented and believes it has a calling to be involved in matters of ecology, economy, and justice. 

6. Embrace interdependence

The loss of community is one of the greatest wounds in the post-modern world. Whereas, independence was a hallmark of the modern world, interdependence is the same for the post-modern. This is to be celebrated. But the interdependence of post-modernity is a relative interdependence that is shaped by needs and circumstances. In this way it is still a shadow of truly interdependent community. Without question, the very nature of community is being reshaped by social networking and globalization. But in the midst of this societal upheaval, the emerging church offers the experience of biblical community built on vulnerability, accountability, and love. Throughout the emerging church you see this in the development of house churches, clusters, sacramental communities and the rekindled interest in monastic rules and the lives of the saints. 

7. Focus on relational discipleship

Within the emerging church you see models of discipleship that are more akin to the ancient catechumenate than purpose-driven, modern models. Apprenticeship and mentoring are central within the context of couplets, triads and groups where relationships of encouragement and accountability are built. Within the safety of these relationships, individuals can ask questions and risk answers that advance honesty and vulnerability. This focus on relational discipleship is committed to a longer view on progress that diminishes the likelihood of rapid growth within the church. Even Pentecost was preceded by three years of discipleship under Jesus Christ. However, this approach has its eye on producing a church with sustainable and reproducible discipleship that leads to depth in our relationship with Christ and exponential growth for the Kingdom.

My 7 tips for joining the emerging church movement. These are some of the identifying marks of the movement that I have observed. So, what do you think? Do you disagree with any of these? What would you add to the list?

Ecclesia vs Church

Image via Wikipedia

No ministry I know that is labeled as postmodern or emerging seems to welcome the categorization. I believe that is due, in part, to the immense diversity that exists within these labels. Churches given the same moniker can be vastly different in terms of theology, structure, and practice. Nevertheless, there are some marks that are more commonly shared among these churches than others.

One of these defining marks that I have identified is a reformation of our understanding of the Church. Again, it takes many forms, but churches living firmly in the ethos of postmodern thought embrace a struggle to more authentically resemble the Ecclesia of the New Testament. For many, this results in a heightened missional passion and practice. There is often an emphasis on the Church's role in bringing the Kingdom of God to the world, rather than expecting the world to come to "church." For others, there is a great desire to recapture the place of the gathered body of believers as the central expression of what it means to be Church.

Threshold Church shares this struggle with many of our brothers and sisters in Christ. It was this welcome agitation that attracted me to a small, old book by theologian Emil Brunner. The book was mentioned in the midst of another I was reading and piqued my interest. The name of the book is The Misunderstanding of the Church. Having read the book, I would like to propose that it is required reading for every church leader struggling to understand the Church in the midst of the Postmodern milieu. In an effort to pique your interest, I am going to share some brief musings on each chapter over the course of the next several weeks.

Chapter one of Brunner's book is entitled The Supernatural Christian Community and the Problem of the Church. There he sets out the problem that confronts us.

"The Ecclesia of the New Testament, the fellowship of Christian believers, is precisely not that which every 'church' is at least in part—and institution, a something. The Body of Christ is nothing other than a fellowship of persons. It is 'the fellowship of Jesus Christ' or 'fellowship of the Holy Ghost', where fellowship or koinonia signifies a common participation, a togetherness, a community life. The faithful are bound to each other through their common sharing in Christ and in the Holy Ghost, but that which they have in common is precisely no 'thing', no 'it', but a 'he', Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is just in this that resides the miraculous, the unique, the once-for-all nature of the Church: that as the Body of Christ it has nothing to do with an organization and has nothing of the character of the institutional about it. This is precisely what it has in mind when it describes itself as the Body of Christ."

For Brunner, this reality of the New Testament Ecclesia is what makes it impossible to equate it with the present expression of the Church. As Brunner will lay out in the chapters ahead, the Church has so far departed from the original expression of the Ecclesia as to be unidentifiable with it. Here at the outset, he begins to establish why. The Church, as history has delivered it to us, is inseparable from its institutional standpoint. This "institutional distortion" of the Ecclesia has led to two erroneous views of the Church. In the first, we see "the replacement of a communion of persons by the legal administrative institution." Within this understanding of the Church we see dogma and government completely obscuring the movement of the Ecclesia "which is a pure communion of persons without institutional character." The equally erroneous opposing response to this, made by the protestant reformers, is the concept of the ecclesia invisibilis, the Invisible Church. At its most basic level, the doctrine of the Invisible Church declares that the true Church is defined by the sum of true believers which remains hidden amidst the world and the institution called the Church. Therefore, the ecclesia invisibilis exists as a group of individuals relationally disconnected. The problem is that this, too, robs the Ecclesia of its fundamentally indentifying mark which is fellowship.

The nature of the Ecclesia, explains Brunner, is the combining of the vertical with the horizontal, divine with human communion in an utterly unparalleled life that is unintelligible apart from its supernatural and miraculous character as the "fellowship of Christ" and the "fellowship one with the other." Next time, The Historical Origin of the Ecclesia.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The fascinating debate continues... (insightscoop.typepad.com)
• Pentecost Sunday: The Church made manifest (insightscoop.typepad.com)