The church has inherited the calling of the Old Testament people of God to be a ‘light to the nations’. This calling is apparent especially in the covenant with Abraham and the ‘servant songs’ in Isaiah. I would characterize it in simple terms as a calling to engender both Godness and goodness in the world: we are exponents of, and propagandists for, a God-centred righteousness. This sets us against both all forms of idolatry and all forms of injustice, whether personal, social, political, or environmental; but the calling should be understood first in positive terms: through the descendants of Abraham the world will be blessed.
How are we to understand salvation in relation to this calling? Strictly speaking people need to be ‘saved’ when something threatens their safety or existence. Israel needed salvation in the first century because the nation faced the devastating ‘judgment’ of Roman invasion. For the nation as a whole this crisis was a consequence of religious failure. For the small number who remained faithful to God during this extended eschatological crisis, suffering was a consequence of obedience. Jesus’ death was the supreme instance of one whose obedience to God resulted in suffering and death and his resurrection was the vindication of this faithfulness. Those who suffered subsequently as Jesus suffered received the same reward: resurrection and participation in the reign of Christ in the new age. Much of the New Testament language about judgment, repentance, atonement, suffering, hell, and resurrection presupposes this context.
There is a secondary sense of ‘salvation’, however, which is actually more relevant to the situation that we mostly face in the West today. The good news for the Gentiles was not that they could get to heaven but that they could become part of the people of God in the Spirit through faith. In many instances this put their livelihoods and lives at risk so that they too needed to be saved in the primary sense - rescued from death, if necessary through resurrection. But the goal of faith was to receive the Spirit, be incorporated into the people of God, and inherit the calling given to Abraham. We believe in order to know God now and be used by God to bless others.
In view of this I would suggest that evangelism can be understood on three levels. It is, first, the work of telling a story to the whole world that recommends both the creator God and the life of righteousness. The crux of this story is the episode that deals with Jesus and the immediate aftermath of his death, but the story is much bigger than this. It is the story of a righteous God who gives life, a story which should provoke wonder, curiosity, compassion, hope, worship.
Secondly, I think that evangelism should involve the creation and nurturing of a religious, cultural and intellectual space for the development of a God-centred righteousness outside the sphere of the church. This is a space where the story begins to make sense to people, where the light begins to shine and lure. Potentially it becomes an intermediate, cross-border form of community - in a much looser sense than we speak of the community of believers - corresponding to the religious interaction that took place in the outer courts of the temple or the community of ‘God-fearing’ Gentiles that attached itself to the synagogue. This would be a community of those who are drawn in some way to the God of Israel, the God of Jesus Christ, but who do not take upon themselves the burden of being part of a servant community. In a sense they are seekers but we recognize that the object of their seeking may never acquire the clarity or certainty necessary for them to take the step of commitment represented by baptism.
In this way the church, as the community of the living God, becomes the focus for a way of life, a spirituality, that in important respects draws on and benefits from the presence of God embodied in those who have the Spirit. We become interpreters of transcendence for people: we help them to understand the desire for God and for righteousness that is latent within them as creatures made in the image of God. And sometimes we will help people to take a big step of trust and become ‘imitators’ of the one who opened the door to God.
Thirdly, therefore, evangelism also takes the more familiar form of bringing others into the servant community of the Spirit so that they may experience the fulness of the life of God (the life of the age which has come) and in turn become agents of Godness and goodness in the world. The church makes disciples but not simply for the sake of increasing its numbers: the church makes disciples for the sake of others.
The analogy of the church as the temple of God is a familiar one (cf. 1 Cor.3:16-17; 1 Pet.2:5). It has usually been used, however, in an exclusivist sense: the church is the sanctuary at the heart of Herod’s temple, where legitimate Israel worships; everything outside the sanctuary is the world. 2 Cor.6:16-18 rather reinforces this position. It is worth recalling, however, that Herod’s temple included a large forecourt between the city and the sanctuary in which it was possible for Jews and Gentiles to mingle. This is not a new idea, but it may help us in our attempts to reconfigure the experience of being church for the purposes of emerging culture mission if we reintegrate the image of the Court of the Gentiles into our self-understanding. There would be a number of potential benefits.
1. This is a natural extension of the church’s self-understanding: it emerges from a well-established biblical image, and although the New Testament does not appear to make the inference explicitly, I do not think it greatly strains the analogy. A number of other biblical ideas could easily be incorporated into the model: the Old Testament vision of the nations coming to worship on mount Zion (eg. Is.56:6-7), Jesus’ concern that the temple should be a house of prayer for all the nations (eg. Mk.11:15-17), and the Gentile ‘God-fearers’ who attached themselves to the synagogues (cf. Acts 10:22).
2. This shared religious space is large but it has distinct boundaries. On the one hand, the court was an integral part of the temple complex and, therefore, differentiated from the rest of the city. This is highlighted by the stories in which Jesus drives out the animal-sellers and money-changers; there were also rules which prevented the use of the forecourt as a thoroughfare or short-cut (M. Berachoth 9.5; TB Berachoth 54a). On the other hand, the Court of the Gentiles was sharply distinguished from the inner courts, which were set aside exclusively for the people of God. Foreigners were forbidden to enter on pain of death (cf. Acts 21:28-29; Jos. War 5.193).
These boundaries are important. They protect the identity of the people of God - those who are called to be holy or set apart. Baptism would be the obvious equivalent to the low balustrade with its warning inscriptions, but the distinction should also be developed in relation to lifestyle and ministry. This is an aspect of emerging culture mission that is easily overlooked in our enthusiasm to become postmodern. But the boundaries also protect the Court of the Gentiles both from encroachment by the world (cf. Jesus expelling the money-changers) and from the zeal of believers.
3. The Court of the Gentiles was not a place of organized, official, programmed activity - other than the selling of sacrificial animals and the changing of money for the purpose of paying the temple tax, of which Jesus appears to have disapproved. We might think of it as essentially a place of presence, being, community, communion, congress, prayer, meditation, a place of proximity to God. The Court of the Gentiles is where the temple overlaps with the world. It is a place where people may safely approach the presence of God, but it could also be regarded, at least in our postmodern context, as a place of escape both from the world and from the sanctuary - a transitional arena, where people move between the secular and the sacred.
The church needs to recreate this sort of space for the sake of its mission to the emerging culture. The idea cannot be pressed as a strict biblical model, but it may help us imaginatively to restructure the life and activity of the temple of the living God.
The Court of the Gentiles was a very real, physical space, expansive, dusty, marked out by walls and gates and colonnades - and eventually demolished by the armies of Titus. If we are to rebuild it today, what shape might it take?
It could be defined, in the first place, as an extension of conventional church structures. We see the creation of a space somewhat like the Court of the Gentiles when church facilities are used for activities that bring normal people closer to the presence of God, when home groups are open to the participation of normal people, when unchurched people are invited to church social events, and so on. In the UK the Alpha Course is probably the outstanding example of this type of structure.
One problem with this approach is that these activities rarely define a genuinely ‘common ground’. The space is owned and managed by the church, sometimes to good effect but always subordinated to some other purpose. I think we would come closer to fulfilling the requirements of a mission to the emerging culture if we could define this common ground in such a way that it is not directly under the control of the organized church. This is the significance of the boundary between the sanctuary and the Court of the Gentiles: believers must come out of the church in order to play on the common ground. They do not cease to be believers, but the rules of the game have changed.
A second problem is that the church has struggled to develop a form of engagement with outsiders that is not either overtly evangelistic or spiritually sterile because the model does not allow for a significant middle ground between the church and the world, betweem being either wholeheartedly Christian or ashamedly secular, between expressing and repressing our faith. This is perhaps the fundamental missional challenge that we face: how do we allow this intermediate state of spiritual being to emerge, protected from both the world and the church?
1. At one level the ‘common ground’ principle needs to be implemented as close as possible to the normal patterns and dynamics of human relationships. Here we might envisage a largely disorganized, grassroots network of small gatherings that in different ways recreate the ‘common ground’ that is represented by the Court of the Gentiles. It would depend on innovative individuals (agents? entrepreneurs?) discovering ways of bringing this shared space into existence. An important part of the strategy, therefore, would consist of identifying, equipping, and supporting these agents, both within and outside our immediate sphere of influence. There is no reason why we should not encourage people from other churches and organizations to think of themselves in these terms. We may seek to stimulate, catalyze and even instruct this movement, but we cannot claim ownership of it.
2. If a grassroots movement of this nature is to have visibility and identity, it will probably also need larger public structures. Seeker churches fulfill this role but we would probably now regard them as operating too much within a modernist paradigm. One alternative which has been proposed is a monthly evening event closer in form and ambience to a club gathering, providing a spectrum of activities including dance, worship, visual arts, discussion, prayer, meditation, lectio divina, teaching. My model for this is Planet Angel in London, a club that has sought to extend the standard clubbing experience by developing both the relational and creative dimensions of the community. They describe themselves as ‘an ever-expanding network of like-minded people working together to promote and create a free-spirited, interactive environment. An environment invoking creativity, balance, harmony, fun and love!’
3. There is perhaps a third level to consider. The spread of a grassroots movement will to some extent produce, but will also depend on, a cultural and intellectual transformation within the wider society. Martin Robinson (UK Bible Society) has spoken of the need not only to reach individuals but also to ‘campaign to the culture’. It would be consistent with the wider objectives of an emerging culture mission, therefore, to seek to expand the overlap between Christian and secular culture, to develop a common ground where there can be a creative, respectful, intelligent examination of what it means to know God. We would want, therefore, to encourage Christians with access to the media, the academic world, and the arts not only to develop the forms of public discourse that would enable this but also to explore those elements in non-Christian culture that help to define the common ground from the other side. It would be a fascinating exercise to look at the work of people who stand on the outside of the kingdom of God looking in.
A friend of mine likens visits to western churches as akin to taking the Jurassic Park ride, in the film by Stephen Spielberg.
They are often full of rare species, demanding detailed exegetical sermons, gargantuan in structure, voracious in appetite, consuming so much time energy and money foraging for food, that they have little left for those around them.
And like the dinosaurs they are out of place, out of touch and in danger of becoming extinct.
This might be a surprise to many of our dinosaur churches, but increasingly there are many voices from within the church about the prospective demise of the western church.
Another friend of mine said to me: ‘The last two years have seen a number of significant books speculating on the future of Christianity. I suppose the millennium is a good time to take stock; to look back over our modest successes (from 12 Christians to over two billion in two thousand years) and some spectacular failures (100 Hymns for Today).’
What is the cause of this demise? You have probably heard the word modernity, and the much overuse word post-modernity, with all its fashionable derivatives (many of which you may already object to).
Well it seems that the change to post-modernity, (if I can put it in it’s crudest terms, how people form beliefs about belief), is so seismic, that our churches are left standing on the broken and shaking ground of modernity, which formed their foundations. Our dinosaur churches are locked in a culture and belief system, produced by modernity, that our western world, by and large, no longer inhabits, leaving our churches irrelevant.
The past few years saw many books trying to convince us of this predicament of the church. Yet recently there have been many further voices, books, web sites, blogs etc., trying to go further, and offer suggestions as to a way forward, and avoid this demise.
A review of church history shows us that there is nothing new in this situation, and offers us some comfort. The church has faced monumental changes in culture, like the transition from a pre-modern medieval worldview to a modern worldview, and has faced our Jurassic park quandary repeatedly.
Most of the lessons to learn seem to be how the church has had to rediscover its purpose, mission and meaning, and has formed new ways, whilst revitalizing old ways, of doing church.
Already the suggestions, and examples being used are so many that I’ll need to point you to some of the books on it (see end of this essay), as they are beyond this article. One particular model, response, formation and re-formation has been ‘missional communities’, and is the one I have been asked to comment on.
Sodalities & ModalitiesOne problem is that new missional communities are so varied and different, how do we make an assessment of them?
I have found the idea of ‘modalities and sodalities’ helpful in this regard. The terms are from anthropology, and were introduced to church growth by Ralph D. Winter in 1971 (Winter, The Warp and Woof pp. 52-62)
A modality is a church/group with hierarchy and vertical structure that has people of all ages, and stages of life, involved in the life of the church at many levels. Some people are very committed, whilst others due to life stages, beliefs, and choice are nominally involved.
Sodalities on the other hand are much more narrowly focused. They are usually very task and relationally focused, where belonging to the community means deep, and multiple commitments. It is almost impossible to be a nominal part of a sodality as they define themselves by high commitment levels. These high commitment, narrowly focused groups, have enabled the church to rediscover what Christian faith is, and preserve it in a time of dilution and ineffectiveness.
Again a review of church history shows us that at times of large cultural change, the church has often responded by starting sodalities, when it becomes marginalized. In the Catholic Church, sodalities were given expression as monastic orders. The Protestant church in rejecting Catholicism, saw sodalities as invalid. It wasn’t until the time of William Carey (Hailed as ‘Father of Modern Missions’), a Baptist minister who in 1792 published Enquiry, the classic delineation of missions, and helped found the Baptist Missionary Society, that sodalities were accepted by the Protestant church.
Missional communities in post-Christian countries can be seen as an extension and acceptance of the sodality model of mission. In church history there have been many marginalized, sodality groups, and one in particular that is currently in fashion and vogue, that new missional communities are drawing on, is the Anabaptist Mennonites.
The Anabaptists, were marginalized, and persecuted by both the Catholic Church, and the Reformers. They mainly saw church and civil state as evil, and formed sodality communities, with subversive theology and non-hierarchical structures, where commitment levels were high. Indeed many historians have seen the Anabaptists as revising and using medieval monastic forms.
That rather crude history lesson is an attempt to place missional communities in context. So how are they doing, and what can we learn from them?
AssessmentIn my readings, research, church planting experience, and involvement with Emergent viewing missional communities, I have found much about them that is helpful, and some things that concern me.
First the helpful things…. By the way not all these are exclusive to missional communities but they are key to them.
1. A reminder of mission
In the past, mission was seen as something churches sent people out of to do. Now missional communities remind us that we need to be missionaries in our own, post-Christendom/Christian culture. We are no longer Christians inhabiting a dominant Christian culture, sending missionaries to un-churched peoples. We are now all missionaries in an un-churched/post-church culture.
2. The Hermeneutic of Community
An authentic community of people living differently, with Christianity as an alternative basis for living, and not just a set of propositional beliefs, becomes a powerful apologetic for our postmodern culture. In post-modernity, there is no truth except that expressed in community. To access truth you have to be involved in an authentic life changing community.
3. Spiritual Formation
Becoming a better person and more like Christ, practising Christian disciplines, is rediscovered, and valued highly in these groups. To belong to the community is to be an active disciple seeking to grow as a Christian. Subscribing primarily to intellectual knowledge as the basis of Christian faith is not highly valued. Being a Christian in thought, word and deed is.
4. Holism
A faith that permeates work, home, and neighborhood, and every area of life is vital to these groups. It’s about fitting my life into Christianity not Christianity into a compartment in my life.
5. Social Justice
Care for the poor and socially abused is of high value to these groups. Ministry to the poor, issues of social action and justice are seen as a normal part of Christian faith and expression.
6. Power from the margins
Probably most significant is that all of the above combine to remind us that the church can speak from the margins of society and affect it profoundly, which is where the church is increasingly finding itself in the West today.
Some problems?1. The death of public space
Many missional communities pride themselves on being hard to find, having no advertising, no teaching, minimal programmes, no obvious leaders. To attend one is to run the risk of being subjected to uncertainty, food and relationship. Missional communities are in danger of inviting people into their worst fear, forced intimacy, sharing, and lack of public space. People want to be able to watch, listen, observe, without pressure to be involved. Yet missional communities by their nature make this very hard to do. People who visit and don’t stay, can be seen and labeled as ‘consumers’, whereas the group validates people not joining by seeing themselves as committed and ‘real’ Christians. In fact missional communities have always been small, as they have always been hard to join.
My worry is that rather than being open communities, they can become closed and as culturally exclusive to people around them as the modern church. The term ‘missional community’ means nothing to the average un-churched person, but is a signifier to other Christians of the nature of the group.
Rather than new communities that are full of new believers, they often become small communities made up from tired and burned out Christians, fed up with church, finding the new community a place of idealism where everyone is practising hard core Christianity, compared to the compromising modality of the main church they have left.
2. Despising the larger church
Missional communities often despise the larger church. After all if they were real Christians wouldn’t they all be in missional communities!?
In extreme cases I have seen missional community people describe the main church as an abusive alcoholic parent that they need to separate from. Their communities are places of safety from abuse, where their children can grow in faith without the knowledge of the abusing parent.
Built into the history of missional communities, as we have seen, and the drawing on Anabaptists, means that many communities will find their identity in seeing state and church as evil.
I heard someone in a missional community say that all churches should be closed, and pastors fired, and people forced into missional community, and that it would be beautiful! ( I know one over enthusiastic person does not make a movement.)
Maybe mainline churches won’t be able to transition, but are the people in them 2nd class Christians, which is how they can feel labeled? Missional communities can arouse the resentment of mainline churches, and thus history repeats itself.
3. Lack of leadership and pasturing
In missional communities, leadership by people is often seen as unneeded, and the Holy Spirit becomes the group’s leader. Perhaps n reaction to the CEO leadership of the modern church, these communities embrace the Holy Spirit as their leader. This can lead to powerfully moving mutual submission to each other, or alternatively to people unable to make decisions, and lead, as they are subject to community consensus of what the spirit is saying. Aversion to pastoral authority and intervention can also leave the groups able to be very abusive, with no-one able to call the group or individuals to accountability.
ConclusionsWhat can we learn in overview? Missional communities are repeating parts of our church history that should encourage us. Through their experimentation strong voices will emerge that will influence the main church and our communities.
History also teaches us that many will fail. We can and will learn from both.
In our church, we have tried to become missional, learning from these communities by trying to take the positive lessons and see our selves as missional, with a hard committed centre of people, working out their faith in life changing ways.
But we don’t want to give up the modality, the public space, the front door, that enables people around us to enter into our community, and ultimately be challenged to deeper commitment, to a life given over to following Christ in community.
Someone in a missional community asked me if we were a missional community. I replied yes, and his next question was did we have Sunday services, to which I said yes again. He was aghast. How could we be missional and have Sunday services? he asked. I horrified him further by saying we still had preaching and teaching.
Yet 60 % of our church in south London has grown from un-churched/pre-Christian peoples, and most of our current growth is from people who previously thought of themselves as not Christian.
So what makes us missional? Reaching people around us, to have Christ as their basis for living, or changing our progammes, for Christians who are tired of services, teaching, pastors?
There is a danger that we unnecessarily re-invent our churches to please tired Christians rather than radically reach those around us.
Jason Clark
www.emergent-uk.org & www.emergentvillage.org 13th March 2003 —————————————————————————- Some Recommended Books Robert Weber, The Younger Evangelicals and Ancient Future Faith Stuart Murray, Church Planting R Allen, Missionary Methods E Gibbs, Church Next A McGrath, The Future of Christianity Pete Ward, Liquid Church Z. Bauman, Liquid Modernity D.H.Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism Please e-mail for a longer list of recommended books.