It seems to me that both brands of spirituality/discipleship described by andrew are present in Acts. It stands out to me that in Acts, relationship is the constant in both. It is my interpretation that the first church, and its mission, was founded almost entirely on the basis of relationship in the Spirit.

Personally, I have had trouble sorting out relationship on the basis of institution and relationship on the basis of the Spirit. I’ve been taught, in my church up-bringing, to think on almost purely institutional terms. The commonality, which is the glue of relationship, has always been institution — whether this has been my connection to God, fellow believers, or those outside. God has been the founder and justifier of the institution. Believers are fellow members who are present to recieve the benefits of institution. Non-believers are outsiders to the institution who need to be recruited (largely by enticing them with benefits of insitutional membership).

So how does this relate to the problem of our self-absorbed spirituality and the development of a metro-spirituality?

The church and each believer must move from the discipleship of peace to the discipleship of crisis and vice versa. This is just as necessary to spiritual development as it is biological growth.

The discipleship of peace has been institutionalized in many ways to prevent movement into crisis (and therefore its form of discipleship). Once this institutionalization occurs, relationship becomes subordinate. Ex: there is no crisis which requires deeper friendships so friendships can remain superficial.

God has used crisis in the past to create deeper relationships (to him and to others) and to motivate and equip his kingdom to take new ground (persecution after Stephen’s murder). Our resistance to crisis prevents our movement in mission. Crisis is necessary to enter the urban world and postmodernism. To the extent that evangelicalism has failed in this, the culprit may be resistance to crisis. Ex: Security is a suburban god. It is interesting that rural-frontier peoples often grew in faith and numbers, but as the population shifted to the suburbs and towns, little new ground was covered. What then does the crisis generating frontier of the cities hold for us, and will we pull down the god of security and risk crisis to grow?

When we think about metro-spirituality, perhaps we should think in terms of equipping relationships rather than institutional elements such as programs. Urbanites are presented with many institutional opportunities which they accept largely on credibility provided by relationships. This suggests that relationships are what they seek and value. Ex: two friends encouraged by a minister to clean a highway together may be more beneficial than a group of minister-organized church “members” cleaning a larger section of highway.

Only in the context of relationships can the fuel for creativity and experimentation be found while the bond to the common purpose and destiny is maintained. The commonality should be the fuel for creative and expressive diversity, thus metro-spirituality becomes possible. Without true relationship in the Spirit, metro-spirituality becomes a religious hobby or institutional innovation soon to become yesterday’s fad.

Ministers wishing to help metro-spirituals develop must discard any portion of institution that prevents relationship or movement into a God-generated/allowed crisis, no matter what insecurity is generated within themselves.

These are just some thoughts into why I am not more spiritually extroverted and why those whom I minister to are not more spiritually extroverted. To the extent that I promote institution rather than relationship, it seems we all struggle in our evangelism and spiritual growth. I realize my resistance to crisis and suffering is at fault. May God remove it from me.