Andrew- you’d asked me to share some of my thoughts on “how we sustain a form of church that is more or less independent of bricks and mortar structures.”
I figured I’d put them here.
I have such a hard time getting these thoughts out of my head, as you know, mainly because I feel like I’m glancing off the side of good ideas like some metaphysical pinball game (which is where this forum comes in). It is difficult to speculate on how to sustain a form when the form itself is fairly formless, so my thoughts might sound a bit vague.
I think that as the modern expression of church continues to decline, many believers will return to their natural network of relationships, somewhat confused and maybe very disappointed, to find community (circles of friends, family, co-workers, etc.). As the interconnectedness of lives grows stronger, by way of a greater value as demonstrated by Gen X’ers and so on, and via the web, our struggle to remain effective teachers of the Gospel in terms of our culture and social circles will be our biggest task. The modern church has done little to equip people to “be” the church out in the real world, using the world’s language, and much to “plug people into ministry” expressing their Christianity within the organization of the church itself.
I see a church that resides on the bottom level; wrapped up into the lives of people. This church expresses itself very specifically, very indigenously because it is comprised of a tight group of interconnected lives. The more connected, the tighter the cluster, the more effective to grow and sustain.
The word “sustain” means a couple of different things to me: - to continue or persevere in, to maintain - to supply with sustenance or to nourish
Sustain – to continue or persevere in; to maintain As relationships are in a state of continual flux, I think that this state might be representative of many new church expressions. I would love to see the “church” existing on this plane. It is sustained in so much as real relationships, with one another and with God, are growing deeper. Not really revolutionary at first glance, but I think if we are honest, not many people know what it feels like to express Christ outside of their “ministry” at church. Therefore, sustaining a church form like this is kind of a moot issue, at least from the standpoint of maintenance. Actively love God, actively love each other, see what happens, and adapt your behavior together.
I think that over time clusters will begin to form. They might be wrapped around a communal mission, or just around some affinity. These clusters might actually create venues or gravitate toward already existing venues in order to have a corporate experience beyond the scale of an individual cluster’s grasp. Bars, coffee houses, clubs of various types, art cafes, restaurants, etc. seem to be the perfect place for church community to co-exist with non-churched people. Thus the methodology to sustain might look like a business model. People are already doing this kinda thing all over the place. Though it has a “brick and mortar” element, its real center is still in the community of the people involved. Again, not revolutionary, but so missional and relevant, that I think it generally has to be in a different category from the modern church. Try this out where I live and the church will probably ostracize you.
Lastly, and closest to my heart (but very theoretical) is this. I’ve been watching the web community (if we can refer to it a single community anymore). Over the last few years certain groups have begun to see the web as a great way to connect with people NOT globally, but locally. Occurring naturally in particular regions or environments based on affinity, people are starting to cross paths via the web but express their relationships locally in things called “meet-ups”. Now, generally speaking, it’s not the church doing this; its atheists, Wicca’s, homosexuals, etc. I think that there could exist a centralized system that would act ONLY as a matrix for millions of individual clusters to “do what they do”, allowing the clusters to express themselves however they do. Feedback systems that promote good behavior and demote non-constructive behavior (danger zone there of course) could be introduced to work much like the self-regulating systems that many web sites are using to filter out the bad stuff i.e. Slashdot or e-bay. In other words, no overseers need to usurp authority, as much as the whole network leads and governs. The primary function of the centralized hub would be:
* To empower natural networks of relationship to express faith in that context via resources, communication tools, or whatever * To increase connectedness of individuals within clusters, clusters to clusters, and clusters to the world * be a useful and non-bias platform by which interconnected groups, all operating as individuals, could self-organize to form a global personality. * and maybe to add an element of global perspective (as defined by the globe not by management)
Sustenance, from the standpoint of maintenance here is interestingly easier than one might think. As a global entity no local group could possibly manage it. Instead the system would have to manage itself. Again with feedback mechanisms and an equal opportunity voice of sorts. I know that many emergent systems work this way, I’m just not sure what it might look like in terms of the global church.
Sustenance, from the standpoint of healthy “leadership” is a different thing. I kinda mentioned a bit in my post to the topic “emerging authority”. Obviously, men and woman who are gifted by god to “lead” and pastor, and teach, etc would have to do so. That part doesn’t change. It just acts different I think. I know that god gives some to function in a certain capacity (at least for a time) within the body of believers and from without. I am pressed by god to figure out how I am to do this outside of the church walls and inside the lives of the people that I see everyday.
I am very thankful for this forum as I know that you can’t stone me over the internet, and that all of us are working to better know Gods call. Thanks for you replies in advance!
Eric, thanks for taking the t
Eric, thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts further. There is some really good material here and I hope we can tease it out further. I particularly like the observation that the modern church has done little to equip believers to be church in the world outside the church. The church has developed an extremely elaborate culture and infrastructure for sustaining its quaint introverted practices – so that we all grow up like Truman Burbank in the The Truman Show, unwitting inhabitants of an illusory world. (There’s an article on this site called ‘Cracking the code’ that attempts to explain what’s going on here.) It’s difficult to know to what extent this introversion is a product of the belief system of modern evangelicalism. But in any case, it seems to me that we need to do more than change the practice of church. So I have a follow-up question….
Do you think that church that ‘resides on the bottom level’, that is ‘wrapped up into the lives of people’, that is very fluid, networked, enclustered, will require a significantly different belief system to more conventional forms of church? I suppose there’s an external and an internal dimension to this question.
1. Externally, to what extent does our ecclesiology need to change? Ideas about emerging church are more often than not generated by philosophical and sociological forces – or just by plain frustration with old church. This may not be such a bad thing, but are we able to reflect theologically on the process? I think we have to work continually to bring these two levels of creativity together.
2. Internally, what sort of personal theology and spirituality will be needed in order for this sort of church to work well? What beliefs and practices do I need in order to be an effective member of this sort of community? What sort of language of faith do I need? You begin to raise these sort of issues at the end of your post when you talk about leadership and gifting. Do you see this emphasis on the charismata as central to the ministry of emerging church?
Your thoughts on the role of the web in sustaining emerging church should be explored separately. Your vision of a ‘centralized system that would act only as a matrix for millions of individual clusters’ sounds rather chilling, but I think I see what you’re getting at! Why not post that section again as a new topic? Or develop it as a standalone article?
Meet Ups
[QUOTE]
Here is an embryonic example of what Eric is talking about at IndieAllies.
Yes, i do. I think there is
Yes, i do. I think there is a parallel here to your thoughts on a ‘court of the gentiles’ discussion, and your article [url=?q=node/view/63]cracking the code[/url], also in the same thread, [url=http://www.next-wave.org/may03/marriage.htm]stumbling towards a theology of getting married[/url]. These seem to speak to me of an ecclesiology that is more missional. I think we need to simplify. In Matthew 22 Jesus says, Love God…, love your neighbor. He goes on the say that the Pharisee’s, “tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders”; we have indeed created very heavy loads for people when, the truth is, our call is such more simple. You said it well when [quote=”you”]The church has developed an extremely elaborate culture and infrastructure for sustaining its quaint introverted practices – so that we all grow up like Truman Burbank in the The Truman Show, unwitting inhabitants of an illusory world.[/quote] Our modern ecclesiology seems to be so connected to the concept that the church is meant to be the purveyor of righteousness and the definitive expert on holiness for the world. Maybe that’s true to some degree, I guess, but it seems to me that if our language was based on a simple desire to love god and love each other, then grace and acceptance would be at its heart.
I think our understanding of leadership, evangelism, and sanctification needs to shift to terms of influence in community. Posture; not asserting a belief system or perception of holiness as an ultimatum, but gently responding to the needs of those God has placed in relationship based on our better knowledge of the consequence of sin and of santification. Our perception of reality is very much based on our “knowledge of good and evil”. We define and defend everything based on what we have concluded as “right”. Unfortunately, it seems that we see the world through that filter not through the Christ filter. When we look at people in sin, we see sin. Christians seem to demand that non-believers “learn the language” before they become part of the community; an impossibly heavy load. Instead, we should learn theirs.
[quote=”you”]what sort of personal theology and spirituality will be needed in order for this sort of church to work well? What beliefs and practices do I need in order to be an effective member of this sort of community? What sort of language of faith do I need?—Do you see this emphasis on the charismata as central to the ministry of emerging church?[/quote] I think people are going to need to have a revelation that life=ministry/ministry=life, that we ARE the Church not that we GO to church. Peole are going to need to be totally adaptive to the culture, not so much at large, but in their own networks of relationship. They are going to need to be ready to live lives that are a bit less stable. I think they will need to be transparent, willing to take time, and willing to see God from the standpoint of the unsaved. there will need to be a sence that without their life in christ being seen in their natural network of relationships, the Church doesnt exist. in ohter words they will need to take responcibilty for their relationship with God and with eachother not deferring it to the professional christian. Our language needs to be based in experience, i think of the blind man that said “all i know is- i was blind and now i see”. I think our langauge will be so much more effective if it is expressed from within real realationships and as a narrative of our own efforts and to be enlightened. A familiar bartender eves-dropping and then interjecting “well, here’s my experience..” probably carries more weight than the pastoral monologue. the emphasis on personality will hopefully deminish. In Cor. 12:19(the message) [quote=”Paul”]But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn’t be a body, but a monster.[/quote] I think that people will charismatically contribute to their clusters, but that wont equate to a “higher” spirituality. We won’t be able to say, “He stepped down for a while” or” He’s rising into a leadership role”. Instead his/her contribution will be just one among many.
[quote=”1 Cor.12:22-25”]…those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary: and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked; that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.[/quote]
i think that all this discuss
i think that all this discussion of a new kind of church is exciting…. though it won’t be for everyone….just like some people take comfort and security from going to old shops in main streets….others enjoy the “buzz” of shopping in malls…whilst still others find that net shopping suits their lifestyle best…..so i’m sure there will always be baptists, presbyterians, catholics, and quakers…mega church goers, small group adherents and pub church innovators…..evangelicals, charismatics and liberals…..and maybe that’s the starting point….diversity….
i think that the a new kind of church should recognise the authenticity of widely diverse expressions of god’s story and community to be the way they are whilst delighting in the excitement of being liberated into discovering alternative expressions…..
a new kind of church might want to share facilities with other churches…even other types of churches…..maybe three congretations might pool resources to purchase a traditional church building, a street cafe and a small theatre to provide different homes for different member communities….. or..maybe they might sell all the real estate they own and set up a fund for the renting of different premises to suit different occasions and expressions….or maybe just to help an African villiage provide food for its children - whilst starting to meet in homes, public buildings or pubs….. who knows what the future might offer to such a radical group of communities….. certainly at the very least there would grow a deep appreciation of differnt culture, mores and expressions of the faith we all share…..
on another note….. a new kind of church might opt for architecture more attuned to failure…..the very bulidings we have used howl success at us….big parking lots for bmw cars…. freshly painted walls and scrubbed floors….. the quiet hush of success hangs like incense in the air…… no matter how modern, informal or relaxed we try to make it…. there ain’t too many stables used to worship the christ who was born amongst the droppings of cattle….or condemned buildings to interact with the travelling guru who had “nowhere to lay his head”….there isn’t a lot of bawdy sound going on around the services of rememberance of the friend of sinners and broken failures….. in fact the failures of this world are neatly excluded from normative church gatherings……and the result of this is that we members try to hide our failures too…..we cover our shame….talk up our small successes…..and avoid penetrating questions about everything valuable…ignoring that holy spirit inspired thought from bob dylan that “there’s no success like failure & failure’s no success at all”……
i think this new kind of church would inspire me….. because as it interacts with the story of God and continues in the dance of redemption there would be implicit in all of our metaphors, lyrics and steps a scandalous challenge to the story that holds the world in its grip these days - that power, success, monsy and selfish climbing of the totem pole are what should be venerated above all else…..
Eric said: "Actively love
Eric said:
“Actively love God, actively love each other, see what happens, and adapt your behavior together.”
A longing for God pushes aside the illusionary, but only when that longing is to the spirit as the longing for breath is to the body. To actively love God then entails being carried forward from moment to moment by God’s love and the ego’s surrender. The behaviour becomes as music from a flute played by the master. The music that is manifest is a result of the instrument surrendering itself perfectly and completely to the will of the player. Imagine the flute arguing with the master player and how a perfect tone is soured through the instrument’s active resistance to that breath. Our actions, likewise, manifest God’s will when we stop trying to interfere and instead have faith via a continuous state of surrender to the Divine.
It is the job of all who are lover’s of God to be so surrendered that a symphony emerges from their instruments above the din of cacophany from billions of egos playing themselves.
Practical outworkings
I haven’t given this topic as much thought as the rest of you apparently have, but it seems to me that the ‘cyber-community-of-faith’ could be the medicine for what ails the local church.
One of the realities of modern culture is the individual’s lack of rootedness. We are more mobile, and more nearly nomadic, than we have ever been in modern history. This is a tremendous problem for the local church, as it is increasingly hard to maintain a caring, trusting, intimate community with dependable and effective leadership when people are coming and going in the span of just a few years. It may come about that our ‘cyber communities’ are the most stable communities we have.
Here’s a hypothetical: Take a site like this one, a collection of individuals who like to bounce ideas off one another, share concerns, learn from each other. Local churches, meanwhile, unable to maintain consistency within their congregations-in-flux, increasingly utilize the internet to keep in touch with members who move, who go on the mission field, who are shut-ins, etc. A certain member of one of these local-churches-in-flux suggests that they use a site like this to maintain such relationships, and develop new relationships. The model gains a certain amount of popularity, and larger churches, like Willow Creek in Chicago, or entire denominations such as the ELCA, begin offering such services to the smaller churches in their associations.
Let’s say I’m a member of a PCUSA church, and I am actively involved in the PCUSA online community. Suddenly I get relocated because of my job. I have met a few people in the city I am moving to already online, so I have a few friends before I ever get there. Of course, I’m going to attend the PCUSA church where they attend, and I’m going to meet other people with whom I share common online acqauntances. And I will be able to continue all the relationships back in my old hometown that would otherwise have been severed. My concept of church now exists tangibly on two levels: in the larger online community, and in the local weekly worship gathering. The concept of “local expressions of one universal church” starts to become a reality for me.
This will have a couple of interesting effects. One, it will strengthen denominational ties, something that has been rapidly declining in the last few decades. Today it’s all about the local church — If I like the people, the preacher, the children’s program, then who cares whether it’s Methodist, Baptist, or Episcopal! And this revitalized denominationalism will be defined by URL! Who knows whether the existing denominations will be able to capitalize on this, or if an entirely new associational structure will form. Will there someday be thousands of OST church buildings dotting the landscape?
It will have interesting implications for church leadership as well. Since the ‘denominational’ influence will be exerted largely in and through these online communities, the leaders may well come from those who are the most active and respected participants. The process of selecting these leaders has the potential to be much more democratic, and it is likely that many positions will be filled by those who are not pastors or elders of local churches. This is great for both the layperson, who would get to exercise their gifts in spheres that are not open to them presently, and for the pastors, who certainly don’t need to shoulder the entirety of the general governmental overhead.
Would there be ‘virtual churches?’ I’m sure there will, but I don’t see this concept catching on. Worship just doesn’t seem to be suited for the chat room. The local church continue to have its place. However, it will be more of a gathering place for whomever among the ‘denomination’ happens to be in town. Every Sunday will be a bit of an adventure, and a bit of a reunion. And every Monday, online, will be story after story about who ran into whom, and where they ate brunch afterward.
It is a bit like the megachurch / small group ministry model on a grand scale. And the strange thing is, I think it might work. It might be a very healthy development. I find it rather exciting.
Re: No more bricks and mortar?
Excellent post…although a little old. This is exactly the kind of thing I have been thinking about here in Miami. I am a little curious… I don’t know Eric…has anything along these lines been developed in these last 4 years since this post?
Joseph Holbrook