Home

Mission and the form of the church

Submitted by Glen Marshall on 11 May, 2004 - 07:59.
A starter on the headaches caused by trying to be effective in mission and faithful to a kingdom vision of church. As we gradually waken up to the fact that we have shifted from a Christendom context to a mission context there is one issue that I keep stumbling across. How do we take seriously the basic missionary principle of contextualising the gospel and the church in a gloriously diverse but sadly fragmenting culture – all things to all people stuff – and yet stay faithful to the NT vision of a dazzlingly inclusive rainbow community – neither male nor female, slave nor free stuff? Do we inevitably have to rank one priority above the other and if so which one, and why? What does a church which manages to travel in both these directions actually look like? (A disembowelled mess?) Which if any of the existing denominations is best placed to get it together? What do congregational, connexional and more centralised expressions of church have to offer?

inclusive v. tribal church

Submitted by Meric on 11 May, 2004 - 14:17.

I tend to agree with the observation that we suffer from the tension between being the people of God - inclusive of all - but having to reach the different “tribes” in our society - which fragments us into rather homogeneous groupings in practice. The great thing about the church in the N.T. is that, in Jesus, it broke down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, etc… (e.g. Eph.2:14). In the culture of the time the inclusiveness of the church stood out as different. What does that mean for us today? We are naturally more comfortable with people who are like us (I certainly am), so the challenge is to “be church” with those who are different (for whatever reason).

Practically it appears easier to build a church that is homogeneous (if the statistics on church growth are correct) rather than diverse. As a missionary strategy it appears to work, but is this really expressing what being the people of God is all about?

At what level should we be seeking to express the inclusiveness of the people of God? In the local church (single congregation), in the church in a location (multiple congregations, perhaps different generations, perhaps from different denominations, say across a town or city),…..? Does it matter?

p.s. by inclusive I mean a church that spans the social, racial, generational, and other divisions prevalent in our (western) society.

Mission and the Form of Church

Submitted by Malcolm Duncan on 20 May, 2004 - 17:03.

I find this whole conversation fascinating. I have one very big question though, how do we ensure that an emerging form of church has at its heart ‘the marginalised’? As we shape emerging church by dint of being part of it, how can we ensure that the needs, and dare I say ‘rights’ of those on the edges of our society are not forgotten? If the Church is truly a place where the messianic mission of Luke 4 / Is 61 is fulfiled, then how do we ensure that we do not forget them? I wonder if one of the challenges of the emerging church is that we are in danger of replacing one set of presuppositions with another. If the only difference between ‘traditional’ church and ‘emerging’ church is that our traditions are newer and change more frequently, then we are in danger of missing the point. How do we ensure that at the heart of emerging church there is the beat of ‘welcome’ rather than exclusion? What does a church with the marginalised on its heart and at its heart really look like in a post modern 21st century culture like the UK?

Do we reach or equip?

Submitted by tolthoff on 27 June, 2004 - 08:27.

This is a good discussion and a difficult one a that! I think there are two major issues here:

1. How we care for and invite the marginalized into the kingdom:

I wonder if saying welcome is really what the marginalized want. Could it be that the marginalized want empowerment and want to be equipped not assimilated? I guess another danger in this conversation is that we could get into quotas and labeling health based on who has the most marginalized who actually attend their church or that they are “taking care of”. I wonder if we should instead be thinking about ways to equip those who do not have a voice to develop one that is heard and to be equipped to move forward. Who are the marginalized we are talking about? And, what do they need? And what marginal voices do we listen to but not support?

2. What does this differnce look like?

Could there be a way that the emerging church could bridge the gap and help without controlling the outcome? I sometimes wonder if it is better to plant, train up, and then support instead of reach, train, and assimilate. Maybe we could try to equip those who are marginalized who may not want to attend our emerging church to be the church in their own context. There are those who would feel comfortable in our churches and want to fellowship with us in our context, but I think sometimes, we automatically think bring in or welcome instead of equip.

An example I can think of is a church I know of in a prison led and run by the inmates themselves. Now many churches have tried to care for prisoners from the outside, which is a good thing. But they have had a vision of reach them one at a time or we will bring the experts in to show you how to do church. In this case the inmates saw what a church was doing and decided to take the principle and make it work in their context. They now have a voice in their prison and the church is equipping and helping from the outside. Could it be that we are called to do more of this type of thing?

I am not sure I have formulated this correctly as I am still thinking outloud myself. Any thoughts would be helpful.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Creative Commons License
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License