metanoeo

     It’s good to be back. Tests, projects, Christmas, etc. have distracted me, but I haven’t forgotten you. You belong here. I ended the last post asking the question, “Where is Jesus leading?,” and I want to use that question to guide us into a discussion of the Church. What is the Church? What is church? How do we cultivate the mission of the Church? How is the emerging church cultivating the mission? I believe two critical questions that the church in the West must answer today are the question of personhood and the question of place. By defining who we are and where we are, we will be better prepared to pursue the mission for which we have been called.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

    Why is this discussion important? In the last few posts I’ve tried to constantly emphasize our need for a biblical grid in approaching everything in life. I hope in this post that we can work together to establish a biblical grid for ecclesiology (the function and structure of a church) with which we can analyze not only the many approaches of the emerging church, but also the structures and functions of our own churches. As Dan Kimball notes, “What comes into our minds when we think of the word ‘church’ is the most important thing shaping how we function as a church” (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 92). Our definition of “church” is highly influential to the outworking of our own faith, therefore it is vital that we hold a biblical definition in order to be faithful disciples of Christ. No matter how painful it may be, let’s strip away all of the nonessentials and invest our energies in developing a biblical foundation from the ground up.

     The English word “church” is derived from the Latin “kirk” and the Greek “kuklos,” both of which describe the circular seating of early congregations (Smith). Translators primarily use “church” for the translation of the Greek word “ekklesia” (Butler), a word which carried two distinct connotations. Both connotations give us a picture of what the early church was thinking in using this word. First, ekklesia was used in the Greek world to describe an assembly of the Greek citizens of a city who were called out by a herald to deal with a common concern (Ibid). In this sense, the early church adopted Jesus’ command to be a city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 NIV) by viewing themselves as an assembly of God “sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NIV). Second, “ekklesia” was used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in the first century) for the translation of the Hebrew “qahal” (Butler). Qahal also described an assembly of people, and some examples of its use can be found in 1 Samuel 19:20, Numbers 22:4, and Deuteronomy 9:10 (Ibid). The first thing we should note is that ekklesia didn’t describe a place or an organization but a group of people who were specially called for a greater purpose. A building can’t send greetings (Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19 NIV), only a people can. An organization can’t be gathered together from all across a city (Acts 14:7 NIV), only a people can. The church is not a building or a meeting; it is the people of God (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 91).

     In Matthew 16 and 18, the only instances where Jesus refers to the church, Jesus makes it clear that the church is founded on His authority. It is His church. It is His people. In verses 18-21 of chapter 16, Jesus makes a clear connection between the church and the kingdom, and while it may be presumptuous to say that they are synonymous, it is apparent that the church and the kingdom are highly correlated (Orr). Faith in Christ is not only a requirement for entrance into the kingdom, but it is also the first sign of adoption into the church (Acts 2:32, 2:41-42, Matthew 16:16-18 NIV). Baptism and the Lord’s supper are the only two orders of assembly with which Jesus charges the church; He makes no other formal prescriptions for the organization of the church (Orr). It appears rather that organization emerged as the needs of the people emerged (see Acts 6:1-6 NIV) (Orr) and as spiritual gifts were exercised to fulfill the church’s mission (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 NIV) (Butler). One of the most unique characteristics of the early Church was that its organization was different in each local congregation (Butler).

     So “ekklesia” is not a place of meeting or a place of worship, but a people who have been called as the “sent spirit of God” (McKinley) to reach every community with the message of the kingdom. As that message advances, organization is necessary. Yet, for the most part, the Western world has abandoned this organic definition for a narrower one that limits “church” to a place where we go once or twice a week (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 92). This subtle alteration in terminology creates a significant split between the public sphere and the private sphere; we go to “church” for our private religious activity and then we come back to the public world where we live most of our lives. “In North America, this ‘place where’ orientation manifests itself in a particular form. Both members and those outside the church expect the church to be a vendor of religious services and goods” (qtd. In Kimball, “Emerging Church” 93). George Barna notes that “God didn’t call us to go to church, He called us to be the church” (Barna).

     It is impossible for us to “go to church” because we are the church. Events don’t happen “at church,” events happen through the church. We are the church. When we ascribe to the “place where” terminology, we abdicate ourselves of so much responsibility. Maybe that is the point. When church is restricted to a place or a time that is separate from the rest of our lives, there is a limit to what God can ask of us. But if we are the church, no matter if we are in school or at work, God can intervene whenever and wherever He wants.

     What then are we to be? Hear the Scriptures: We are living stones of a new Temple, a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, aliens and strangers in the world (1 Peter 2:4-11 NIV). We have been redeemed from an empty life (1 Corinthians 6:9-20, 1 Peter 1:13-21 NIV), and the only natural response is a lifestyle of worship (Romans 12:1) aimed at glorifying God (1 Peter 2:11-12 NIV). I cannot even begin to summarize the greatness to which the Scriptures call us. Beautiful are the words spoken to us, and beautiful is the One who is speaking! Friends, we have not been given a rule book and neither have we been made rulers. No, this is the majesty of His great plan, that we are the servants of the world (1 Peter 3:8-9, 4:1-11 NIV), showing our love through self-sacrifice (1 John 3:16-18 NIV). Christ freed us in order to serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13-14 NIV)! Oh, that we would give up our senseless political battles and be the people we are called to be.

     May we love without hesitation and pursue Truth with all passion (Philippians 1:9-11 NIV). May we be entirely welcoming (Romans 12:14-16 NIV) and entirely merciful (Jude 22-23 NIV). May we stop fighting like the world (2 Corinthians 10:2-5 NIV) and begin living like the residents a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 3:11-14 NIV), like residents of a shining city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 NIV).

May we be devoted to one another (Romans 12:10 NIV), united by service, love, and humility (Philippians 2:1-11 NIV).

     And may we realize that this is not something we are to do once a week, but it is something we are to be day in and day out. This subject is one that the emerging church is right on target. “A foundational and critical challenge for the emerging church will be teaching people that they are the church and that they don’t simply attend or go to one” (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 94). Those who find comfort in the institutional religion of Christianity will find themselves confronted by this incarnational view of ecclesiology. It is a warranted confrontation. For too long we have abdicated our responsibilities to the kingdom with our letters of membership to stiff, inward-focused institutions. Across the entire spectrum of the emerging church is a refreshing change toward incarnational ministry - ministry that is about people being the church. Though parts of the movement has serious pitfalls, most of the emerging church is raising itself to a new standard of ecclesiology that is far more biblical than anything the West has seen for many years. I hope that we would all welcome that change.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT

     This is a high calling. It demands our all. Jesus even said few would find it (Matthew 7:14 NIV). Yet today, this high calling seems to have been abandoned by conventional Christianity. It appears that a mediocre attempt to follow His path is not only deemed acceptable, it is expected.

    The culprit is the acceptance of the membership design of church. “One danger of the American church is that we often try to offer people community without cause. Without cause, you’re just another civic organization. You don’t have life transformation” (E. McManus, “Cause-Driven Church”). The membership design of church operates like any other civic organization: members enjoy certain benefits which non-members do not; members convince non-members to join their organization; non-members who recognize the benefits will naturally join; members are expected to behave in a certain way; more active members are considered more committed to the organization; more active members are rewarded by acquiring positions of leadership; leaders are utilized to make more members. The dangers inherent to a member-oriented design is that the organization creates an elitist ladder, is focused on self-preservation, and engages in an enormous “us-them” mentality. Competition is the natural result of this organizational design because non-members will begin to look for the organization which offers the best benefits.

     “‘We’re looking for a church that meets our needs.’ It seems like I’ve heard this one a thousand times. The phenomenon of church shoppers has profoundly shaped the contemporary church. The entire conversation is not about relevance but convenience. The focus is not in serving the world; the church itself became the focal point. Our motto degenerated from ‘We are the church, here to serve the lost and broken world’ to ‘What does this church have to offer me.’” (E. McManus, “Unstoppable” 29-30). Erwin McManus expresses the frustration pastors and believers feel over the rampant consumerism found in the Western church today. The solution so many pastors present often sounds like this: “Stop being observers and start being participants!” This doesn’t solve anything. Instead of having a church of consumers who like to sit and watch, you will have a church of consumers who will do anything to avoid being the guy who just likes to sit and watch. They aren’t disciples - they are worker bees! The moment we equate participation with maturity is the moment we give church-building precedence over disciple-making.

     I want you to know that I am not an unbiased, external observer of the emerging church. My answer to the consumerism of the Western church is the rejection of the membership design and the acceptance of the missionary design. From this point forward, I will advocate the Relevant Missional stance of an emerging believer, and this is why: nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded to start churches. Nowhere. However, we are constantly urged to make disciples. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19 NIV) was not a command just for the original Twelve; it is for us, too. We are all missionaries. 2 Corinthians says that we are God’s ambassadors, representatives to this world another other-worldly kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:18-20 NIV). We are all missionaries.

     Mark Driscoll, pastor and prominent leader of the Missional approach, says, “We’re not talking about a church running programs to attract non-Christians. We’re talking about Christians taking it upon themselves to love their neighbor” (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional Part 2″). Emerging Church Parts 1 and 2 explained, to a degree, the cultural state of the West, and I hope you realize why this culture needs missionaries. The problem is that many Christians don’t even know anyone who lives in this post-Christian Western culture. “They listen to Christian radio, they listen to Christian music, they watch Christian television, they read Christian books, their kids go to Christian school, they go to Christian church, they go to Christian events, they go to Christian concerts, their friends are Christian, they go to community group or home Bible study with their Christian friends, they vacation with their Christian friends and meanwhile their neighbors don’t know Christ” (Driscoll, “Cultural Immersion”). For us to love our neighbor, we need to get to know them. “Ultimately, they need Jesus. But without me knowing them, I don’t know how to articulate how Jesus is the one that they truly need” (Ibid).

     Missional believers go as far into culture as they can, without sinning, in order to understand the questions that the culture is asking. The Christian pick-up line hasn’t changed in the past 30 years: “If you were to die today, do you know that you would go to heaven?” As a missionary, we must investigate and see if this is the question that people are actually asking - or are they asking something else. Only then will we be able to present Jesus as the one who answers their deepest longings.

     This is what missiologists call contextualization. A missionary contextualizes the gospel within their culture. This is not to say that we water down the gospel; there are countless examples throughout history when we have often botched our translations of the gospel to culture (Miller, “Be Yourself”). We are right to be wary of blind calls to “relevance.” But this does not give us the right to abandon our missionary call. A missionary must hold Scripture in a closed hand and methodology in an open hand; this is what Paul meant when he said, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22 NIV). We don’t become Buddhist to reach Chinese; we become Chinese to reach Chinese. It’s not just a matter of dress and language; to repeat Hudson Taylor, “So living as to be an example to them of what Chinese Christians should be, requires the adoption not merely of their costume but of their habits also to a very considerable extent. Merely to put on their dress, and act regardless of their thoughts and feelings, is to make a burlesque of the whole matter…” (Taylor 89).

     I pray that we would not make a burlesque of the matter. For the sake of the Gospel, get to know your neighbor, love your neighbor, seek the good of your neighbor, and be a missionary to your neighbor. Don’t view yourself as a member or a participant. View yourself as a missionary. And live your life worthy of your calling.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 1:16 am and is filed under following the Way, leadership. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.