The Tiny Church
If you haven't already, you need to check out this post by Andrew Jones, Tiny is the New Small. It's always encouraging to hear Andrew's perspective on the global church, particularly in light of what we have been doing as a faith community and among our friends and partners in the US. I particulary liked this paragraph:
"Simple/organic church people have got a cold shoulder from “church” leaders for a decade. Singularity frowns on modularity. They are considered a threat to the system. They are called “house church” but that doesn't really fit what they [we] are doing. Its not house church and its not “small groups” and its not rebellion against church. Its attempting to BE the church as God intended it."
That is refreshing to hear so plainly stated. I've been criticized in the past for not aligning myself with one particular "label", be it "house church" or "emerging" or whatever. Fundamentally, the reason I haven't been into labels is that my personal journey as a Christian has been the primary driver for why and how my paradigm has changed. Second to that has been relationships with others who have had similar experiences. New ideas, whether they be theological or practical, have played an important role, but come firmly in third place in relative importance. So how can I lock myself into one camp when my own and my friends' experiences have come from such diverse sources?
I suppose if I had to label myself, I would be in the Jesus-centric, Gospel of the Kingdom camp. We are trying to reorganize our lives and churches around the idea that the gospel is more than "say this prayer so you can get into heaven". The theological and practical implications of this are enormous and will have to be worked out over multiple generations. Our part is to be pioneers - experiment, make mistakes, collaborate, and probably (unintentionally) tick some people off along the way.
"Simple/organic church people have got a cold shoulder from “church” leaders for a decade. Singularity frowns on modularity. They are considered a threat to the system. They are called “house church” but that doesn't really fit what they [we] are doing. Its not house church and its not “small groups” and its not rebellion against church. Its attempting to BE the church as God intended it."
That is refreshing to hear so plainly stated. I've been criticized in the past for not aligning myself with one particular "label", be it "house church" or "emerging" or whatever. Fundamentally, the reason I haven't been into labels is that my personal journey as a Christian has been the primary driver for why and how my paradigm has changed. Second to that has been relationships with others who have had similar experiences. New ideas, whether they be theological or practical, have played an important role, but come firmly in third place in relative importance. So how can I lock myself into one camp when my own and my friends' experiences have come from such diverse sources?
I suppose if I had to label myself, I would be in the Jesus-centric, Gospel of the Kingdom camp. We are trying to reorganize our lives and churches around the idea that the gospel is more than "say this prayer so you can get into heaven". The theological and practical implications of this are enormous and will have to be worked out over multiple generations. Our part is to be pioneers - experiment, make mistakes, collaborate, and probably (unintentionally) tick some people off along the way.
posted by Mike Bishop at 8:00 PM
14 Comments:
"Simple/organic church people have got a cold shoulder from “church” leaders for a decade."
I'm not sure this should be a surprise when folks like TallSkinnyKiwi are recommending books like "Jesus Has Left the Building" http://www.harveststone.com/
Perhaps you don't want to tick anybody off, but how would you react if someone was passing out a book to people in your house church/group with tidbits like this "Jesus has left the small independant churchy group. Don’t you want to see where
He’s going" Change a couple words and that is an exact quote from the book recommended by TallSkinnyKiwi in the link you referred to. It's really tough to keep a community strong when sheep keep on leaving the flock.
"I suppose if I had to label myself, I would be in the Jesus-centric, Gospel of the Kingdom camp. We are trying to reorganize our lives and churches around the idea that the gospel is more than "say this prayer so you can get into heaven"."
Sounds a bit like the label every Christian and heretic has given themselves for the last 2000 years. Who is really going to label themselves in the non-Jesus-centric camp? Docetists? Nope. Albigensians? Nope. Arians? Nope. Mormons? Nope. Baptists? Nope. Catholics? Nope. Eastern Orthodox? Nope. Vineyard? Nope. Calvary Chapel? Nope. Atheist? Yes. Agnostic? Yes. While focusing on Jesus is great, there is also a value in knowing whether the beliefs of a specific group are truly Christian or actually heretical.
Anyway, given that I've had about 3 hours sleep in the last 2 days and am just now getting time to unwind, the probability that I have totally misread you is pretty high. Feel free to ignore this or set me straight.
Doug
Doug,
Based on previous comments you've made on my blog, I know you're a converted Catholic, which is perfectly fine by me. I appreciate your perspective on things, along with other Catholic and Catholic-leaning friends I have. However, I think you're missing the boat with this comment.
First of all, I've never read "Jesus Has Left the Building" so I can make no comment on that book. However, from what I know of Andrew Jones after reading his blog for five years and meeting him a few times, he is not a person that goes around making blanket polarizing statements. Recommending a book is hardly claiming you align yourself with everything contained in that book.
Second, your comments about the label I chose - Jesus-centric, Gospel of the Kingdom - prove my point about labels precisely. It's like when I used to say, "I'm a Vineyard guy." That carried with it a ton of assumptions that could be intrepreted a million different ways depending on who you were talking to. So I started saying, "I'm a part of a Vineyard church." Primarily, it's about relationship - to God and then to a local, concrete group of people, then finally to a wider set of relationships (maybe a denomination, maybe not).
There is a specific group of people that I know (both locally and internationally) who are taking the idea that the Gospel is, as Jesus said in Mark 1:15, "The kingdom of God is at hand!" and trying to live out the implications. Some of these people worship in house churches, some are a part of brick-and-mortar evangelical churches, some are Orthodox or Catholic. The common denominator I find among these people is a desire, as Andrew said, to BE the church and live as disciples of Jesus in their day-in-day-out lives. At least, that's the agenda of the people I know.
Hope you get some rest soon.
I share Mike's dissonance about labels. I agree with Doug that it is useful to know where a person, group or 'sect' is coming from by their party-line nod to whatever more visible incorporated brand name flavor. However, it should be fairly agreed that just because someone doesn't give a party-line nod does not automatically make them a heretic. Well, maybe it does to some people. But you come dangerously close to concerning yourself more with what man thinks than what God thinks if that is paramount in your journey. If you truly are more concerned and moved by God's judgment and discernment/conviction/leading of the Holy Spirit as it resonates with the scriptures, then falling into heresy is not going to be an issue. Jesus said that you know a tree by its affiliated belief statement.. oops, I mean BY ITS FRUIT. I'd rather have the genuine fruit of the spirit of Christ and be branded a heretic than boast a 'clean' label of mainline affiliation and not know the power of God.
And I think the whole "Jesus has left the building" thing is also a reference to the fact that God does not dwell in "temples" or places made with human hands, and that many (not all) of our large modern movements are equivalent to that "heresy" in God's eyes. I accepted an invitation from a co-worker to visit their church this weekend and the message and thrust was very clear; that if you are experiencing despair and "defeat" in your lives, it is because you are not coming to church on the Sunday night and Wednesday service and the small groups and men's breakfast and not buying lasts month's sermons on CD and essentially becoming a hardcore consumer of the church product so you can thereby somehow get a hold of God. It was sad because I sat there surrounded by people in the pews who clearly needed to experience God's power for themselves and not just from someone else's already-chewed-and-regurgitated relationship with God. They need to be pointed to the Teacher of their souls in the Kingdom here and now in the contexts of their daily lives, and not be herded to be a captive market to fuel a "successful" church business venture. I felt some empathy over Jesus flipping the CD-sermon counter, er, I mean money changer tables over. Jesus has left "the building".
That being said, Mike and many others like myself sense a clear leading that has been forged through years of mistake making and wrestling with a desire for the authentic spiritual "goods" of the Kingdom, to avoid the assumptions and baggage that come with big-church affiliations. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE BETTER for it. I know that there are many deeply spiritual, fruit-bearing folks who are clearly led into the larger denominational and even mega-church contexts. We all have different journeys that are shaped differently for whatever purposes God has. Ralph Winter documented the validity of both paths in his historical analysis of what he called 'modal' and 'sodal' forms in the Kingdom.
Mike's post was meant as a thankful nod to Andrew for throwing a little affirmation to folks on this kind of journey because validation is quite a bit thinner outside the established big-name context where its easier to find a thumbs-up by the color of denominational armband you wear. Almost every one of our large visible Christian structures today started off as a small band of folks seeking the Truth as portrayed in the Book without any original intent to make it huge with affiliation services. Many of them were probably regarded with suspicion as potential heretics too, maybe not improperly, until their fruit was known. The fact that Mike did not respond venomously, but rather with grace, hints at what fruit is in the making.
Mike,
Seth Godin (I know he is a marketer, but let's not blame him for that) has a book called Small is the New Big...
I think I can identify pretty well with the journey that brought you to where you guys are now...I am just wondering...Don't you miss "doing the [missional] stuff" on a larger scale than your own group, or am I missing something...
By the way, these are some of the questions I want to talk about when we have that long lunch sometime....
I'm interested, Douglas, in how you would describe yourself. This isn't a trick question, it's genuine interest.
I have a lot of respect (and have been shaped by) many Catholics. But surely "I'm a Catholic" is even less telling than Mike's self-description.
And if you think most evangelicals would say, "I'm in the Gospel of the Kingdom camp," I'd respectfully disagree. They wouldn't think to say this, which is why this sentence has more meaning than perhaps you allow.
Best,
Brant
Chriseric,
I fully agree with your statement below. "However, it should be fairly agreed that just because someone doesn't give a party-line nod does not automatically make them a heretic."
Please, understand that I am not accusing Mike of anything like what you said. It is obvious from his writings that he is a Christian and not a heretic. I would venture to say that it is obvious from his writings that in many areas he has a much deeper faith than me.
"If you truly are more concerned and moved by God's judgment and discernment/conviction/leading of the Holy Spirit as it resonates with the scriptures, then falling into heresy is not going to be an issue. Jesus said that you know a tree by its affiliated belief statement.. oops, I mean BY ITS FRUIT."
I guess this is where I would disagree. I think there are and have been numerous mormons, JW's, oneness pentecostals, Monophysites, Docetists, and others out there who actually have far more FRUIT than non-heretical Christians. I would venture to say that many live far more Christ-like lives than you or I. If you want to know who Jesus' followers are, the doctrine people believe does play a role. The role of doctrine is not exclusive, but neither can it be excluded.
"The fact that Mike did not respond venomously, but rather with grace, hints at what fruit is in the making." Agreed. Indeed, I can learn much from the gentleness of his response. I do not question his genuineness, nor his holiness.
Brant,
"I'm interested, Douglas, in how you would describe yourself. This isn't a trick question, it's genuine interest."
Since it is of genuine interest, I will answer it genuinely and not glibly or briefly (since it is also a complicated question whose answer depends on the context).
How would I describe myself in terms of faith would probably end be, "I'm a Christian" or "I'm just a sinner, saved and being saved by grace" (to put a twist on the old hymn). However, while that conveys who I am to a group of believers like this, it doesn't really put a label on me or describe very well what my beliefs are. Labels of the denominational/religous type to me describe what I hold to doctrinally (e.g., what I believe the good is, whether I fully attain it or not). Therefore, I would say that I would probably label myself as a "Catholic" or a "faithful Catholic" or a "Catholic convert". Depending on the context and person asking, I might add a variety of other qualifiers to Catholic that communicate more meaning.
"But surely "I'm a Catholic" is even less telling than Mike's self-description."
In some ways it is more telling; in other ways it isn't. It certainly explains immensely more about what hold to doctrinally than Mike's label does. Does it say whether or not I live up to that? Does it explain whether or not my very being is infused with the life of the Holy Spirit? No, labels just don't cut it in many very important ways. If I'm reading what Mike is saying, that's partly what he is getting at. When it comes down to it, labels can be applied and misapplied and they often don't communicate what is perhaps the most important information (though I might add depending on the situation).
"And if you think most evangelicals would say, "I'm in the Gospel of the Kingdom camp," I'd respectfully disagree. They wouldn't think to say this, which is why this sentence has more meaning than perhaps you allow."
Point well taken. This could be considered a technical statement with specific meaning to a niche group of Christians. In that sense, it has more meaning than the simple phrase, "I believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom." So, if that phrase is being used primarily as something resembling a denominational label in that it is trying to put a label on his doctrine by identifying himself with a specific group of people who emphasize the idea of the "Gospel of the Kingdom", then I guess I would have to agree with you. While it is not something that any "Christian" real or otherwise would deny, it is certainly not something many would think to use as their primary label outside of Mike's theological circle. Long way of saying, "Yes, I think you are correct."
Doug
Mike,
First, please don't take the first part of my original comment as an implication that somebody has a reason to specifically give you the "cold shoulder". I just found it ironic that a post with the quote on "simple/organic church people" getting the "cold shoulder" would contain a link to another blog post that recommended a book that would understandably produce such a reaction, if that book were it be associated with "simple/organic church people." There's gotta be a shorter, more concise way to say that, but I can't think of it right now. I hope you followed that paragraph in a sentance.
"I appreciate your perspective on things, along with other Catholic and Catholic-leaning friends I have." Please, don't associate the original comments with me being Catholic. The original post was based on beliefs I picked up as a Protestant kid and nothing would change were I still going to a Calvary Chapel Fellowship or Baptist or Assemblies of God church. Of course, that cannot be said about later posts in this thread since they respond to other more specific topics.
"There is a specific group of people that I know (both locally and internationally) who are taking the idea that the Gospel is, as Jesus said in Mark 1:15, "The kingdom of God is at hand!" and trying to live out the implications."
Amen! The Kingdom of Heaven is an important theme of Jesus teaching. There are millions of Christians around the world who agree with you there and are trying to live that out with great emphasis. In fact, it is one of the mysteries of the rosary, which in practice means that millions of Catholics meditate on the concept of the kingdom of God every day: what it means and how it affects their lives, etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=6430
"Some of these people worship in house churches, some are a part of brick-and-mortar evangelical churches, some are Orthodox or Catholic. The common denominator I find among these people is a desire, as Andrew said, to BE the church and live as disciples of Jesus in their day-in-day-out lives."
This is the part I don't understand. If the label is so broad as to simply include everyone who emphasizes the kingdom of heaven, then it would seem to me that my original point is true. To give just one example, many gnostics have had a tremendous emphasis on the kingdom of God. http://www.necessaryprose.com/pagels.html
I certainly think it is true that many would use it as an identifying label, even those who disagree with orthodox Christian doctrine.
However, my interpretation of Brant (right or wrong) lead me to think that you placing the label on yourself had specific doctrinal meaning, such as your idea of how the Kingdom of God plays out practically in a doctrine of the Church, exclusive of apostolic succession. That being the case, I don't see how any Catholic or Orthodox could be considered to be a part of the group. Since you specifically claim that they are, I am confused. In short, I don't see how the label "in the Kingdom of God camp" can include a Catholic or Orthodox in your group without also including a gnostic and vice versa, excluding one seems to me that it would exlude the other groups.
So, tell me, please. Where did I "miss the boat" this time?
Doug
Doug,
I don't think the Kingdom-emphasis is meant with "specific doctrinal meaning."
It does connote a set of sensibilities, and those sensibilities are not, in fact, shared by most religious believers in this country.
If you asked most believers, "What is the Gospel, according to Jesus?" they simply won't know. I know this, because I've asked large groups of them, repeatedly.
A group that teaches and emphasizes this message is hardly the usual.
It's the Good News, but it's not generally taught or explained. I grew up in a fundamentalist church that was proud of its Bible-centric, Bible-believing, New Testament-church-restoring approach, and never got an explanation for what is meant by the Kingdom. Never.
I'd suggest it's more than "a major theme", too, as if there are other themes that truly rival it in importance.
My two cents...
Brant
"I'd suggest it's more than "a major theme", too, as if there are other themes that truly rival it in importance."
What about love, the Trinity, creation, incarnation, resurrection, redemption and eucharist? Do you find more emphasis in Scripture for the Kingdom of God than for those topics?
Doug
Doug,
You were talking about the themes of Jesus's teaching, and yes, I think the announcement of the Kingdom is actually the theme of His ministry.
I think this is a commonly-held idea among theologians. Certainly, love is central to that message.
Best,
Brant
Sorry I've been kind of absent from this conversation. Work has been pretty hectic and I'm preparing to leave for Peru on Tuesday. More about that in my next post.
Doug, maybe the best way to summarize where I (and Brant, since he is a part of our faith community and we've had lengthy conversations about this topic) would be to point you to N.T. Wright as probably the primary influence on my thinking in this area. I'm sure you're familiar with Wright's work, particularly in the area of the highly contentious Jesus studies of the past few decades. In my opinion, what Wright has to offer the church goes far beyond correcting the wrong assumptions and conclusions made by the Jesus Seminar that have influenced more mainline, liberal denominations. He points to a Jesus who, as proclaimer of the Kingdom and embodiment of the new Israel, makes more sense than the Great Moral Teacher Jesus of the left or the Sacrificial God-Lamb Jesus of the right.
That being said, to answer your specific question, I believe gnosticism is impossible to reconcile with the Gospel of the Kingdom as it was presented by Jesus and the apostles. Gnostics seek to segregate the spirit and body in an attempt to flee the world. The kingdom message is one of restoring God's creation as he intended, and the integration of body and spirit is critical to that agenda. After all, what would be the purpose of the resurrection if we were meant to be just spirit beings floating off into space?
As far as apostolic succession goes as it relates to the church, that is probably one area where you and I would have to agree to disagree. To me, church is whenever and wherever God's people gather, irrespective of their pedigree or background. Because the Gospel of the Kingdom is focused on people becoming fully human by and through Jesus, I think it's a place where Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all have room to co-exist and thrive.
The themes you mentioned in a later comment - love, the Trinity, creation, incarnation, resurrection, redemption and eucharist - are all central to any faithful expression of Christianity. The Kingdom, however, is not a theme or just another topic found in scripture. Dallas Willard has a great definition of the Kingdom - it's where God's will is done perfectly. So in a way, the Kingdom is like a thread that runs throughout Scripture and the history of God's people, from the beginning of time until now. The major themes of Scripture paint a picture of what the Kingdom looks like. Participating in the Kingdom means we participate in those themes.
Well, this is a long comment already and my wife needs to use the computer. I can't promise to respond much after this because I'll be travelling for the next few days. But I will have internet in Peru and should be posting some from there.
Brant,
Mea culpa. It pays to read about what you were referring to. You were correct in stating, "You were talking about the themes of Jesus's teaching," In light of that, I agree with your statement, "I think the announcement of the Kingdom is actually the theme of His ministry." I apologize for reading your comment out of context. I was thinking you were referring to the whole of Scripture.
Doug
Mike,
You said, "That being said, to answer your specific question, I believe gnosticism is impossible to reconcile with the Gospel of the Kingdom as it was presented by Jesus and the apostles."
- I totally agree! I simply think that there are examples of heretics who would apply the "gospel of the kingdom" label to themselves. Now, if the label has doctrinal significance, and is not merely a self-identifying label (as you suggest in your reply when you say gnosticism can't be reconciled with the Gospel of the Kingdom as you see it), then gnostics are definitely excluded from your label. Their doctrine doesn't match.
However, if that is the case, then I still don't understand how Catholics can still fit under your umbrella. Sure, we can agree to disagree. I honestly can't imagine changing your mind on the point of apostolic succession. However, apostolic succession and the papacy are intrinsically tied in with the Catholic view of the Kingdom of God. Catholics have very specific ideas about the gospel of the kingdom that (right or wrong) you definitely don't share. For instance, they believe that Jesus giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter was a specific reference to Isaiah 22:22. Jesus was appointing Peter the steward/vizier/vicar/prime minister of his kingdom, in the same way that Eliakim was the vizier of Hezekiah. Jesus was giving Peter the keys to his Kingdom, in the same sense that Eliakim was receiving the Key of the House of David several hundred years after David had died. Jesus was using very specific kingdom language when he made Peter his vicar and chief among the apostles. At least that is the Catholic idea of how the papacy is intimately tied to the concept of the kingdom of God, not that I expect you to share that belief.
So, do you see why I'm still confused. If the "gospel of the kingdom" label doesn't have doctrinal significance, then gnostics could use it. If it does have doctrinal significance or imply a set of sensibilities, then it can't apply equally to both Protestants and Catholics, since they have vastly different conceptions of the "Kingdom of God" as it relates to church heirarchy.
Does my confusion over the "Gospel of the Kingdom" label make sense now?
Doug
Post a Comment
<< Home