A New Alternative, Continued
Sorry for the delay, but I keep finding it difficult to sit down and write anything these days.
I appreciate the comments from the last post and I have received a few others from friends face-to-face. Naturally, both phrases - "alternative to church" and "alternative church" demand a little bit of context in order for the idea in my head to make any sense. For the past seven years, our community has acted primarily as an alternative for people that have, for one reason or another, grown weary of church-as-we've-known it in a North American context. In most cases, we have not attempted to define what the future might look like or provide a strong redefinition of church in order to attract people. Someone in our community recently had a dream in which they saw themselves standing in an open place between a deep mine shaft and dark forest. Jesus was present telling him to admonish the people fumbling around in the mine shaft to come out and follow him (Jesus) into the forest. The emphasis was not on moving from one idea of church (the mine shaft) to another idea of church (the forest), but rather from following our own dreams and ideas to following Jesus into the unknown where we can only be led by his Spirit. Our community, in my estimation, has been firmly positioned in this open space between the mine and the forest, helping to encourage those who are finding their way out of the darkness. The shift I see beginning to occur is that Jesus, as he was in the dream, is challenging us to become more intentional about both continuing that task and beginning to make ventures out into the forest with him.
This is what I mean by becoming an "alternative church". It is not "doing church" differently. It is grabbing hold of our identity as an alternative People, centered on the person of Jesus and participating in his kingdom project. This transcends just simply being different than other churches in some form or fashion as in "we're a home church" or "we're an emerging church" or "we are a reformed church". That, honestly, turns my stomach a little. It also moves past the valid recognition that "We are the church". That is certainly true, and is a helpful idea for people who find themselves in the clearing between the mine and the forest. But this is where blending the language of missiology and ecclesiology becomes appropriate: "The mission of the church is to discern, celebrate, and participate in God's redemptive mission in the world." Learning what that means in a particular context, with a particular group of people, and investing in the embodiment of particular 'missions' as they are conceived, incubated, birthed, and grown into maturity is a natural next step for a community such as ours.
But mission alone does not differentiate between "alternative to church" and "alternative church". In fact, mission does not amount to much without a strong backbone of people who are in love with Jesus and who design their lives around his teachings and way of life. This, of course, leads to specific community practices that help to sustain and reaffirm the way of life the community has intended to follow. At the center of those practices is becoming immersed in God's ongoing Story and relentlessly communicating truths about God's kingdom to each other. What flows out of this is a church that begins to become convinced of who they really are, what God is calling them to be, and the future that he intends and plans. Now that's alternative.
I appreciate the comments from the last post and I have received a few others from friends face-to-face. Naturally, both phrases - "alternative to church" and "alternative church" demand a little bit of context in order for the idea in my head to make any sense. For the past seven years, our community has acted primarily as an alternative for people that have, for one reason or another, grown weary of church-as-we've-known it in a North American context. In most cases, we have not attempted to define what the future might look like or provide a strong redefinition of church in order to attract people. Someone in our community recently had a dream in which they saw themselves standing in an open place between a deep mine shaft and dark forest. Jesus was present telling him to admonish the people fumbling around in the mine shaft to come out and follow him (Jesus) into the forest. The emphasis was not on moving from one idea of church (the mine shaft) to another idea of church (the forest), but rather from following our own dreams and ideas to following Jesus into the unknown where we can only be led by his Spirit. Our community, in my estimation, has been firmly positioned in this open space between the mine and the forest, helping to encourage those who are finding their way out of the darkness. The shift I see beginning to occur is that Jesus, as he was in the dream, is challenging us to become more intentional about both continuing that task and beginning to make ventures out into the forest with him.
This is what I mean by becoming an "alternative church". It is not "doing church" differently. It is grabbing hold of our identity as an alternative People, centered on the person of Jesus and participating in his kingdom project. This transcends just simply being different than other churches in some form or fashion as in "we're a home church" or "we're an emerging church" or "we are a reformed church". That, honestly, turns my stomach a little. It also moves past the valid recognition that "We are the church". That is certainly true, and is a helpful idea for people who find themselves in the clearing between the mine and the forest. But this is where blending the language of missiology and ecclesiology becomes appropriate: "The mission of the church is to discern, celebrate, and participate in God's redemptive mission in the world." Learning what that means in a particular context, with a particular group of people, and investing in the embodiment of particular 'missions' as they are conceived, incubated, birthed, and grown into maturity is a natural next step for a community such as ours.
But mission alone does not differentiate between "alternative to church" and "alternative church". In fact, mission does not amount to much without a strong backbone of people who are in love with Jesus and who design their lives around his teachings and way of life. This, of course, leads to specific community practices that help to sustain and reaffirm the way of life the community has intended to follow. At the center of those practices is becoming immersed in God's ongoing Story and relentlessly communicating truths about God's kingdom to each other. What flows out of this is a church that begins to become convinced of who they really are, what God is calling them to be, and the future that he intends and plans. Now that's alternative.
posted by Mike Bishop at 11:20 AM
4 Comments:
i agree the key is designing a shared life around Jesus, His teachings and His way of life. of course, that brings up an obvious question and the place that stumbles many people: who gets to decide what 'design' means and how you do that...which possibly corresponds to different walking paths or maybe trees within the dark forest-metaphor (or possibly i am over-extending your metaphor) i really like the blendedness of the missiology and ecclesiology statement.
I just wanted to say that this definition of how we "do church," is a confort as I believe it does create divion within the body and the way others do church, but explains why we do it the way we do and the point of what we are trying to do. In the last year and a half I have grown more than I had in the previous 28 years of my life and I find it a blessing to have such an awesome church family trying to further the Kingdom of God together.
Steve,
my assumption would be the Holy Spirit "gets to decide what 'design' means and how you do that."
ahhh, shawn but that further feeds my question! sure, that is an appropriate answer and at its zenith is utterly true. but taking the perspective (that admittedly may be skewed) of one person belonging to a larger group, what happens when there are two (or more) competing interpreters of signs, visions, words, or just plain discern of the will/desire/guidance of the Holy Spirit. i suppose my question goes to the heart of authority, and what i really like about you guys (at least that i see) is that you have dis-entangled authority and power and possibly vocation as well. but in that environment, is it the case that a 'core' of 'recognized leaders' provide the momentum for the design of the Holy Spirit? like in Acts 13 (a group of prophets and teachers gather and the HS tells them something: set apart paul and barnabas for such-and-such)...
"...is it the case that a 'core' of 'recognized leaders' provide the momentum for the design of the Holy Spirit?"
Naturally, there are people who express leadership in an organic way. The idea that "We have no leader but the Holy Spirit" is too simplistic and reveals a level of immaturity in a group. Of course there's leadership, the key is how that leadership is expressed.
So yes, there are 'leaders' providing 'momentum' and you say, but there is more than one way to accomplish this. The Holy Spirit's participation (and authority) can be ignored or welcomed. We've found that separating the expression of leadership from office, title, or even much explicit recognition keeps everyone honest. It forces us to keep acknowledging that the design is with the Holy Spirit, and it is everyone's job to remain open to change. Plus, I like the idea that it frees everyone to explore God's call with no fear that somehow they would be shirking their 'responsibilities' if they answered that call.
Good thoughts. Keep 'em coming.
Post a Comment
<< Home