Regular readers of this blog may have noticed a new sidebar feature: “Manifesto.” This feature will contain a quote pertinent to the Jesus shaped project. The current quote from Greg Boyd will certainly be hard to displace. It’s an expression of the energy and intention of what so many of us hope for in a Jesus shaped Christianity.
There is a beautiful and powerful grassroots Kingdom movement arising all over the globe that Mennonites in particular need to notice. Millions of people are abandoning the Christendom paradigm of the traditional Christian faith in order to become more authentic followers of Jesus. From the Emergent Church movement to the Urban Monastic Movement to a thousand other independent groups and movements, people are waking up to the truth that the Kingdom of God looks like Jesus and that the heart of Christianity is simply imitating him. Millions are waking up to the truth that followers of Jesus are called to love the unlovable, serve the oppressed, live in solidarity with the poor, proclaim Good News to the lost and be willing to lay down our life for our enemies. Multitudes are waking up to the truth that the distinctive mark of the Kingdom is the complete rejection of all hatred and violence and the complete reliance on love and service of others, including our worst enemies. Masses of people are waking up to the truth that followers of Jesus aren’t called to try to win the world by acquiring power over others but by exercising power under others — the power of self-sacrificial love.
What Boyd is describing is something that I believe is very real. The process is historically complex, but it is experientially simple. It is an ecumenical project, but it is critical of many of those aspects of ecumenism that are taken for granted. Boyd is describing something as old as St. Francis, and as contemporary as the Charismatic renewal and the lifetime project of Robert Webber. He has located a project that will be ferociously opposed by those who have tied God inexorably to denominationalism, denominational theology and the legitimizing of Christian experience by the acceptance of denominations as franchises endorsed by Jesus.
It is important to understand that Boyd is describing a movement, which means he is describing a process that many people have in common. I want to take a moment and describe one aspect of that project.
I want to talk about what happens when you realize Jesus isn’t going along for the ride.
“The ride” in this instance is whatever we happened to be doing or saying that we need to present as something Jesus would say, do or approve of. At the very least, it is something that we can relate to Jesus in an authentic way.
The Jesus shaped journey normally involves having multiple experiences of realizing that our religious practice has us involved in those things that we cannot, authentically, present as what Jesus believed, did, approved or taught. This brings about a crisis, and what we do with this crisis is also crucial in this journey.
Recently, a well known pastor was in the final stages of leading his church in a $20 million building program for a new facility. He had one of those moments when Jesus would not come along for the ride. He talked with his congregation and a new, more creative and less expensive plan was adopted, with the balance of the funds earmarked for missions.
My friend Edward was on his way to a Ph.d in theology in order to defend his particular brand of Christianity. Events in his life caused him to question if Jesus cared as much about theological debate as he did. Now he is headed for the mission field.
For many years, my wife and I gave our financial offerings to support the churches we served. A few years ago we became convinced that Jesus would be supporting Kingdom causes, mercy ministries and national church planters, not church programs and facilities. We changed the way we gave our money.
In the midst of discussing theological differences and distinctives, I’m frequently gripped with the sense that Jesus is not “with” me in this debate, and that I am contending for things that are not important to Jesus at all. They are somehow important to me in a religion I have created and given my loyalty to without considering whether it is connected to Jesus or shaped by his spirituality.
What did Boyd say? Millions of Christians are “waking up” from involvement in Christendom and becoming aware of the Jesus shaped nature of the Kingdom of God; becoming aware that such a Kingdom can’t be equated with all the directives and concerns of religion.
At that moment of disconnectedness, choices and options are presented.
One option is to create a connection to Jesus that actually doesn’t exist. The better you are at this, the more likely you will be qualified for religious leadership of some kind. If you can convince others that such a connection exists when it doesn’t, you’re likely enjoying fame, conferences and a book deal.
Another option is to vehemently claim that such a connection to Jesus is there, and real Christians will see and understand it.
A third option is to adopt a developmental/evolutionary view of Jesus that allows Christians to do and say all kinds of things Jesus would never do and say, but justify them as the necessary development and evolution of Christianity in our world.
A final option is to ignore the person of Jesus and simply deal with the church as the authoritative version of Christianity.
Boyd is announcing that these options are fading and new options are appearing. New communities, new voices and new movements are discovering that despite the perceived difficulty of knowing Jesus in an imitatable way and the certain opposition of religious interests that have no power to demand support if they cannot make an exclusive claim on the endorsement of God, Christianity can and does exist as a Kingdom movement with an exclusive loyalty to Jesus.
Neither Boyd nor I are denying the place of the institutional church or institutional places in the Kingdom of Jesus. Many churches and institutions are the primary conservators of the truths of the Gospel and the seeds of Christian community and obedience. Many churches provide continuing examples of understanding and building the Kingdom where they are in time and place.
But we must insist it is exactly that: A place “in” the Kingdom of Jesus. The church and all its institutional aspects bear witness to Jesus and his Kingdom. Most Christians will live out their journey in the context of some form of and some participation in the institutional church, and they will know and follow the true Christ as they do so. But the day of denominational/institutional Christianity defining the Kingdom and creating a constant competition and enmity among Christians is fading.
Many of us are discovering that Jesus has not been along for the ride and yet the ride has gone on. My goal is to encourage all of us to ask basic questions of loyalty and connection to Jesus, and to abandon versions of Christianity that are, in reality, ways of avoiding the demands and possibilities of the Kingdom of God moving in the power of the Spirit.
Lots of good stuff in there including some controversy. I like the metaphor of whether Jesus is along for the ride.
this:
“A final option is to ignore the person of Jesus and simply deal with the church as the authoritative version of Christianity.”
seems at odds with this:
“Most Christians will live out their journey in the context of the institutional church, and they will know and follow the true Christ in doing so.”
My only objection is to the phrase “ignore the person of Jesus”. I think that’s a bit strong. If you substituted “accepts that Churches understanding of Jesus” or even “accepts uncritically …” I’d cop to that, however “ignore” is pretty strong. If a Church ignores Jesus then how can they be following the true Christ?
Wow. What a timely post for me. It is these very things that I have been wrestling with for months, especially the past few days, and particularly tonight. Your blog has MUCH to do with that. There are several areas in particular where I’m looking around and noticing what’s normal and conventional and our “Christian” way of doing things… and asking myself what you said, “Is Jesus in this?” Is this how He would do that? Will I follow Him even when it appears irrelevant and doesn’t “work” or will I stick with what’s safe and has the appearance of wisdom? That quote completely captures where I am right now and where many members of my community are. Thank you for this post, I’m going to link to it. Thank you for this blog, your words are a big part of what Jesus is doing in my heart as He calls me to walk His road.
Actually, Memphis, I think ‘ignore the person of Jesus’ can be closer to the situation. I realise Michael is writing from an American context, so I have been thinking as I read about exactly how this ‘translates’ into the British context (as an American living in the UK, I am not 100% fluent, so to speak). There are more ‘monuments to Christendom’ here than in the US, as the church’s history for 1,000 years lays out. There is a sense for those who have been in church all their life that this is the way it’s always been. Rather than Michael’s ‘institutional church’, I think I like ‘inherited church’ better (a phrase coined by British Methodist Martyn Atkins). What we have inherited has become the reality, and in many cases exactly what the church thinks of Jesus is peripheral – Jesus is assumed to be what the Church says he is. What Jesus thinks and wants of us as a church can, in the context Michael describes, be ignored. Jesus at times seems more prop than anything else. This ignoring of Jesus needs to be said to wake us up. A friend of mine in another circuit has jokingly said that if you could some how prove that God didn’t exist, his church would still meet on Sunday singing Charles Wesley’s ‘And Can It Be’.
In this, I don’t want to say that this is the case with all inherited church, but it does appear a malady that seems to inflict us (as I am a part of this) than some other expressions of church. Nor do I mean there is not a place for inherited church. Anglican Evensong will likely be sung in our cathedrals until the resurrection, and the Spirit will meet people in an evensong service there as well as anywhere else. I have seen many in inherited churches come to the realisations that Michael speaks of. And when Jesus is not ignored by these folk, for some reason despite the great traditions of inherited church, there seems to follow a break with those entrenched in inherited church who do not want things to change.
Memphis,
I don’t see the statements at odds. If the church, or the denomination, or the doctrine or the rote practices of a community become the end and all of Christian life, then Jesus is ignored. That’s the first statement you point out. But, if within the context of these things, Jesus is still the end and all of Christian life, at least some of the time, then we are looking at the second statement. Aren’t they different?
Maybe it is a personal thing, but Jesus sure gets obscured from my view by all the trivia of regular church life. So, I get why the church does all this stuff, but I wish it didn’t. I want it, namely, the benefits of an institution, and I want to tear it all down at the same time.
The ride goes on. Has anybody seen Jesus lately?
What about the option of trying to revive or reform your denomination so that it is more Christ centered? In other words take your insight to your community rather than abandon it or condemn it or label it. I think your characterizations are extreme and uncharitable. For example “creating a connection that doesn’t exist” although potentially true , that’s pretty damning and you can not truly know with perfect confidence. All the devout of every Christian faith “vehemently claim that such a connection to Jesus is there” to condemn in these terms is odd especially if you acknowledge that the true Christ can be found within a denomination, and weren’t just trying to be polite. I think to vehemently deny that the Church is not as close to Christ as it could be is a fair criticism, but to dismiss the connection outright and to discount their loyalty and sincerity because they don’t see it your way (even if your way is right) is not charity.
Maybe “loving the unlovable” should begin in the Church. Maybe the field right in front of you is the one to sow. St Francis was famously called by Christ to “repair my Church”. It’s not as if he was blind to very serious problems of especially lax practice, but he didn’t leave the Church to create a new denomination, but rather he worked within it. Same basic story for St Theresa of Avila.
Let’s accept that all of your insights are dead on. Doesn’t that mean that your denomination could use those insights as well? If you are rejected, it could be because the ideas were not offered with enough diplomacy or humility or patience (everyone could use more of these traits). I think some care should be taken to make the offer in-house first in the imitation of Christ offering Himself to the Jews first. Why does the emerging Church have to appear in a new structure? Isn’t that contrary to the desire for unity? Would not it be better, reach further faster, if it emerged as a revival and improvement on an existing evangelical or Baptist denomination? Why throw away what’s good in the Church because it’s not good enough? Maybe further/deeper conversion within would be more fruitful. Just tossing that out there.
Name a denomination that was “turned around.”
That’s an idea I naively devoted most of my ministry years to.
The examples I gave were of the Catholic Church being turned around by St Francis or monastic life being turned around by St Theresa of Avila. I don’t know much about any such turn around among Protestant faiths, because I don’t know enough about the history and because once the first split is made I expect it gets easier to do it again, but that’s supposition. If you’ve already devoted an effort to redeeming your denomination then you have made the effort. I used the examples of the Gospel offered to Jews because even though it was a failed effort, Christ thought it necessary to make the effort. Success is not the only criteria.
Will,
I still think ignore is too strong. I don’t know what Anglican form you adhere to but in my Catholic Church we talk about the life of Christ all the time including regular exortations to service and sacrifice. No aspect of His life or His teaching is “ignored”. His teachings may not be lived out as it should be by us but it certainly not ignored. Christ is central to every mass in every Church.
Now to say the churches view of Christ is central rather than your own view, that is simply true and interpretations will differ. What I am saying is that it is qualitatively different to say “I don’t accept your view of Christ because x,y and z are absent” than to say “you ignore Christ”. One is an open discussion the other is a dismissal.
Didn’t Vatican II “turn around” the RCC toward Jesus to a large extent?
I’m quite a student of St. Francis, and I’d hardly claim he “turned around” the RCC. He was a very positive force, but most of what he did was provide a movement that allowed an expression of the Christian life the church had basically thrown out. Like the Catholic Charismatic movement and so many other things, it’s more of “adding to” than changing the main institution. But I get your point.
I simply don’t believe the institutional church is Jesus’ main project. The Kingdom is. The church is a subset of the Kingdom and exists in relation to the Kingdom. Jesus builds the church as a witness to the reality of the Kingdom, but the church is not the Kingdom. If the church severs itself from the Kingdom, then not only should it not be continued, it should be opposed.
Institutional churches have sucked up the energy of Christians for generations. It’s time for many of us to take that energy and spend it in the Kingdom rather than waste it on churches that are destructive to the meaning of following Jesus. There are good institutional churches, but vast numbers are representatives of the very religious system Jesus opposed.
Joe:
I’m not qualified to answer. From my spot VII has many good aspects, but that’s because I’m a Protestant to the core. Can you get B16 to weigh in? He appears to not be a fan.
B16 was present at Vatican II as a theological scholar from Bavaria and took part in the development of the council as did JP II. B16 is not a fan of someone of the things done in the name of the Council, that’s certainly true. There are groups within the Church that have disparate views of the Pope and can exaggerate for effect. I would rely only on what comes directly from him, and he tends to be very careful.
“If the church severs itself from the Kingdom, then not only should it not be continued, it should be opposed.” If true sure, but frankly a charge that serious would require very substantial evidence and should not be made lightly against any Church.
Further isn’t all of creation under the Kingdom? I’m sure that there’s is much more to the concept of the Kingdom that I’m not clear on. In fact today is Thursday, the day for the luminous mysteries on the rosary, and the third mystery, “The Proclamation of the Kingdom” by Christ, always stops my meditation because I don’t understand it as well as the other mysteries.
On St Francis – you’re right to say he didn’t change the entire Church, but that’s too much to expect. Catholics understand the words of Christ about the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church to imply a continuous ongoing internal battle until the end. No one expects that even the finest Saint could make the whole Church perfect. The Church as the body of Christ is both human and divine and the human portion has the entire range of human failings as is obvious.
I’m discussing these issues within the evangelical context, so obviously there are some differences in how we regard the church.
You probably need to go to confession just for reading this blog :-)
Memphis Aggie has a point. Maybe we could project part of her concern into the future and put the question like this: Do you think the next generation of believers will be as disappointed with today’s emergent types as the emergent types are with the traditionalists? In other words, do you think the new kids on the block will eventually critique us? Mock us? Pity us? Reject us? Abandon us? Walk away from us and start their own Christian gig–part of which we might find offensive and unbiblical? If so, will that make us sad? Will we feel invalidated? Will we consider the new generation rebellious? Ungrateful? Will we try to defend ourselves to them? Just wondering because what goes around usually comes around. Are we ready for that?
In all seriousness, I have confessed as sin some of things I have said on this blog in the past.
Critiquing is one thing. Mockery is another. Whether either is deserved isn’t a question I can answer.
I believe many emergents are asking the right questions and the reason they may not be finding the right answers is a misplaced loyalty to the agenda of the institutional church in evangelicalism.
The closer any generation gets to a Jesus shaped expression of the faith, the more reason for rejoicing. And yes, a few tables may be turned over in the process. Just be sure it’s Jesus doing the overturning.
“Just be sure it’s Jesus doing the overturning.”
Agreed, but how is that done, and in charity don’t you think those who went before you believed they were moving closer to Christ?
I recognize that I can excuse myself and rationalize my actions pretty easily, that’s how I “justified” sin before I converted. Frankly I don’t trust my own judgment, especially in regard to my own conduct. So I have to use a guide, mentor or greater authority when approaching Christ.
I think that, as described here, the emerging Church has been developing slowly over time and is a deliberate and serious walk in faith. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t be so interested. It does not appear to be rationalizing sin, rather it is based on Biblical critiques. What I hope to learn is the thought process that is behind the emerging movement and the context from which it arises. When it has similarities to Franciscan practice I’m intrigued. When I read about Element, I’m inspired. Whenever there is the real search for Christ it’s exciting. If it comes off as simply “lets not do what those guys do” I’ll loose interest.
Obviously I’m not immune to emotion and I have a sarcastic streak and so I sometimes shed more heat than light in a given post. For that I apologize, it’s self indulgent and far from Christs purpose. I believe I can learn from you Mike or I wouldn’t be reading you.
Well, since that I don’t believe the church is infallible, I don’t have to defend everything done in the reformation or by the Wesleys or the Charismatics or the Emergers. But I can say Jesus is building his church in every renewal movement. And I believe Dr. Boyd is dead on when he say there is a historical groundswell toward a Jesus shaped Christianity. That’s not another denomination. St. Francis did it. The Wesleys did it. Keith Green did it. But none did it perfectly.
The Catholic has the problem of needing an infallible church as the basis for everything.
As an evangelical Protestant I think Jesus is always overturning the tables through individual and historical renewal. So Element is one step in that direction, and each of us has the challenge of finding ways to follow the Spirit in that direction. But remember who it is who ALWAYS opposes Jesus and his followers.
The church is a mixed bag down to the end.
Nicely put, Michael. And you clarified the issue for me pretty well. What ‘m trying to sort out personally is when it’s really Jesus overturning the tables, and when it’s just some punk pretending to be a prohet. Lord knows, the mother ship has splintered into a gazillion pieces, and more splintering doesn’t seem to produce the kind of unity that Jesus prayed for, unless you assume the pieces we left behind are not really part of the ship. I’m also trying to get a handle on what exactly we mean by “institutional.” Where is the line that gets crossed from non-institutional to institutional? Is that something emergents must guard against? If the movement catches on and picks up steam, is some form of institutionalism inevitable?
Institutions are fine. I work at one that’s been doing its thing for 110 years. But its thing is doing what Jesus would do Jesus way of doing it. I make less than $10k and I’ve been here 16 years.
When the survival of the institution and its agenda goes opposite of what Jesus is and does then its another situation. When the institution is equated with Jesus, then you have a dangerous situation, and good works or not, there has to be a separation.
I believe Jesus started a movement that can have instituional expressions, but read your Bible and remember that is dangerous territory.
On that salary you’re practically a Franciscan yourself!
“But remember who it is who ALWAYS opposes Jesus and his followers.” exactly
“The church is a mixed bag down to the end.” nicely put
“I believe Jesus started a movement that can have instituional expressions, but read your Bible and remember that is dangerous territory.” direct me to the Book/Chapters you mean, I think I know what you mean, but I’m more of a novice than you might think and I’m sure you know the Bible better than I do.
“The Catholic has the problem of needing an infallible church as the basis for everything.”
I see your point but it’s only the dogmatic statements of the Pope made “ex Cathedra” (from the chair of Peter) that are held infallible. The Church as it is can be criticized and needn’t be defended in all things, just in the essential things. We hold for example that the Eucharist consecrated by a validly ordained priest is still valid even if the priest has committed a mortal sin and failed to confess. So Christ is there, even if the human side fails us. That’s the thinking.
The belief that the entire Church is infallible is a trainwreck waiting to happen. I know, I converted in the Archdiocese of San Francisco during the recent abuse scandal.
Jer 7
Ezek 34
Amos 2-5
Matthew 23
Thanks Michael
Yes, traditionalists must read their Bibles and guard against the dangers of institutionalism. And it seems to me that emergents must read their Bibles and guard against the dangers of heresy. Too many seem to have strayed from historic Christian belief. That makes me nervous.
Good point.
We learn our faith from the same institutions/family/friends who told us (at least implicitly) that their methods are more “Jesus approved” then all the others. Consequently, our faith is often so intertwined with our institution/family/friends that we cannot differentiate between Jesus, and fallible human decisions made in His name.
Much of this is tied to our need for certainty. We want to believe that we are right, which means that everyone else is wrong. We want to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding us to truth, even though other people believe the Spirit is guiding them to believe completely different things. Since the Spirit is with us, and not them, we must be a special group (i.e. the real kingdom/Church, etc.)
The only way “debatable issues” matter is if God granted a particular institution the exclusive right to settle the debates. The only plausible candidate for the “infallible” institution is the Catholic Church, but after years of almost converting, I remain a protestant because I can’t be convinced on that issue. In the end, peace comes with the realization that only the basics are certain, and everything else is debatable for one simple reason: God designed it that way.
“God gives everything – including life and breath – to everyone … so that all nations might seek God and, by feeling their way towards him, succeed in finding him. In fact he is not far from any of us, since it is in him that we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17: 25-28). From the Popes address in Sydney.
Christ wants us to find Him. We all know this. We also all know what prevents perfect union in Christ – our own will and attachment to our lives as we want them – the failure to fully submit our wills to His and to readily pick up the cross before us (this includes the difficult work involved in discerning His will from our own). We all know this, it’s the doing of it that’s hard.
Christ did not defend himself before the false accusers that led to his torture and death and I, by contrast, in my immeasurably more comfortable existence, can hardly go a day without complaining about something trivial.
It’s like the advice to “loose weight and exercise more” that we all hear and all know is right and true. We read the Bible: we know what to do, but we struggle anyway.
I think I’m coming to a better understanding of your “Jesus Shaped” concept. If you screen away the theological clutter and focus on the Christ alone – making approaching Him central – our differences fall away and the only thing that matters – the love of God – becomes the only thing at all.
Like I said I’m intrigued. Makes me want to go to adoration.
Interesting stuff, Charley. It would be fun to talk in person. The more I ponder these things, the more I think it comes down to something we studied years ago in seminary called, “The Protestant Principle” and all of its attendant issues involving authority. I can’t help thinking of Luther’s lament in the movie “Luther” right after all the violence and chaos began: “This is not my work! This is not my work!” But whoever’s work was, it continues to this day.
One point to clarify concerning what I said above: “Too many [emergents] seem to have strayed from historic Christian belief. That makes me nervous.” I think you are right on when you say, “…only the basics are certain, and everything else is debatable.” What makes me nervous about some emergents, though, is that even the basics seem to be up for grabs (the uniqueness of Christ, salvation in him alone, basic morality, Christian ethics, etc.). Why this trend? Is it really possible to have a relationship with Jesus while ignoring so much of his Word to us?
Michael, you said some things here that I believe need some amount of sorting out. In regard to the relationship between ‘Church’ and ‘Kingdom’…it’s true that Jesus is building his Kingdom and that the Kingdom is greater than the Church, for in the end, all things shall be redeemed by Christ, the heavens and the earth. Christ himself will turn these ’shadowlands’ inside out as he is visibly recognized and extolled over all things – visible and invisible.
That said, the scripture seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus’ means of building and redeeming that Kingdom is through the Church. I don’t get any indication in the Bible that Jesus plans to turn away from that plan. The Spirit working through the Body of Christ is the Biblically understood means of Christ’s Kingdom work. In this regard, we are speaking most directly of the ‘universal’ or ‘invisible’ church. However, the invisible church must work through visible, local, or institutional means. Thus, institutional church. The scripture certainly gives us clear organizational guidance here – Elders, Deacons, Sacraments (Ordinances), Discipline, Teaching, etc.
To suggest that the Kingdom should be built some other way, that Jesus Shaped Christians should abandon the institutional church is ludicrous. It can’t be done. That is unless we want to simply deconstruct the very idea of institutional church altogether, as a great number of emergent (McLaren-ites) dudes are already doing. If we do this, we must understand that we are throwing out babies and bathwater. It sounds ideal. It sounds freeing. It feels empowering. But it’s hard to give a drink to the thirsty by throwing a bucket of water up in the air and telling people to ’simply open their mouths’. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t feed give a loaf of bread to the hungry, if you don’t have a lump of dough and a reliable oven.
In regard to the Church, institutionalism on some level must be accepted or else we eventually wind up with a convoluted mess. If we leave behind the convention of the institutional church and the wisdom of our church fathers, we open ourselves up to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. Remember Jim Jones? The Jesus movement of the 60’s? Waco Texas? Overstated examples, true enough…but you get my drift.
A much better approach would be to listen to the questions that the emergent movement are bringing to the fore. I’m with that. But we must reject their solution if it means deconstructing or marginalizing the church. If I may be so bold…Jesus will not forsake his Church. We are his bride. He is not building a Kingdom without his Church. That’s retarded. That’s like saying that Jesus is a Husband who is building a bridal mansion while forsaking his Bride. No way. That’s not what I’ve read in Revelation or Romans or Thessalonians or Hebrews. I read that Jesus will never leave us nor forsake us. I read that the Church is built upon the rock of Christ and Kingdom of Darkness shall not prevail against it. I read that Jesus is all about His Bride, that He will protect her and love her and fight for her and that He is coming for Her. I read that Jesus plans to work through his Bride (the Church) in redeeming the House (the Kingdom); and that he plans to live Forever in that Kingdom with His Eternally Glorified Wife.
I would like to hear more discussion that assumes this truth without shrinking back from it. I would like to be a part of a more positive discussion around the idea of redeeming the institutional church – reforming it, re-tooling, reworking, rethinking, etc. That’s constructive. That’s Jesus work. But any talk of abandoning institutional church altogether…that’s not legit. That’s like talking about having babies without getting married. That’s like talking about jumping out of airplanes without talking about parachutes. Not only is that silly, it’s just plain (plane) stupid.
Sorry about the pun. I couldn’t resist.
Tim Melton
http://www.sacrosanctgospel.wordpress.com
After reading back through that last little bit, I think I sounded kinda hostile. Sorry about that. Please know that I am in no way calling you stupid. If I were Chris Farley I would say that ‘You’re Awesommme!’ I certainly stand behind my ideas but read my words through voice of Mister Rogers. Who could get mad at that guy?
NOTE: Just read the above comment. Thanks.
Tim,
I respect your questions, but a lot of your rhetoric is fairly hostile to me personally. Could you ease up a bit? “Retarded,” etc. Thanks.
1) If I didn’t make it clear, I’ll repeat myself. Jesus builds the church as a witness to the Kingdom. Some of what the church does is Kingdom building and some is not. The Kingdom clearly is of a much greater extent than the institutional church. The true church as Jesus sees and builds it does not equal the institutional church as we see it.
If you believe the church is the Kingdom per se, that’s great. I simply disagree.
2) The church does not equal every religious club with a sign out front saying “church.” Without a doubt, many “churches” are not even congregations in any reasonable sense. Many churches are collections of people who have various things in common, but no common commitment to Christ or the Gospel. Some churches are nothing but expressions of culture. Some churches are intensely connected to Jesus. Some churches are who knows what? They are still in process.
In Rev 2-3 Jesus told some churches that he might no longer be associated with them. I doubt that meant they would cease to exist.
The institutional church in America is not the Kingdom, nor is it identical with the Bride of Christ. Jesus knows the bride and Jesus knows the church.
3) I have never advocated abandoning the instituional church, but Jesus founded a movement, not an institution. He clearly had much to say about the institutions of Judaism, and he clearly taught that the New Israel would be quite different.
So I am very supportive of church planting, and I am vry supportive of being considerate to institutions – like the one I work for- that serve the cause of Christ and the Kingdom.
But I don’t hesitate to tell anyone that the institutional church in their situation may be good or it may be bad, and it is a waste of time to try and “reform” a club or society that is actively opposing the work of the King and the Kingdom.
Where the church is the bride of Christ, great. Where the church is the enemy of Christ, go elsewhere. In some places, the “church” is persecuting the church.
Christ is “building” his church. If you think that means the membership roll at First Baptist wherever, that’s fine. Again, I simply disagree.
There….”retarded” or not, is what I believe.
No doubt, in the general sense Michael your characterizations are true.
However discerning specifically which is which and who is who is the real challenge. No doubt some excesses are blatant, but labeling a whole Church as the enemy of Christ is judgment. What is more prudent is to come to a putative house of God, offer your vision/service and if it is rejected move on. We are not Apostles directly empowered by Christ to shake the dust off our feet. Let God keep score. He knows whos who and does not see men as we do (Samuel).
Even the Pharisees spoke rightly so that members of the Temple who where not themselves hypocrites could still be virtuous. The temptation to run down a Church, especially an alien Church is strong. Better to recognize that all human churches are inadequate and seek to capture that which is good in each. Further it’s obvious that your own effort will inevitably be inadequate as well. Although it may be a true improvement, it may not be helpful for everyone. Not everyone has the same call, we do not all bear the same cross and your vision, no matter how vital it may appear to you, it may be only be helpful for some of Christs flock. So when Church xyz decides that your offer is not an improvement, don’t decide they are outside of the Kingdom. They may well be, but that is not for us to say. In charity, it is worth maintaining the attitude that your vision may not be for that flock and simply moving on. Because we will be judged as we judge, those of us who need lot’s of mercy must control the temptation to label. Even if your instinct is dead on (and I believe it often is) it should move you to pity and to fear that you too might be blinded as those you pity are and to pray to be led rightly rather than to presume you see it with perfect clarity. All of this of course, is another example of the easy for me to say but hard for you to do right thing.
Now I know from reading you that you’re capable of exemplary self examination and that your vision is not a haphazard construct, but some posts or threads read a little rougher than others.
This bit:
“Where the church is the bride of Christ, great. Where the church is the enemy of Christ, go elsewhere. In some places, the “church” is persecuting the church.”
implies the discernment is trivial, I assume that’s not what you intended to convey.
See, I’m confused by a lot of this. I think Jesus founded a Church not a movement. The whole New Testament talks about a church, and churches. I would agree that these churches are not synonomous with any one denomination. But neither do I believe that church and institution mean the same thing either. I believe in one holy apostolic church, and I believe that church to be all the “sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd and listen to him.”
So I think the church and the kingdom are the same.
Jesus says he will build a Church,
Matthew 16:18 (ESV)
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I never heard of him talking about a movement.
As I am thinking about this, It seems to me one’s conception of the Gospel, and the meaning of the sacraments would have to be radically different than mine to see what Christ created as a movement rather than a Church. Movements are about doing, accomplishing and so forth. Not that there aren’t things the church should be doing and accomplishing. But the church as I know it gathers primarily to receive the forgiveness of sins, on account of what Christ has done for us, which is why it centers on the gospel, and the sacraments. Movements as I conceive of them would not be able to do this well. Maybe the difference between Mary and Martha.
Yes, I’m down with what Bror is saying. That’s the feeling I’m getting…that we are saying, “The church as an institution doesn’t work anymore, so let’s just chunk that and go with a ‘Jesus’ movement.” That’s what I feel is dangerous and unBiblical.
In order to tighten this up a bit, it may be helpful to define terms. Here’s what I mean by…
The Kingdom
The created order and government of God, visible and invisible, which is Redeemed by Christ and overtly ruled by Christ. The Kingdom’s greatest distinctive is worship of Christ. It’s greatest value is love. It’s citizens are created by Grace that comes through faith in the work of Christ on the Cross. It’s citizen’s are empowered by the Holy Spirit. It’s taxonomy, economy, and activity is most brilliantly defined in Matthew 5-7. This Kingdom is being primarily (if not exclusively) built and advanced even now by Christ through his bride, the Church. The Kingdom will eventually come to full fruition at the Second Visible Coming of Christ where every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
The Church
The Invisible Bride of Christ. His beloved that is made up of those people who have been redeemed of Christ. The Invisible church is defined by an affectionate heart response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and should hold to, among other things, salvation through faith in Christ, the Preeminence of Christ, his divinity, his kingdom work, his sinless nature, his death, burial, and resurrection, the depravity of Man, and the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
Institutional Church
The Visible Expression of Christ’s Bride. The visible church has many different organizational values but among them should be the Teaching and Preaching of God’s Word, observance of the Sacraments (ordinances), a ruling structure that includes Elder(s) and Deacons (or the equivalent thereof), and the practice of loving church discipline.
Kingdom Work
The work of the ‘Invisible’ Church through the ‘Visible’ Church whereby the values of the Kingdom of God are recognized, proclaimed, established, and lived out.
Apostate Institutional Church
A Visible (Institutional) Church expression that has forsaken the supreme values of the Invisible Church – the Gospel, the divinity and preeminence of Christ, etc. – and thereby has forsaken any significant or legitimate Kingdom Work.
A Christian Movement
A movement of the Spirit where Kingdom work is accomplished, often through para-church ministry, that “goes around” a dead or apostate institutional church. A Christian movement of this nature is not designed by God to replace the Church, but is a movement that God uses (1) to compliment the work of the Institutional church, (2) to “shame”, tutor, discipline, and inspire the dead or apostate Institutional Church back to Christ. OR (3) as means of reforming itself into another, more Christ centered, Institutional expression.
An Altruistic Movement
A work of God’s spirit through secular means where God by His mercy advances the work of the Kingdom as means of preparing the ground for the Kingdom ministry of the Church. Altruistic Movements do nothing in regard to the Kingdom if the Church does not become involved.
Lest we convolute the picture, I would put these terms into a workable analogy. I would paint the picture this way…
Christ – The King.
The Invisible Church – The Bride.
The Visible Church – are the Bride’s Servants
The Kingdom – every place that the King and his rule are honored.
Kingdom Work – Christ using the Invisible Church, through the visible church, to establish and advance His rule.
Apostate Church – The Servants betraying their King and their Bride
A Christian Movement – The King using the Invisible Bride incognito when the Servants of the Bride act stupid.
An Altruistic Movement – The King hires mercenaries.
Anyhow, that’s the way I see it all. I feel that a great deal of the Rhetoric of the Emergent Church sees the Apostate Institutional Church and says, “Hang it all. Let’s just do the Christian Movement thing and make that ‘normative’. That’s what I suggest is dangerous. We can’t do that. At best, we should hope to reform the visible church that we are in. At worst, we should pull out and reestablish a new visible expression that honors Christ.
Chucking Institutional Church altogether is not an option. Christian Movements are not meant to be normative even though they can be defined as doing Kingdom Work.
Altruistic Movements cannot even be defined as doing ‘Kingdom Work’. At best, they only break up the ground. They can take out a few machine gun nests or shoot down a couple of bombers, but they cannot take the beach head.
By the way, Michael, sorry again for the words ’stupid’ and ‘retarded’ in my prior comments. Please try to understand that those words were aimed at a certain kind of thinking (deconstructionism, anti-institutionalism, anti-denominationalism, etc.) and are not aimed at you personally. I love you, Dog!
Tim,
If I may simplify just a bit from your post. I agree with some of what you have said, but think I can make it a little easier to manage.
King=Christ – I agree totally
The Kingdom = every place that the King and his rule are honored. – Again, I agree, but I would point out that the Kingdom of God is all about people and not places. The Kingdom is all of those who are subject to the King.
All of the other terms that you have spelled out are interesting and helpful but unnecessary. There is a simple dividing line present here. Those who submit to the authority of the King are subjects of the Kingdom. Those who submit to the authority of anything or anyone else are not. If Christ is the only Authority, then we must submit to Him alone. If Christ handed that authority over to an all-encompassing institution, then that institution must be obeyed. What most Protestants will say is that Christ alone is the Authority of the church. This does not indicate a desire to chuck the Church, but it would behoove us to understand what the church really is. It is God’s people. It isn’t an organization. The Kingdom of God isn’t about It is the people who have acknowledged that “Jesus is Lord” and become His loyal subjects in His Kingdom. This is the essence of the quote that Michael posted:
What many institutional churches do instead is begin to accumulate power: spiritual power, political power, power over their membership, ect. We forget the words of Christ in John 18:36, “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’” When Pilate tries to assert his authority in John 19, Jesus simply reminds him that his authority doesn’t exist without God’s permission(John 19:11). The Kingdom of God is as far removed from power over others as the east is from the west. The Kingdom of God is about service and humility. Chucking institutional church as you put it, isn’t about chucking the Church. The Church is the Kingdom. It is God’s people, who are subjects of His Rule.
Michael,
If you can catch this and edit it I would be grateful, if not just post this to clarify my bad composition.
I just realized I have an incomplete sentence up there. For clarity, please remove the words “isn’t about It” from the sentence: The Kingdom of God [isn’t about It] is the people who have acknowledged that “Jesus is Lord” and become His loyal subjects in His Kingdom. I started to type two things here and left part of one on the cutting floor.
Jeff M
Jeofurry,
Thanks for your reply. I think I see a couple of places where we disagree…
You see Kingdom and Church as synonymous. I do see the Church as God’s People – as you say. But I see the Kingdom as People and Place…not just people.
I draw this from Gen 1. Adam is given Kingdom work when he is given the job of naming animals, working in the garden, cultivating the earth…cultivating creation if you will. Certainly, I see people, to be loved and cared for, as the second highest order of the Kingdom – behind worship of Christ – Matt 25 – “as you’ve done it to the least of these you’ve done it unto me.” and “this is the law and the prophets – Love God, Love others. The Church is the people of God doing Kingdom Work, but the Kingdom itself is everything that God has made and called good. However, that Kingdom has been ruined by the fall. In Genesis 3, God curses more than just people, he curses the Kingdom – Weeds, thorns, thistles, pain in childbirth – even the ground itself is cursed. Christ’s redemption of people (building the Church) frees them and equips them to work along with Him in this redemptive Kingdom work. The final culmination of this will be the full redemption of all things – In Heaven and on Earth. This is why all of creation is groaning, as a mother in childbirth (Romans 8:22). Together with us, the whole creation longs for the day of Christ to appear.
A couple of good books on this perspective are – Heaven is Not My Home – by Paul Marshall; and Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church – by NT Wright.
Jeofurry
There are also a couple of other places where we have a different perspective.
I think the other things I spelled are crucial in our day and age, especially for the church in America. If we begin to convolute some of these terms and ideas, then things can get pretty messy.
For example, If Invisible Church and Visible Church become convoluted, you have a mess. Among other things, such a perspective can claim that there is no real need for a Visible Church structure – no Elders, no Deacons, no Authority Structure, no meaning in the Sacraments, no organization. When we do this, things start looking like the Corinthian church in hurry – a mess. Such a mess quickly renders the church ineffective in regard to Kingdom work.
If we convolute Christian Movement (Intervarsity, Young Life, World Vision) with Church, then the same kind of thing happens – “We don’t want Church, we just want to do Kingdom work.” That’s like soldiers fighting the enemy while saying “To heck the Generals and Captains and marching and orders and medics and hospitals – I’m just gonna go fight.” Again – a mess.
Finally, I would like to point out that it is perfectly legitimate for the Church to have and exercise power. Christ grants us this and Paul very much assumes that the Visible Church should have a power structure that operates as “undershepherds” or “Overseers” of Christ. You wrote, “What most Protestants will say is that Christ alone is the Authority of the church…What many institutional churches do instead is begin to accumulate power: spiritual power, political power, power over their membership…”
Now to be sure, I agree that Christ is alone is the Authority of the Church. But as I’ve said already, God delegates this power to undershepherds (I Tim 3, Titus 1, 2 Tim 5:17, John 10:11-15). It seems that we here in America abhor the idea that someone else should be in Authority over us. I’m not accusing you of this. But we must be careful to observe and affirm the legitimacy of the Visible Church to organize itself, being subject to Scripture, in a structure that recognizes biblically delegated authority.
Again, when Church simply becomes “A Movement”, we wind up in a mess. The aim should be to recognize church authority on the one hand, but hold it accountable to the Scripture with the other hand.
I think that the focus of the people of the Kingdom of God must change back and forth through out their lives and with the events of history. Clearly “church” means different things to us a different stages of our lives: we have different needs. I wonder how “Jesus Shaped” anybody’s spirituality could have been in the years of WWII after Pearl Harbor (unless you were staying out of it).
Institutional Church may be a crutch, a potential scam, a bunch of weak minded people in the same building, an abuse of power. But don’t we say most of these same things about our governments and yet we accept them as necessary. Similarly, some people try to live their whole lives pretending that they don’t need government and they are fooling themselves. Everyone pays taxes and everyone drives on roads and on and on. But in the end, good religion, like good government is one where the people are focused on the correct goal, the right prize and on promoting the best in each other. How do we make this happen?
Tim,
In regards to your view of all of Creation as God’s Kingdom. I would agree with you in part, since we should be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us. But I think it is foolish to spend much of our effort on attempting to “redeem creation”. Peter told us, speaking through the Spirit, that this creation we see is destined for an extreme makeover if you will in 2 Peter 3:10-13:
And I think you may have misunderstood my intention regarding the church. I think there should certainly be a visible church, but I don’t see justification in the Scriptures for “super churches” that have control over the others or for bodies of “extra-church” leaders that exercise control over churches. These are the things that lead to problems. Local churches should certainly have leadership and exercise their God-given authority, but to have someone(other than God Himself) from some other place that is in “authority” over that church is a mistake. Even those denominational models that build from the local church up through voluntary association are subject to some of the problems that come from building an “earthly kingdom” instead of God’s Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with the local church. I would not advocate the destruction of the local church. I affirm the local church as God’s instrument. I do question the legitimacy of these giant overarching structures that have been built onto her.
Jeff M
Joe M,
I suppose your question about WWII kind of depends on what you mean by Jesus shaped. But I don’t think staying out of the conflict made you a better Christian at all. Rather, there were many people who sacrificed their lives in one way or another for others during that war. Some names at the top of the list;Bonhoefer, Sasse, Kai Munk, Bergrave…