I guess that one could say I have a homework assignment. My boss asked me to furnish him with “a contextualized definition of the church.” Hmmm...
In all transparency, for years I have pushed off defining something that Scripture intentionally uses fuzzy metaphors to describe. And I believe that a "begin with the end in mind," crystal clear definition of church is a modern tool that may be ill adapted to church planting in the European postmodern (pre-what?), postChristendom transitional period in which I find myself.
A few thoughts motivate me to complete this homework assignment. First, my boss is a good guy and I want to be a good team player. Second, many of the church planters on my team are modernists and such a definition may be helpful to them. Third, this sort of exercise forces me to bring together a lot of data and hone my own thinking.
I am a bit clarity challenged (you will note that my convoluted "definition" still looks like a combination, description-of-church/mission statement) and my wife told me it is too "dense." So I thought it might be fun to see if you would like to help me with my assignment!
After reading the following, if you have deletions, additions or other non-snide observations, please feel free to leave a comment. (A number of people have told me that they are somehow hindered by blogger or do not know how to do that. So please feel free to drop me a note at paulklaw@gbim.org) Merci !
We desire to see Europeans become believers who recognize Christ as prophet, redeemer and King. They become disciples.*1
These disciples locally embody the universal priesthood of believers, nurturing loving relationships with Christ and one another through sustainable,*2 hospitable spiritual communities (ekklesia).
These spiritual communities recognize the concomitant authority and guidance of the Triune God and His Word.*3 These communities are shepherded by spiritually qualified European elders*4 and equipped by the five people-who-are-gifts (see Eph.4:11); they are spiritually related to the local-international and historical-future Church.
The Spirit guides and empowers these prayerful, dialogical communities*5 for mission; they therefore co-labor with others of common heart and vision. As part of their worship, the disciples of these communities creatively engage and transform the world around them through caring, sacrificial service so that other Europeans and peoples of the world also recognize Christ as prophet, redeemer and King.
*1 Baptized and obedient to Christ from a heart of love.
*2 Refreshing more than exhausting, creating more than they consume.
*3 Thus the aphorism, “The whole Bible and the Holy Trinity.” The Bible is both their code and search engine for life; they therefore employ a grammatical-historical-contextual-Spirit-guided hermeneutic. “Calvin brought together the Spirit’s work in the inspiration of Scripture with the Spirit’s illumination of the interpreter of Scripture.” Mickelsen, 40.*4 Who are themselves seconded by deacons and deaconesses.
*5 i.e. hermeneutical communities.
14 comments:
For one good thinker's biblical definition of "church" see the forthcoming BMH book "Building Authentic Community: Enjoying Christ's Church in a Postmodern Age" by Dr. Tim Boal, this year's FGBC Moderator.
Thanks for the info-commercial Terry! I was talking with Tim a couple of weeks ago about this subject and am very much looking forward to reading his book. He's a man of God and an insightful missiologist.
I wonder if, in this day and age, it's almost as important (and perhaps mroe difficult) to define what the Church is not. We can come up with some great, succinct definitions, but somehow most people listening still add things to it without even thinking about it.
This was brought home to me when I was involved in a city church plant, comprised of both the "churched" and "unchurched". We spent a whole year studying God's plan for the church, sifting down to the essential nuggets of what God's assembly was all about. Still, two years later, we were still shocked with the concept of not taking an offering, and confused about how we could have "church" without worship teams and a full schedule of programs.
Everyone who's heard the word "church" has ideas about what it is and isn't. Some try to ditch the word altogether, but I think that approach tends to come off as dishonest to some people.
So maybe our definition of the Church needs to knock down some of the common ideas people have about just what it is, as well as clarifying what God intended. Otherwise we may think we agree, but when push comes to shove we'll find that our definition was the same but our context was way off.
Blah Blah Blah! Less talk and more action! We can philosophize all day long about "church" and miss opportunities to be salt and light in a dying world. Definitions are well and good and even sometimes mandated by bosses, but let's just keep it simple and get on with the job. What good will defining "church" with flowery words do anyone in the realm of eternity? Keep it simple and get on with the job of making disciples and teaching them to obey what Christ has commanded.
Do you think that sometimes we feel it necessary to define something because we want to validate ourselves and what we do? Or maybe we like to come up with definitions or mission/vision statements in order to more easily interact with it? Mostly I think we start defining things when we are feeling insecure. I'm all for keeping things a little more mysterious. Either way, the Holy Spirit's work is neither helped nor hindered.
Greetings bloggers,
Ummm, where do I start? First, blogs by nature are a lot of blah-blah. I try to avoid that, but regrettably do not always succeed.
I believe the Church defies succinct definitions because She is alive, spiritual, historical and future. To boot, every here-and-now church’s composition is different based upon the people the Spirit has brought together and because she must be contextually appropriate in order to be relevant. A good reason for discussing “Church” is because She has become irrelevant for all too many people, dare I say even for believers?
As Jim said (above), we live, describe and define church but people’s default buttons cause them to return to their preconceived ideas (plausibility structure). If those default buttons no longer reflect the Spirit’s conception of the church as presented in Scripture or if the incarnation of the spiritual realities of the church are anachronistic, then believers will not be edified toward maximum fruitfulness and unbelievers will not be attracted to the beauty of Christ’s body.
I believe a grave danger that evangelicals face is static theology, ecclesiology and missiology. Because God is infinite, the Church spiritual, and the world constantly changing, we need dynamic –ologies.
So another reason for this dialogue is to learn from interaction. This is far from stopping along the roadside until we’ve got it all figured out; I believe in pursuing –ologies on the run. As we walk, skateboard, take the Eurostar or whatever, we compare what the Spirit has been teaching us from the Word based upon our experience of having attempted to live it out. It is sort of a spiritual dialectic, Spirit-guided thesis, antithesis, synthesis in Jesus’ honor. Always, albeit imperfectly, attempting to live and live and live ekklesia (church) in the power of the Spirit, deconstructing our own unhelpful default buttons as we go so that she is increasingly pleasing to Jesus. This is a perpetual reformation with mind attuned to the Word, the ear attuned to the Spirit, serving others, chatting and growing as disciples as we go to make disciples.
I personally am quite happy to journey following the road signs (metaphors) in Scripture to see where they lead; I believe that is the best approach in this transitional period between modernity and postmodernity, between Christendom and postChristendom. And I freely admit that I experience both trepidation and anticipation from the adventure.
Hey Paul. Thanks for inviting me to check out your writings. I passed the website onto my dad as well. While being fairly internet savvy amongst his peers, I would guess he will lean toward emailing you directly rather than commenting via blog.
I enjoyed reading your definition. And agree with you that it is a true challenge to try and succinctly capture the fullness of Christ’s intentions for His followers. A few of my thoughts:
1. I particularly liked the introduction—“we desire to see Europeans become believers…”-- as I tend to favor definitions of church that center on “belief.” I am hard pressed to narrow down the exact list of doctrinal statements that one must ascribe to in order to qualify as a “believer” (seeing as so many NT converts seem to have been integrated into the fold with far less background knowledge than you would find on most church constitutions), but the word itself—belief—indicates a shift of mind and heart that initiates relationship with God.
2. I like the inclusion of the word “disciples”—particularly because church attendance can be undertaken for so many social and sociological reasons that it does not always imply personal transformation is occuring or expected. One way I translate this into layman’s terms is to talk about how I am “shifting my allegiance” to the Way of Christ or how I am “aligning myself with Jesus and his ideals/truths.”
3.I am thrilled you included the line “embody the universal priesthood...” I often translate this to my generation by referring to “living” and “being” church; internalizing God’s principles and ideals and living them out; creating samples of the kingdom by living out God’s truths corporately etc. I think we carry a special burden to emphasize how organic church is meant to be because the typical default definition people return to is the building/weekly service. The same goes for the universal nature of the brotherhood/followership--the default is to think local/separate.
4. The concluding comments on “mission” sound like a call to be sensitive to how we can, in our own time and context, respond to God’s overarching and timeless hopes for the world. Yes?
My question: Shepherding and equipping…do you think the exchange of spiritual gifts rests dominantly on certain individuals in leadership or is the benefit/exchange intended to be mutual amongst all believers? In other words, are we all mutually equipping each other? Does any follower NOT have gifts that aid in equipping?
Sighhhhhh. I love to read theology…perhaps not surprising given the infamous Reverend on hand throughout my life. That said, myself (given my lifetime of exposure), your boss, as well as colleagues in the church infrastructure, could read this definition without hesitation. Many of my peers would probably find the hint of academia a bit disorienting…
It could perhaps be tweaked for the laymen, should you ever need to use it in another context…but it probably serves your specific purpose well.
Hi Sarah,
Thank so much for your analysis. It was much more than I had hoped for! I’ll just pick up on a few of your comments.
Believers: spiritually and theologically I am referring to people who are regenerate. That is a work of the Spirit, so I agree with you that it does not depend on subscribing to a set list of doctrines, but rather on repentance and trusting in the sufficient work of Christ. I like your phraseology, “shifting one’s allegiance.”
Equipping: Yes, I agree that all believers receive gifts to be used for building up others in the faith. I think the breakdown at this level due to the dominance of and dependency on professional clergy has been catastrophic for the Church. We must get the Scriptural “one another” exhortations into our praxis. My reference is to another dimension of equipping, also neglected, by people who Christ has sent to His Church for that purpose: apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. Again, the dominance of “The Pastor” caused us to lose sight of these people who, because I do not believe it is exegetically sound to couple them with eldership in the local church, could be laypeople of any gender.
I am sort of sorry about the jargon, except, as you observed, for the purpose of this assignment it will do. At this juncture, I am brainstorming and missiological terms help me to be precise and to wrestle with the essence of “ekklesia.” (I use the Greek to refer to true church because the translations carry so much baggage; we all impose our presuppositions on that common word. As you said, “building/weekly service,” etc.) And this definition is a starting point. I feel my role is not to come up with forms or even the phraseology for postmodern European churches. But rather to walk together with young people, to have a dialogue that is based upon the Scriptures and guided by the Spirit so that they come up with appropriate forms and phrases that make sense to them and their friends.
I very much appreciate your comments and look forward to reading your book, “Dear Church.” Louise told me that I’ll love it! paul
I really like what you have written Paul. If this is for GBIM leadership, then it is excellent. You have painted a good picture of church and your footnotes are very helpful - some might be included in the body. It is more technical or 'convoluted' but it is clear. After reading it, you have no doubt what you are attempting to create. I appreciate the DNA that is highlighted. I agree with you hesitation to put such thoughts into print...it is a 'modern tool'. Although I whole heartily agree with what you have written, after reading it I find myself wondering why it needed to be written and if I would ever look at it again? What you have said should be the normal Christian way of looking at following Jesus - being church. Maybe it needed to be written because we have lost so much from doing church for an hour instead of a way of life.
Blessings,
Ed
Hey Ed,
I am tracking with you all the way. It should be the way we live and I don't know if I'll ever go back to it, but hopefully it will help some of my teammates. Besides that, the boss wants it! And being more intuitive in orientation, the process of describing ekklesia helped clarify my thinking somewhat.
Thanks for the input bro,
paul
Hey Paul,
Thanks for making this assigment open to the rest of us. I really like your second section - the one that starts "These disciples locally embody..." If you're looking for a succinct definition, this one sentence would do quite nicely.
Since I'm coming from a Presbyterian tradition, I'm conscious of the fact that some in the reformed camp would want "Worship" to take a more prominent place in the definition of church (Gasp - you've only used the term once!). As I read it, though, I see a worship-filled response to God underlying and infusing much of what you've described, but am I reading my own assumptions into you?
I've enjoyed meeting Tom and MaryAnn here in London.
ekklesia :
A follower(s) of Jesus, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, learning together to live life in the presence of God.
I am church, therefore church is what I am.
Your essence is of utmost importance, it doesn't matter what nuances people will read into your definition, the only reality that matters is the reality that you live in your spiritual family. My dear brothers and sisters, I ask you, "Will the individual whose baggage causes them to misunderstand a simple definition, then find perfect clarity if you list what church is 'not'?" Unlikely. However, if your audience knows you, they already know your definition of church, it is who you are.
Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to write it and dialogue about it. I've been personally challenged to write out a definition as well.
I'll shoot you an email with that.
Press on,
Mike
Hi Dan, Rob & Nichole and Mike,
So glad to get perspectives from different places and traditions. This is the hermeneutical community at work; the broader the scope of culture and gift-perspective, the more we will approach a biblical understanding of the essence of ekklesia. Now if we could just get some time-travelers involved we would have even greater depth perception!
Mike, I know you and your community do a lot of reflection and experimentation in living church, so I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Rob and Nichole, it is true that ekklesia is very personal. And every local church will be unique because of the people the Holy Spirit has brought together in that place at that time. I believe that local ekklesia is truly a function of essence, participants (the Holy Spirit included) and context. I would simply tweak your comment a bit to preclude an iChurch mentality, to say, “We are church”; and if the elements of biblical ekklesia are found there, then, “and this is a local expression of church.” We can talk more about this the next time I visit if you like.
Dan, I agree with you about worship. When it comes down to it, all good things ultimately flow from the Trinity and ours is simply a response of worship. (There I’ve used the “w” word a couple of more times!)
So grateful for your interaction on this vital subject — ecclesiology. As Emil Brunner said, “The problem of the church is really the problem always faced, yet never resolved in protestant theology.”
Looking up,
paul
Post a Comment