With all the talk of missional theology and radical ecclesiology (study of the church) I think a central question is beginning to rise out of the whole debate. It seems to me that two clear strands of thought are beginning to emerge. On strand sees ‘church’ largely as an identity that one takes on as they enter into community with other worshipping Christians on a mission in a local area. The other strand sees ‘church’ largely as the meeting where the people of God come together to hear the word taught, be equipped and encourage each other to continue in the Christian life and mission in a local area. The shift in contemporary missional thinking is to move from the meeting to the identity. So here’s a series of questions to prompt discussion on this forum:
Are the two strands necessarilly mutually exclusive?
Or, if you can hold them together, should one be prioritized over the other as the central motif?
What does the biblical evidence look like for each strand (little bit of text work would be great)?
Does missional theology undermine ‘church’ as meeting?
Do ‘church as meeting’ proponents undermine authentic Christian community?
Interesting distinction, but still it would seem like church is a temporary thing for an individual in both your definitions.
If ‘church’ is strictly a meeting, then that would imply that I’m only part of church when I’m in the meeting.
If ‘church’ is an identity I take on “as they enter into community with other worshipping Christians on a mission in a local area”, then again it’s temporary, only as long as I’m part of this community that is on this mission.
Rather let’s stress the ‘community’ aspect of church. Church is a communal thing. In this community there has always (since the very earliest days) been meetings, there has always been identity. Don’t think the idea was to choose between the two.
Let us not start saying that those who emphasize the meeting does not take on an identity as they also go on a mission in a local area, and let’s face it that those who emphasize the identity still have meetings – yes, some are trying not to, but in the end meetings are needed, and the re-emergence of high liturgy and the emergence of alternative worship seem to again proof this.
Maybe neither of these is church, maybe church is a community with which I link up, and church is something which happen over the years as Christians find themselves in relation to the world. That would imply that I am part of the church even if I forgot the meeting on Sunday, or if I’m not linked to the local mission. That would also mean that much of what happened in the church over the past 2000 years which was not ‘meeting’ or ‘identity’ (as understood above) is still part of ‘church’, this long search of Christians for finding an identity, finding God, finding “the way”, as in, a way of life, identity understood broadly as a 24/7 thing.
Cobus: When I wrote the line that you quote above I did have difficulty in phrasing it in such a way so as to show what I meant by ‘identity’. The only reason I wrote it the way I did is to illustrate that I think there must be some sort of exclusion – i.e. not everyone is born into the church, one has to enter it. Apart from that I intended for the notion of ‘identity’ to come across fairly similar to the way you are describing church so that when one fails to go to a meeting or on a mission he/she still remains part of church.
Stephen, I personally don’t think they are mutually exclusive. Both are essential: our identity should be shaped as we enter and become part of the body of Christ, and we should certainly meet with those of whom we are now spiritually related. While “church” involves a new identity and meeting (and community like Cobus stated), it also appears to integrate participation. If we are the body of Christ, the church, then we should not only be participating together but also in God’s work(s) and purposes (e.g. Eph 4:12-16). In this way we show our true identity, meet together as a community, and grow and function as the church (”participation” seems to encompass all of these aspects). Can you merely adopt a new identity and be the church, or simply meet, or just be a community? It seems to require more than this: participating as a body towards the purposes and work that we have been called to do. Perhaps I’m straying from your original questions, but these are just a few of my initial thoughts.
yup Stephen, i think you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head! this is the same struggle i have been recently having in my mind, although i hadn’t articulated it quite as clearly as you have. clearly the two ideas are connected but i guess the significacne of how we see their relationship will affect not only what we do when we gather but who we understand ourselves to be. i’m keen to hear what other’s think, here’s my penny’s worth.
1. Christians gather: it seems to me biblically that the disciples of Jesus, simply did gather regularly. They weren’t told to gather they just did even when it meant their lives were in danger; they gathered, in whatever shape or size or form, most probabaly informally with probably no ’strucure’ or liturgy as we know it today. sure Luke makes the point that they devoted themsleves to the fellowship, the apostle’s teaching, breaking bread, and prayer. But i don’t think this was formulaic, it would seem to me that getting to know God better (apostle’s teaching), getting to know one another better (fellowship), eating together and praying together are really just normal things that friends who share a common life do… so to meet then would seem to be the thing Christians did. The warning to not stop gathering in Hebrews is not the same as an instruction to gather, that was assumed. and the writer makes it clear that to stop gathering is really to confirm yourself an unbeliever…anyway, my point is that Christains gather.
2. We gather because we are gathered: at this point i’m inclined to put identity before the physical assembly, because the only way i can make sense of Christians gathering is from the fact that they already have been assembled around Jesus in heaven (Heb12). Already we are seated in Christ in the heavenlies. The spirit has drawn us to Christ and by implication one another, because we are a body, a new ‘man’/community as it were. and so we express our identity practically by gathering, which looks like i stand with the latter group in the statement above where church is the people of God gathered to hear the word of God. The argument for this view is drawn from Israel assembled around Sinai (Deut4), which i agree with but i don’t think this assembly is programmatic/formulaic of the physical gathering of believers of Jesus, because we are participating in the age to come. Rather, the sinai experience is the shadow of the reality of our being gathered around Mt Zion by the Spirit (Heb12). To see Deut 4 as physically programatic for believers will result in Christian meetings looking a lot like what we today would call the Sunday meeting, which looks a lot like the Sinai experience, where the poor preacher is monologuing (or is it decaloguing!) to the ‘trembling’ Christians/Israelites, which necessarily results in a distorted view of the gathering, one which sees the believers as passive, the preacher as lord and the location as holy. Hang this looks a lot like many churches in Cristendom today!
so theologically i tend to stand with the latter view above but in practice i stand with the former because if we rather see our gatherings as expressions of the heavenly reality where The word of Christ is dwelling in us by the Spirit, then our serving/loving of one another will necessarily involve friendship driven truth telling calling one another to faith and repentance, which must therefore by implication also be missional, then church becomes an expressed and experienced identity, whether we are gathered on Sunday or not, around a braai or a bible, even if there are only 2 believers present. in a sense we are in Christ, the word made flesh, we are ‘participating in the divine nature’!
so:
are the two strands mutually exclusive>? No
should one be prioritized over the other? it’s not a question of priority as much as experienced identity
does missional theology undermine church as ‘meeting’? depends how you define meeting, i’m inclined to see ‘meeting’ as missional; the word of God central and being heard with one another as we do life in the world.
Do church as ‘meeting’ proponents undermine authenitc Christian community? yes if meeting is defined the way i see it defined around me; as a number of believers gathering to hear a monologue.
what do others think?
Hey Shane – what I don’t understand in your argument is this part:
‘…if we rather see our gatherings as expressions of the heavenly reality where The word of Christ is dwelling in us by the Spirit, then our serving/loving of one another will necessarily involve friendship driven truth telling calling one another to faith and repentance, which must therefore by implication also be missional, then church becomes an expressed and experienced identity…’
My brief experience, and one of the reasons that I raised this question, is that churches that tend to follow this idea of the church as the gathered expression of the heavenly reality seem to me to often look fairly poor at community. Now, in observation I’ve taken this to be because they don’t see church as an identity. I see this for example in some forms of Sydney Anglicanism (and please bear in mind that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the peeps down-under) – take a look at the dialogue between Tony Payne, Simon Flinders and Steve Timmis in the latest Briefing. I’m beginning to think that Timmis is right. I guess what I’d argue for is not less than the church as the earthly expression of the heavenly reality – just more than that. I suppose I’m becoming frustrated with reductionistic versions of church that stop short of identity which I see in our own denomination.
I may be wrong in all of this – but I really think we need to re-think church and the full breadth and scope that the NT gives to it. What do you think?
Yah you right that sentence is really convoluted, let me try and unpack it…
When we see church as God’s people gathered to hear the word of God, what we almost always see in our mind’s eye is a crowd all sitting in one direction facing the teacher of the Bible. the bigger the crowd and the better the teacher the better the meeting and the more we are affirmed that this is what church is; God’s people literally gathered around the word of God.. i think this is a mistaken application of the sinai gathering and the Heb12/Rev4 gathering:
The sinai gathering is fulfilled in us who are now indwelt by the word of God (on our hearts). in other words Deut 4 and it’s fulfilment in Heb12/Rev4, is taking place in us as we participate in the age to come, right now! in one sense to simply see a disciple of Jesus is actually, from God’s perspective, to see someone gathered around the word of God listening to him. this is identity.
what will this look like? what will the experience of this identity be?
- Jesus said that all men will know that we are his disciples in that we love one another as he has loved us. not how big or impressive our meetings are, or how state of the art or strategic our facilities are, but that we love one another. and so our identity as those in Christ, ruled by God’s word through the SPirit is simply love. i take that to be speaking of friendship, service, truth telling, bearing with one another, helping one another to persevere and most importantly praying with and for one another. this love for one another is in front of and in the midst of the world (not a building) and because it is brought about by and is realised through, the gospel, it must therefore be missional. this is really the essence of the Old covenant, is it not, loving God and loving one another? and so to be this, is really to experience our identity:the gathered ones, the church of God.
Ok I see, that makes much more sense to me. Now, correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be putting a new spin onto the ‘Knox-Robinson’ view that’s so prevelant in our circles?
Recently i’ve been leaning in the direction of understanding of Church as identity worked out dynamically within a given a context. Something can’t stop being what it is (like a durbanite can’t stop being a durbanite…hmmm, bad example maybe, hey Stephen?
). So i see that God has made sinful people into his people (1 Peter 2: 1-12, Mat 5: 2-12, Eph 1-3). And so out of that identity flows our understanding of what we are to do (cf. 1 Peter 2:12, Mat 5: 13-16, Eph 4-6, same as the book of Romans, you are God’s people (Rom 1-11) therefore be like God’s people in this world (Rom 12-16)). I think that principle will begin to answer the question of identity and function. My problem with the church as meeting proponents is thier definition of church: “God’s People meeting around God’s Word”. What then happens to Christians when they are together and don’t have a bible there? Do they stop being hte church? No. Christians are the church no matter what they are or are not doing.
I think our problem is that we have confused the noun (ie church as building/place/structures) with teh verb (ie Christians then “church”).
I think mission happens when the church gathers around the Word of God by: living it in context pf community ie. acts of love, service, words of encouragement and care, by teaching from the Scriptures also in community (we have done ourselves a disservice by making “Church” about the 30 min monologue), and evangelism ie showing the world who the living God is.
Our other problem is that we have missed the point of this, which can be seen in how we often do our sunday services. Sunday services have become about the pulpit. Which is fine, but we’re preaching to the wrong crowd. Public preaching in the NT was always meant for the unbeliever. Thus we should make sunday about public, apologetic worldview evangelism. The rest of the week believers ought to gather together in community (friendship etc) encouage each other with teh Bible (ie living for Jesus) pray for each other and rebuke one another. Leadership takes a major role in this by doing the training but letting the people do it.
i’m not against the structure we put in place, but i often wonder, what would happen if we canceled everything? all our meetings? Sunday etc. What would teh people of God do? Would they meet anyway, or would they drop it like a toilet seat?