After putting some comments onto my blog about the session in Sheffield with Alan Hirsch and Mike Frost, I have had a number of comments – you can read them below…Alan Hirsch has made a couple of responses and in the spirit of communitas, I wondered whether it would be good to enter into dialogue a little more with what Alan is saying. I feel very privileged that Alan has taken the time to read my comments although it is clear that we don’t agree. So, here it is set out in the form of a conversation. I definitely agree that this would be better done in person…but, hey Alan, Australia is a fair distance away!
I hope as well this provides anyone daft enough to read my musings with some understanding of where I am coming from in this debate…
Alan says:
Ouch! You know how to counterpunch. You make some good points bro, but can I please clarify what I meant to say, at least a little.
Pete says:
No Fight Club imagery allowed! Doug Gay suggested my input offered a corrective rather than a counter-punch – a non-violent attempt to wrestle with the issues that need debating here. I think that the proposals about missional incarnational processes provide some good insight into some possibilities for emergent church. However, I think there are some foundational issues which are wrong. My view. Alan has had his say – in four widely publicised events around the UK and a two day session with some leading educators in the field. Anyone can also, and should, read the book. Those of us who don’t get that much exposure perhaps have a voice through our reflections on what is said?
Alan says:
I have consistently been read as being 'anti-institutional' and perhaps with some justification re my communication. I don't necessarily think of myself that way. What I am most curious about is when in times of persecution, when the all the normal 'institutional' referents of church are removed, how is it that the church seems in some context to grow exponentially??
Pete says:
The problem with this is that you are putting together too much into the basic hypothesis. You suggest persecution + non-institution is accompanied by exponential growth. You therefore conclude that exponential growth is caused by persecution + lack of institution – or rather persecution + apostolic leadership + disciple making…and so on. OK. But the basic problem is that I don’t accept your first premise. I can’t see that the early Church fits the bill. There was little state-wide persecution until the time of Diocletian and post-Constantine when some of his successors tried to undo his accord. Up to then, persecution was a pretty localised affair. Moreover, the early Church can hardly be called non-institutional. How about the Church Fathers – going right back to Paul and James and so on? Where does your early Church history allow you to make this glib comparison between pre-Constantinian Christianity and contemporary China? Moreover, phenomenal growth actually happened post-Constantine. If you read Kreider’s analysis of Conversion in the early Church (or Nock), you see that the Church institutions coped pretty well with the influx of newcomers until Constantine. Until then there was a proper system of catechesis and so on. Suddenly with all the Med getting in on the act, the Church authorities were flooded with incomers and the whole concept of disciple-making, in such a period of phenomenal growth, was completely overwhelmed. And how about modern China – are you sure it is your reading of apostolic leadership? Perhaps you are right there. I don’t know. But it is your attempt then to turn this into some general strategy for a future missional church agenda. You are not right about the early Church, you may be right about China – but is that proof enough that this is the way forward?
Alan says:
THAT is what I am interested in. Its not so much about knocking the institution, it’s about trying to find out the latent potencies that seem to lie coiled and often unused, at the heart of the Gospel ecclesia. The potency (DNA?) can, it seems to me, be obscured by what we mean by institutions. Does the institution blind us to something far more powerful and primal? That's what grabs me mate. I'm sorry if it comes out at anti-institution. I rather think of it as pro-grassroots/organic.
Pete says:
How about a different reading of the early Church and also a possible reading of what is happening in the UK at present, in what is increasingly becoming an excitingly vibrant situation? First, the early Church. Have you considered that actually what happened with the Church was that the Church hierarchy, beginning with Paul (and even Jesus?), realised that the most effective way to reach Roman society was to present Christianity as moral, upright, dignified and anti-Imperial in opposition to an increasingly dissolute Roman cultural edifice. In other words, they realised what actually pushed the right buttons for Mr and Ms Jo (Roman) Average and hence people flocked to the churches. In fact, it wasn’t grassroots. It wasn’t dynamic. If you read the stuff it was pretty organised, ruthless and well-documented. How about for the present situation in the UK – is it that Alpha provides certainty in a world of uncertainty and community in a world of fraction, while emergent church provides a link/outlet for creativity and imagination which has been repressed in the mainstream churches ever since the days of Victorian/Edwardian repression? I don’t think either of these growth patterns in the UK have much at all to do with grass-roots dynamism. Both tend to be heavily institutionalized and centre-led. Although the emergent church movement won’t like me for saying that!But do you see what I mean. There are other ways of explaining phenomenal church growth without going to grassroots dynamism or virus replication analogies. I quite prefer the old Areopagan idea – find the key to introduce God to the recipient culture and use it to let his ideas loose within that culture. See Vincent Donovan, Roland Allen, Lesslie Newbigin and so on…
Alan says:
RE the Fivefold ministries of Eph. I think I remember explicitly saying "at least fivefold'. I am not saying that this is the only way of configuring ministry, but that as far as I can discern, one of the elements of missional DNA is at least fivefold. And is based primarily on that Apostolic environment.
Pete says:
Yep, and you were pretty hesitant about all this on the day in Sheffield. I just don’t think it is valid to put so much emphasis on apostolic environments. I get rather scared about the more hard-line fivefold ministry patterns – too many of these might end up with a lack of accountability and heavy shepherding situations which might be abusive. There are alternatives and you chose not to voice those.By the way, what does it matter if one of the elements is fivefold – are we hooked on fives now? Why this thing about DNA being a kind of super-complex diagram – I thought DNA was a simple double helix which repeated itself throughout its structure. A good structure for the Church – simple, replicating the same thing over and over again – the grace of God in all contexts in all cultures.
Alan then sends another comment in…
Alan says:
I have to add one more corrective actually, and this I believe I am being deliberately misquoted in order to make a point. You say "Well, the talks started with the basic premise – Christianity grew in the time before Constantine and in China without any form of leadership – therefore leadership/institutional church causes decline, lack of formal leadership causes growth. Institutions are bad." Pete this is just caricaturing and making a straw man you can knock down. I said again and again that there is definitely a form of leadership present in phenomenal movements of God. It’s just not necessarily the type or mode of leadership that we have become accustomed to. Clearly apostolic leadership is leadership!! It just exercises its influence differently through moral and spiritual authority.
Pete says:
Well, see what I say above about leadership. Of course, setting up straw men is a regular pastime in theological discourse. As someone involved in the reconstruction of the early Church, I could level a similar charge against your own suggestions about that period. However, I don’t think I am caricaturing you that much. Yes, you did talk about some form of leadership and you did make some great points about disciple making and so on. People should read your book and see what there is there…but I think my criticisms stand whether you think I have misrepresented you or not. This is what I heard you saying…sorry if I wasn’t listening hard enough – it was a long day!
Alan says:
If you want to debate the ideas in this forum, then please in the name of integrity, can you please quote me correctly. You might not agree, or even like what I am saying, but at least represent me fairly Pete.
Pete says:
Oops. Sorry, mate. I would suggest that this is my blog and can write what I like here! I am not forcing anyone to read! But that sounds petty! I am not sure I have questioned your integrity or falsely represented your views. Forgive me if I have.
Alan ends:
I hope to take you up on that beer sometime. I find the web an inadequate forum for a meaningful dialogue. Let’s try meet each other sometime. Blessings. Alan
Pete says: AMEN!
thanks for posting all that Pete, helpful and humble...the best kind of posts. Incidentally, you coming to protest4 at the weekend?
Posted by: si | October 25, 2004 at 11:37 AM