The Shaping of Things to Come

Last week the College decamped to St Thoms Philadelphia Centre in Sheffield to hear Alan Hirsch and Mike Frost. It was part of the tour which CMS had organised to raise the profile of Emergent Church and Mission based on the Ozzies’ book on missional incarnational impulse. The tour has raised a few emails...and a few interesting comments on the blogs. I thought I would try and give a few brief comments...

First of all, I thought that both guys did an amazing amount of hard work while they were over here. Jonny and the guys at CMS need a big slap on the back for raising the issue of mission and emerging church into a much brighter spotlight than they have been for a while. Mike Frost was inspirational – a gifted storyteller – although I am not sure he is as marginal and on the edge as he makes out...I mean...all that dosh, Mike! What a lifestyle! What would Jesus do, mate?

I loved the stories Mike told and thought his early presentation on proximity, presence, proclamation and power was a good four pointer that provided a great intro to missio dei thinking without using the theological and technical jargon sometimes associated with this kind of stuff. Of course, none of it was new. If you have read Vincent Donovan or Roland Allen or David Bosch then it is all actually a bit old hat. In fact, if you’ve read the Gospels it is a bit old hat. After all, isn’t it what Jesus did?

I have to say that the stories made it – the Bikers in Elizabeth, the Shoeshop Man in San Francisco...these remain with me...and Mike’s love for Jesus. Go for it.

The next two talks were by Alan Hirsch and based more closely on the missional theory that the guys propound in the book. 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.

Now we are playing to the galleries. On the one hand this is the same kind of postmodern stuff about organisations being bad and institutions being negative and so on. I thought Kester Brewin was hiding in the wings ready to come out and blast us with a bit of Complexity Theory. However, it is also just about completely wrong. First of all, the comparison between what happened pre-Constantine with what is happening in China is a little myopic. Come on...there are plenty of differences as well! Secondly, it is simply wrong to say that the church before Constantine was non-institutional – read your church history again Alan. The church was as institutional then as it ever has been – haven’t you heard of the Church Fathers or of the ascendancy of Rome, of the Eastern Councils, of Alexandria and Caesarea? Church growth in this period was aided by the fact that Christians formed a new empire – a community stretching across and around the Mediterranean basin which simply would not be quelled by Diocletian’s persecution. In the end, Constantine made a political decision to accept Christianity because he had no other choice...as proved by those after Constantine who tried to push Christianity back into the closet! Thirdly, there have clearly been huge periods of Church growth which have been heavily dominated by institutions. The whole Korean experience? The Eighteenth Century UK revivals? You cannot say that Wesley was non-institutional – and Whitfield?

So, the basic issue here is that Alan’s opening gambit is seriously flawed. Basically Alan says that if situation x and situation y result in massive growth, then we need to look at what is similar between x and y. Get that condition right and massive growth will come. Nope. It is just another pull the rabbit out of the hat church growth scheme as flawed as any purpose driven church agenda.

Having said, then, that Alan’s basic premise was wrong, I could then move on to say that everything else was OK...well, perhaps. I like the emphasis on disciple-making. I liked the discussion of the role of the apostle-type leadership (though without apostles) although the exploration of the five fold ministry based on Ephesians 4 was a little moment of madness! Surely anyone reading the NT realises that there are many different patterns of leadership in the NT – and it is simply not right to say that this model or that model are God’s model. Read the pastorals for a different leadership structure entirely. I like the emphasis on lifestyle and on community – although clearly Alan didn’t get onto communitas as he had elsewhere.

But then there was the sneezing thing. I am afraid that I cannot cope with the idea of the Gospel spreading like a virus that has been sneezed out of God. Get a life. Jesus has a much better image which Richard Bauckham explores much better in his little book on mission – the parable of the sower. There we have the sheer wastefulness of grace; there we have the randomness; there we have the dependency on the soils; there we have the idea of the seed and the fruit. And all this without any need to reference virus replication science, complexity theory or any attempt to make the Gospel into a bogey...anyway aren’t most viruses self-limiting organisms? Great – we grow the church to a certain size and it dies!

Having said all that I had a great time...and some great chats with Mike and with Alan. In fact, I’d love to get them to come to the College to explore the issues a bit more. Our missiologists and Biblical scholars would have a few things to share and a roundtable discussion giving some depth would be interesting...but then, we are probably as wrong as Alan was. In the end, revival or church growth is a God thing not a human thing. I do not think that you can do anything about making the conditions right for massive church growth – well you can – humble yourself, pray, seek the face of the Lord...anything on top of that is, in my understanding, simply doing things in your own strength.

Hmmm...and not one mention of Fight Club – thank God.

Mike ended with a session which I missed cause me and Alan went outside for a chat about some of this stuff (cruel git that I am pestering the poor bloke when he had just come off the platform...). I came back in to his promotion of an orgasmic lifestyle. This has caused some intense amusement at College. A few people, me included, really loved the imagery and the proposal. I believe emphatically that Jesus came to give us life in all its fullness. So, being told to celebrate life is great news. See the sermon I preached in Cambridge this Sunday for more on my views on this...But what Mike’s talk did not have was the emphasis on justice which I wanted hear. Drink the finest wine. Eat the finest food. We were told. But what of the poor, Mike? What of those who cannot afford to do that? What of Christian Aid’s slogan to live simply so that others might simply live. I noticed in Nehemiah 8 on Sunday that the people are told to go and eat and drink but to make sure that those who did not have anything prepared should share what you have. In other words, celebrate but with justice. Perhaps we might hear a bit more on the justice issues sometime, Mike?

So, a mixed day. Future church, the whole pattern of ecclesiology in the 21st Century is going to be an interesting issue. Having wrestled with where we go to church, having seen Robinson College’s idea of church, having shared in a small, but thriving Methodist Church worship, having explored community in so many ways recently, I am not so sure I have heard the answers yet. With everyone else, I keep on the journey of discovery. Please, Lord, let me travel with you on your path.

We are having our own conference at the College in early January...The Shapes of Future Church 2 (follow up to last year’s) – if you want some details...tell me...

Pete

p.s. Alan and Mike, the drinks are on me if we meet again...Jonny, you still owe me a pint!

Comments

[lou]

Thanks for that precis. I was supposed to go to their talk at Birmingham but I was ill on the day :(

[jonny]

pete great stuff - thanks... and thaks for bringing so many people from cliff - much appreciated.

[nick johnson]

"as flawed as any purpose driven church agenda."

just working through PDL in our church in wirral and finding it really helpful - in fact exceptionnally so - what is your precis of what you do not like about it?
NickJ (from pas opton!)

[doug gay]

Good work Pete - your corrective on church history is crucial here. And your point about diverse patterns of ministry.
Their ministry sounds more important than their interpretation of it. Maybe the gift to them of this wider conversation will include new questions about how to reflect on their practice.

[Alan Hirsch]

Hi Pete

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.
1. I have consistently been read as being 'anti-institutional' and perhaps with some justification re my communication. I don't neccesarily think of myself that way. What I am most curious about is when in times of persecution, when the all the normal 'institutional' referrents of church are removed, how is it that the chhurch seems in some context to grow exponentially?? THAT is what I am interested in. Its not so much about knocking the institutiion, its 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 aobscured by what we mean by insitutions. Does the insitution 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.
2. 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.

I hope to take you up on that beer sometime. I find the web an inadequate forum for a meaningful dialogue. Lets try meet each other sometime.

Blessings Alan

[Alan Hirsch]

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 defintely a form of leadership present in phenomenal movements of God. Its just not neccesarily the type or mode of leadership that we have become accustomed to. Clearly apostolic leadership is leadership!! It just execises its influence differently through moral and spiritual authority.

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.

With love

[Michael Frost]

I'll have to add my two cents worth because I fear you've misrepresented me also. When I talk about an orgasmic life I certainly do encourage us to eat well , laugh loudly and love intensely, BUT... I also say that we ought to give away as much of our time, energy and money in the cause of others, including the poor!! Don't eat shit, watch crap TV and sit around whining about life. Live it loud, wonderfully and generously. Eat good food and share as much food with others as we can. The word 'companion' means 'with bread'. True companionship means sharing bread with others. Throw great parties, give great gifts and always defer to the needs of the poor and the oppressed.

Also, on the matter of dosh, I make it my business not to profit in any way from the wealthy Christians God has directed across my path. I'm like a clearing house for mission and the poor.

You've been too harsh on us, you bugger.

Mike