going to the roots of the matter

No-one looking at the situation of the church today can say that over the last century or so things have not fundamentally changed. The reality we deal with is that after around 2000 years of the Gospel, we are on the decline in just about every western cultural context. In fact, we are further way from getting the job done than we were at the end of the third century. Even America, for so long a bastion of a distinct and vigorous forms of cultural Christendom, is now experiencing a society that is increasingly moving away from the Church’s sphere of influence and becoming genuinely neo-pagan. Much ink has been spilled in trying to analyze the situation. But seldom in these assessments do we hear a call for a radical rethink about the actual mode of the Church’s engagement—the way it perceives and shapes itself around its core tasks. Rarely do we hear a serious critique of the often hidden assumptions on which Christendom itself stands. It seems that the template of this highly institutional version of Christianity is so deeply embedded in our collective psyche, that we have inadvertently put it beyond the pale of prophetic critique. We have so divinized this mode of church through centuries of theologizing about it that we have actually confused it with the Kingdom of God, an error that seems to have plagued Catholic thinking in particular throughout the ages.

Most efforts of change in the church fail to deal with the very assumptions on which the Christendom is built and maintains itself. The change of thinking needed in our day as far as the church and its mission are concerned must be radical indeed, i.e. it must go to the roots of the problem. Perhaps a way of conceiving this is to reflect on computers and software inter-relate. Following the approach taken by the developers of Apple Computers, if one seeks to constantly create a better computer product, systematic development has to take place on three levels, namely that of machine language/hardware, operating system, and end-user programs.

This illustration points out that it no use developing better great software when the operating system and the machine language, or hardware, won’t or can’t cope with it. Great user-programs are limited to the extent that the rest of the system remains undeveloped. There are underlying, systemic, issues that need to be addressed. To create a successful, world leading, product, development must be attentive to all three levels to be effective. Hence Apple advances as an integrated whole.

This is useful metaphor with which to analyze our approaches to change and reform. Many efforts to revitalize the church aim at simply adding or developing new programs or sharpening the theology and doctrinal base of the church. But seldom do we ever get to address the ‘hardware’ or the ‘machine language ‘on which all this depends. This means that efforts to fundamentally reorient the church around its mission fail because the foundational system, in this case the Christendom mode or understanding of church, cancels out what the ‘software’ is requiring. Leadership must go deeper and develop the assumptions and configurations on which a more missional expression of ecclesia can be built.

So we have to go to the issues of ecclesial mode, to the very way in which we configure the system from which we operate. This asks us to become aware of the (invisible) assumptions on which we build our experience of Church and our purpose in the world.

January 11, 2007 | Filed Under missional church, organizational stuff, the forgotten ways |

Comments

56 Responses to “going to the roots of the matter”

Alan Knox on January 11th, 2007 6:10 am

Alan,

I have never commented here, but I have been following your blog for a few weeks.

I have seen many groups attempt to return to a “Christendom” by expecting non-believers to live as believers and enacting legislation. I don’t think the answer is in returning to a “Christendom” (which may not have ever existed in the first place). Instead, we - the church - must live as salt and light. If this cannot happen in our church organizations, then the church organizations should change.

Thanks for this blog!

-Alan
Alan Hirsch on January 11th, 2007 6:57 am

Couldn’t agree more Alan. The idea of legislating for faith, or a faith stand on morals, is one of the dangerous leftovers of a oppressive Christendom approach. Rather than inviting people into a relationship that will transform them, we create rules and regs to code behavior. Its precisely the thing that God will not do….coerce behavior.
Lance Macormic on January 11th, 2007 9:14 am

Alan,

Your software illustration sounds a lot like “new wine into old wineskins”. Nice update on that one

While I agree that there is something wrong with most of our ecclesial systems, I don’t think that is our main problem. Our fundamental problem, as I’ve heard you state many times, is that the Western Church’s primary concern is not making disciples. We’ve allowed the cares of this world distract us from the church’s main mission. In my opinion, it will take much more than restructing on our part in order to make better apprentices of Jesus.

Our primary problem is theological, not ecclesial. We hold many assumptions about God and His Son that have crippled us as apprentices of Christ. For example, many of us have taught and have been taught that the Kingdom of God/Heaven is somewhere else and is irrelevant to the here and now. Our salvation only applies to having a place to go when we die and doesn’t really save us from anything this side of death. The teachings of Jesus are nice to talk about, but they are really the ideal and not very practical. These examples of our flawed theology lead to a passive “faith” that “grow” passive apprentices. No amount of restructuring will solve the church’s problem until the theological foundation on which our ecclesiology is built is reinforced.
Bob Roberts on January 11th, 2007 9:46 am

Your model is accurate - it states the way it operates. However, I think Houston we’ve got a Jesus problem. Tinker with the programs, you die fast, tinker with theology, you make it a little farther, tinker with your hard drive and ecclesiology - you live even longer - until the pentiums are replaced by the quantanium’s. If the body of Christ is truly organic and transcneds all models, cultures, forms, etc. then until we deal with the Jesus in your mDNA model - everything else is a waste of time. I may be wrong, I’m wrestling with myself here - but I wonder if it’s not a waste to mess with anything in program, operating, or hard drive, until we first have Jesus right. By having him right I mean far more than theology - I mean loving him, living it, sharing it, giving every we are and have, putting our lives on the line. I would think if we get Jesus right - everything falls into place.
Mark Juane on January 11th, 2007 9:48 am

Alan,

I must say that I have been thorougly enjoying The Forgotten Ways even as I reread it for the 4th or 5th time!

I agree with you here as you point us to challenging the attractional, Christendom mode of the church in the West. The mode of the church as it engages culture is part of the root problem. We’ve been entrenched in this mode for so long that so many of us can’t see any other way of being the church.

But I wonder if an even deeper root problem than the mode of the church would be the message of the church. The gospel we preach creates the disciples we have who in turn make up the church today.

After reading your section on Christocentric monotheism, I wonder if we need to start with returning to the original message of Jesus and the apostles namely, the Gospel of the Kingdom. The kingdom message promises and demonstrates that we can experience heaven here on earth…now. And it also makes all of life sacred as the kingdom invades every sphere of creation (messianic spirituality?).

But more importantly, a kingdom gospel challenges us to choose between our personal and cultural idols and Jesus as the only, One, true God. Wouldn’t this then affect our mode of church? Or am I missing something?
hamo on January 11th, 2007 10:13 am

Interesting - I have been feeling similar to some of these comments lately also.

New structures may facilitate a revolution, but the revolution will occur as we devote ourselves to Jesus and die to ourselves.

I realise you know this Hirschy!

However I do think sometimes people hear us discuss radical ecclesiology and then look to that as an answer.

I would gaurantee an institional church full of people radically devoted to Jesus will always be more impactful than a new expression where the Jesus factor is dispassionate.

The increasingly disturbing question for me is how do we lead people to follow Jesus more fully - but then the question behind that which is bothering me more is how do I live a life of devotion to Jesus.
Kieran on January 11th, 2007 10:20 am

Makes sense. I have been musing over something similar for a while. In Australia we have a national soccer competition called the A leauge. This is a replacement of the previous NSL competition.

About 2 years ago John O’Niel was appointed CEO of soccer Australia and went about rejuvinating the flailing NSL. The NSL was dwindling in support although it had a lot of teams competing. It was mainliy etnic based, based on many rivalries and long time competitive spirit. But those people from other backgrounds, the passion, excitement and competition was lost on them. The NSL was needed a cultural adaptation.

John O’Neil promptly changed things. closing the defunct NSL and forming the new A-League. With less teams, based on geographical location as opposed to those passionate (and beautiful) ethnic rivalries. This upset a Greek friend of mine who labeled O’Neil a racist. But the Australian public has warmly embraced the idea. Ateending it its droves. I loved its original slogan “Its football, but not as we know it”.

This reculturing is what is needed for the church. Our Christendom thinking is dead, its an ancient rivalry between the sacred and the profane which no one gets any more. We have become a defunt league, only working for those within its walls and who understand its ancient roots. A complete rethink is needed to bring the stories and life of Jesus to a new culture, this includes simplification and a copmlete breakdown of our ecclesiology. I’m not talking about a simple bringing the church into the mainstream, that is being done and is simply based on programs. Like with the Apple computer, it starts at grassroots, from scratch to show that JEsus has come to this postmodern, post Christendom world. Just like soccer (football) seems like it has all of a sudden broken into our existence in Australia.

Its church, but not as we know it.

Peace out…
Andrew on January 11th, 2007 12:09 pm

Al,

Thoroughly enjoying this post and the dialogue that it has stimulated. I’d love you to unpack a little more on what you mean by the bottom layer of the model as you have presented it (ecclesial/ system) are the words you describe. Have you done that anywhere?

Because my initial intuition is that while the direction of the arguement is spot on, this layer must be deeper the just the church (the People of God). It must go to the nature of God and God’s missional interaction in the world (mission Dei) rather then just leaving things with us and what systems we build (that is largely why we are where we are at).

I sense that is what’s behind some of the other comments above also.

Any comments or thoughts?

Andrew
Mark Juane on January 11th, 2007 12:16 pm

Andrew’s comment reminds me of the process you (Alan) and Mike Frost described in The Shaping of Things to Come. We need to get a handle on our Christology which helps us develop our missiology which in turn informs our ecclesiology.

Reworking the foundations of church would be re-processing this, would it not?
grace on January 11th, 2007 4:54 pm

I think that current church structures hinder our ability to understand the nature of our identity as the people of God. Within those structures, a life of bland religion is substituted for the reality of the kingdom of God.

I believe that deconstructing existing ecclesial ideas is necessary in developing a missional identity.

Our missional identity is based on our understanding of the nature of God and ourselves as the people of God. This understanding is what empowers our ability to incarnate Christ which of course determines our success at truly being missional.

I agree with Mark that when we get this straight, right ecclesiology will flow out of that.

I’ve been enjoying your blog. I just got Shaping, Exiles, and Forgotten Ways in the mail yesterday. Which should I read first?
Peter D on January 11th, 2007 4:58 pm

I have been involved in 2 churchs over the past 4 years that have been trying to restructure their ecclesial mode - trying to do something new (not just putting chuch in a coffee shop)…

from my experience, the problem goes deeper than the church structure itself to the individual congregation member - it is what they are expecting out of church that makes or breaks the church (both older christian and new convert alike)…

complaints about needing proper worship services, programmed kids church, preaching etc are common in a group that is trying to look at these things a different way. I am currently involved in a group that does not have an official leadreship team, but relies on people volunteering to run the specific elements of the church service the week before - it runs great and I feel that god is moving & doing things here, but even in this church service I have heard people asking each other which church they attend…

I don’t think we can remodel the church until people start to realise that chrisitianity and church community is not about a sunday service, but takes all of life and complete surrender to Christ
Dazza on January 11th, 2007 5:39 pm

From a read through this post and the comments it seems to me that the basic arguement here is that all we need to do is get the new (post-Christendom) structure (or lack of structure) right and revival will happen. Seems a bit niaeve to me from a read of church history to ever come to that conclusion. Even in China it is the work of the Spirit combined with the passion and guts of the people that sees the growth that they have. I don’t think the China thing started with a group of people inventing a new ecclesial structure.
David on January 11th, 2007 6:27 pm

Now that there is so much choice in the faith/religious “marketplace” - I mean Buddhism, Christianity, New Age, roll-your-own, etc - isn’t it a realistic expectation that a particular form of a particular faith - orthodox/evangelical Christianity (approx) - will decline (in population percentage of adherents).

If you look at the broad history of the development of religions and belief systems, shouldn’t it be expected that there will be a natural finite life span for any such system.

Maybe Christianity has had it’s day in the West.

Also some faiths seem to be constructed in a manner that seems to give them greater longevity than others. I’m particularly thinking of Buddhism here, a system based on even older contemplative/mind-control/inward looking practices. Faiths based on sacrifical subservience to a God figure seem to have shorter life spans. Seeing that Christianity draws most of its ideas from the sacrifice model, Christianity too could be expected to have a shorter life span.

Another idea is that the inward-looking, contemplative traditions may be more suited for economically stable, highly developed societies. Whereas the sacrifice God figure model seems to match expansionist, war-like “warrior” societies. Maybe this is a further reason for Christianity’s decline.
David on January 11th, 2007 6:57 pm

Perhaps a better way forward for those of faith is to combine modern scientific insights into the nature of our brains and minds, promote further research into this and use this approach to take what is beneficial from the various faith systems.

Isn’t it about time to start adopting clarity-seeking, scientific, analytical approaches to faith instead of relying completely on some old texts like the Bible, Koran, Buddhist Sutras, Hindu Scriptures, etc?
Alan Hirsch on January 11th, 2007 7:36 pm

I am on the run right now (just arrived in Copenhagen), so I can’t comment comprehensively here. But all who know me will know that I believe that Christology is the epicenter of movements and the heart of the renewal of the church. What I am trying to ge tat here is how our ‘hardware’ (ecclesia) seems to determine both our behaviors and thinking. We will not renew ourselves by merely changing the structures, but if we fail to recognize the role that the institutional conception of church plays on our thinking and shapes our actions, we are fooling ourselves.
Janet on January 11th, 2007 8:04 pm

With respect David, I think your questions and comments might be best answered in a separate thread to this one.

Maybe Al could consider posting a thread on the topic of “why believe”? (or something more creative of that ilk) where those questions could be engaged with the depth they deserve. If an attempt is made to tackle them here it will either short circuit a meaty theological discussion for those more or less on the same page, or do a disservice to you and your questions. It’s not possible to tackle both well here.
jewel on January 12th, 2007 12:30 am

In response to Peter’s comment #11.

My journey started many years ago with an itch that “church” as I understood it wasn’t right, as I as read books and discussed it with like-minded people that itch turned into a belief that things should be different. I feel like Alice when she fell down the rabbit hole – I can’t go back. And as I have also discovered, I am not alone.

In an existing church, can the change in thinking I have described be imposed on others who haven’t gone through that process? Who are happy with the status quo and do not see a reason to change. It is something that can be taught? Or will, as Peter’s comment describes, the pull of the old paradigm be too strong?
seeingkalos on January 12th, 2007 1:26 am

Perhaps a good example of our Christendom approach to reach our unreached Westerners is the way we send out the evangelist/s. The early evangelists were localized, easily identifiable with a local group of believers (one key - a pre-exsisting group engaged in communitas.) They were recruiting others in the context of healing, and people living as they were a part of another world. We typically only evangelize for life after death and ignore the present (our presentations may say live for Jesus now) - yet there is little living for Jesus that is observable and identifiable - Wouldn’t the evangelist (and the church) be more credible if he was identified as someone who was a part of a very localized group engaged in communitas?

You guys/gals Rock!
alan hirsch on January 12th, 2007 4:24 am

Grace, I am impressed that you bouoght all three books! Now that’s commitment. Start with Shaping. And from there its up to you. TFW is about missional movements and Exiles is about missional lifestyle. They all work well together.

Lets go back to that issue of wineskins. Jesus did speak about that and did say that can really impact the whole deal in either a positive or a negative way. I would suggest that this plays a massive role in shaping our behaviors. More than we are won’t to think. Winston Churchill once noted that we shape our buildings and then they shape us. But what I am saying here goes deeper than mere buildings. It goes to the idea\ imagination\ concept\ configuration of ecclesia.

Like the hardware in a computer, our ‘idea’ of church shapes our theological system as well as our programming.

Back to you!
Peter D on January 12th, 2007 8:38 am

I strongly agree with your agrument alan, I am a big believer in the restructuring of the church - but as your shaping of things book kind of inadvertantly pointed out, these new structures don’t seem to stand the test of time…

what is the missing piece?…

how do we create stability in a church that relies so heavily on the general congregation rather than leadership to survive?…

how do we get the congregation to catch the real vision, not just seeing what we are doing as a fad or trendy?…

does it even really matter if these new churches don’t survive long, as long as they are dividing and morphing into different church structures themselves?… are they doing this?…

these are some of the major questions for me in all of this
Marty on January 12th, 2007 9:35 am

There are a lot of big words here that seem to mask a simplity of ideas and make things sound theologically sophisticated. But I just have a basic question. Where is the fruit of this discussion? Where are the newly converted, passionate Christians who found Jesus in this movement? I just don’t see them. Rather I see a lot of Christians who leave the institutional church and say that they are leaving Christendom but they still feed off the structures.
James Nored on January 12th, 2007 9:41 am

Hi Alan. Just going back through Ed Stetzer’s book Planting Missional Churches, and I notice that he takes issue with you about ecclessial structure. In essence he sees that church structure, while capable of being shaped in many ways, should not come on the “backside” of Christology and missiology, but should be considered in conjunction with the two. He thinks that your model has merits, but is too open and possibly ignores biblical teaching on what the church is.

I personally think that he is reading Jason and Jennifer Campbell’s work into your own. And I would also argue that Christology is what shapes the biblical teaching on the church and is therefore still primary.

However, while the church can be expressed in many different ways, he does bring out biblical teachings on the church that perhaps some in the movement want to ignore. He says that a church must include:

- A Covenant Community (with a defined group)
- Meeting (weekly basis on Lord’s Day)
- Biblical Leadership (with elders & deacons normative)
- The Ordinances (baptism, Lord’s Supper)
- Preaching (some form of the word)

I think that you would affirm most of these, though they could be expressed creatively. Two things:
1. While you certainly have an overemphasis on pastoral leadership today, should a church not strive for some of this? And how is this possible in a Gen-X church made up of all young adults?

2. Do you think most in the movement want to jettison the above characteristics that Stetzer cites, or simply put them in their proper perspective?
David on January 12th, 2007 10:24 am

My point, Janet, was not to question the need for belief.

The point was, there are other factors not being taken seriously, that are playing a big part in the decline of Christianity in the West.

Once upon a time, Christianity was the only culturally acceptable or mainstream form of faith or spiritual practice in many Western Countries. It came in a variety of flavours to cater for a variety of people who weren’t all that different anyway, because cultural diversity was rare.

Now people have easy access to other ways of spiritual practice and thinking, and can compare and choose. They can reject or embrace Christianity, or Islam or Buddhism or whatever faith formed part of their cultural background. They can move from one to another or combine elements of a numer of traditions. It doesn’t mean people necessarily end up with a shallow mish-mash of vague beliefs, either.

What it does mean is that the claims of Christianity must now be scrutinised in terms of many other ways of looking a the world. Christianity, for example, is silent on the ultimate constituents of reality, lacks a comprehensive inward-looking, meditative tradition (some say it is merely forgotten). Chritianity is viewed as irrelevant and less practicable than other spiritual practices by many.

It really may be the case that new spiritual practices are more suited to our current world than what traditional Christianity has offered - no matter how it is packaged, the core message of Christianity is deeply unsatisfying and sadly lacking in real answers for many people.
David on January 12th, 2007 10:57 am

Now this is an assumption on my part, and I’d be happy to hear of counter-examples.

May Christians who are commenting here would have had little real experience of other forms of spiritual practice. Sure, you might have lunch with the local Muslim cleric, or have attended some inter-faith seminars, or regard evangelical preaching on the evils of Hinduism and other Eastern traditions as distasteful.

But how many of these Christians have got themselves invited to the local Mosque, Buddhist temple, Jewish synagogue, etc and participated in the services/practices/chanting, listened to the talks/sermons/Dharma teaching, etc. Of course, you will say that language difficulties make this exercise near impossible. Let me tell you, contrary to Howard’s scare mongering, there are many such institutions of other faiths that will not only welcome outsiders, but also provide real-time English translations.

So before you dismiss other perspectives so easily, how about immersing yourself in a practice that is completely alien to your comfort zone.

Once you have done that, then re-consider the decline of Christianity in the West.
alan hirsch on January 12th, 2007 6:40 pm

David, with respect to you, I have to agree with Jan here. You initial comments did appear to be a distraction from the point at hand. And I think you dismiss these folk too quickly when you say many commenting here have little experience with other religions. I myself was born and raised in a Jewish family and religion. and explored many alternative faiths before encountering Jesus. I know this to be similarly true of others here.

But beyond that, this blog is dedicated to exporing the renewal of Christianity not whether Christian faith is viable or not at the level of truth. We are exploring the re-activation of missionary movements in Western contexts; hardly a doubtful deliberation on the truthfulness of Christianity.

Please believe me when I say I really do not mean to be dismissive here but I am committed to keeping this blog focussed around its core tasks. These dicussions have real significance for many of us conversing here. You are most welcome to comment given the purpose of the blog.

Shalom, Alan
Mark Juane on January 12th, 2007 8:08 pm

For those who are obssessed with pursuing safety, security, comfort and convenience, the attractional church is the only way their spirituality can be expressed. The church as mediator of spiritual goods and services is their only way to get their “fix” of God. The church as a static, edifice-oriented organization resonates with the feel of stability and security.

The problem with this -among many- is that this form of church nurtures the deception that the church is their source and refuge. When in fact, their only source and refuge should be God. The more we continue in attractional/institutional mode, the more we reinforce this ecclesiolatry!

We hear this in seeker model rhetoric in that the “unchurched” need to be first “churched” so that they can hear the message of Christ. So the major emphasis in “seeker-targeted” churches is the church rather than on Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I know and love people who are part of the seeker church model. They truly love Jesus but they’re so caught up in trying to top last Sunday’s big show they don’t even have personal relationships with the very “unchurched” they are trying to reach.

This is not meant to be a rant on that particular model. I only offer it as an example in this discussion.

Until people start seeing the church more as a movement focused on Jesus, we’ll always default to an attractional/institutional mode.
Bob Roberts on January 13th, 2007 1:07 am

Alan, could the wineskin be something other than the church? I know all metaphors break down - but the wineskin holds the wine thereby being a part of the fermenting process - it’s all one. Just thinking outloud - could the wineskin be “Jesus” - not the church. And the wine be us - the fermentation of the Spirit within us forming us into disciples? The reason is, from the reformers to everyone else - who has truly been effective at reformatting the church. Where movements have happened it’s been because people started living it radically and church followed. This is true in China - I’ve visited with many leaders there as well as other places in the world. The truly “emergent” church coming into existence is obssessed with Jesus - not church - yet they have church and it’s powerful - but it seems to be more of a result. I think I’m going to post on this on my blog! It was true with Simon Meno and Count Zinzindorf. I know your high commitment to Christology - you’ve got me going heavy in all of that like I’ve never done, and I’m finding markers, clues, and insights I’m ashamed I didn’t see sooner. Guys who wind up focusing so much on church so much seem to ultimately get bitter and disiullusioned. I’ve not known anyone get disullusioned, bitter, angry, focusing on Jesus. There can be no question, the church has got to change and new forms must emerge. But will those forms be a response to something broke, or a response to a living breathing God - Jesus.
Alan Hirsch on January 13th, 2007 5:52 am

Bob, great to have you visit with us on the blog. Mate, I am sure that Jesus is the Founder and the Foundation of the church, and that we are the people found ‘In Christ.’ But I think that all social systems will express themselves in some form of structure or another, and it won’t be long before the issue of tructure emerges. Even the early church needed renewal from time to time (e.g. the Montanists)

One of my worries for the Chinese church (of which you have a much closer view thn me) is that when they become more and more legitimate, will they lose their edge and their reliance on the Founder?
Alan Hirsch on January 13th, 2007 6:04 am

James, thanks for your questions bro. Always appreciated!

I am probably going to be misunderstood here but what the heck! I have said, and you have heard me on ths, that ecclesiology is the most fluid of the essential biblical doctrines. Hear me here–fluid but non-negotiable! The church is no optional extra, it is an intrinsic part of Christian spirituality. HAving said this bro, I am convinced that it must always (and I undescore ALWAYS) express its life culturally in forms that are appropriate to the people group, and the era, in which it finds itself. Jesus is the Foundation, and the church must reference off Jesus not the other way waround. In fact (as again you know) it is Christology that determines missiology which in turn determines ecclesiology.

Now I happen to know that Ed Stetzer agrees with this basica ‘formula’ because I both reviewed and endorsed his book (Breaking the Missional Code)and he has reproduced this formula there. Having said this, this will mean that whatever the Bible says about specifics of the community’s cultural life (as opposed to the essential ideas that must shape ecclesia as a theological concept) must be subject to the discipline of missional internpretation first. To say we must express the culture of the early church in every possible way is to commit us to an irrevocably fundamentalist interpretation of the church. Well girls, get them thar hats on, and we should be meeting on SAturdays and not Sundays. Sundays are unbiblical, etc.!!! Get my point? Contextualization in missional work is critical! What do you think?
James Nored on January 13th, 2007 7:10 am

Alan,

As you know from our discussions, I agree that Christology is primary, defining missiology which in turn determines ecclesiology. I, like you, am a conceptual person, and I both love this concept as well as believe that it is true. It would be easy to leave this in the conceptual realm and say that any details must be worked out in the cultural concept. Certainly praxis must shape theology, as well as our basic understanding of what is theological or cultural.

I suppose my question is rather specific, but since it hits such a large segment of the missional movement, I think it is good for us to think about. For instance, is the biblical teaching on pastor/elders fundamentally theological and therefore ought to be normative in the church? There are many Gen-X churches forming (most of which are merely emerging, and not missional) that are composed entirely of people under thirty. Is this a good thing?

Certainly we have argued that the absence of apostolic ministry in the church has been detrimental. Would not the abscence of pastoral ministry also be detrimental? And by definition, pastors/elders imply age and wisdom.

It would seem that the concept of shepherding is fundamentally theological, as Christ is the good Shepherd John 10 ) and elders are called to Shepherd after him (1 Pet. 5:1-4 ).

Missiologically it makes sense to form a coffee shop church from those young adults who come to faith in that setting. I get that, particularly in one highly fragmented society with many, many sub-cultures. But ideally, do not twenty-year olds need some older wisdom and guidance? It would seem that this expression of church, if normative, risks running up against Christology as well as ecclesiology.

What do you think of this concern?
Alan Hirsch on January 13th, 2007 7:32 am

Point taken. I would argue (as again yuo know :-)) that we need at least a five-fold ministry and not less. This certainly includes shepherds and wise dudes (pastor and teacher). We can’t get all mature without the whole kit and kaboodle of Eph 4 ministry. I would (personally) be less tied to the concept (gained from the synangogue) of ‘elders and deacons’ James. I think it is the function, not the titles and specific structure, that counts.

And over the years I have now become convinced that we need a multi-generational perspective to be wholistic. The oldies need the youngies and vice-versa.
dave on January 13th, 2007 3:03 pm

Alan, our idea of church may shape our thinking of mission and christology, but if we want to twist it around so christ shapes our thinking and mission, then we either need new forms of church or a better understanding of the person and work of Christ. Perhaps some people have been part of christendom churches for far too long that they cant imagine how to live like Christ and to do church under a new system.
dave on January 13th, 2007 3:05 pm

… and for those of you who can imagine how to do it and lead churches, the hardest thing is trying to get your congregation on board wiht the new paradigm without them complaining and leaving, is it not?
alan hirsch on January 13th, 2007 10:12 pm

Dave, this appears to be part of our dilemma.
Mark Juane on January 14th, 2007 9:16 am

Did the first century church create a whole new form of organization? Or did they meet the way first century people met in those days? Did they have to create a whole new way of meeting? Or did they reflect a way of gathering that was already present in their culture?

For example, would first century Jewish believers have patterned their ecclesiology after the synagogue-style of meeting?
Alan Hirsch on January 14th, 2007 9:29 am

Quite right MArk. And my point is that they had therefore contextualized the church well for their setting. But to impose a first century synogogue structure on the 21st Century church is not only unnecesary, but lacks the sensitive missionary attentiveness that must come before structuring church for any time and place.
Bob Carder on January 14th, 2007 12:46 pm

Let’s make it simple. We have our missional purposes of the Great Commission and in the American church we have structures and forms that have killed the mission or at last slowed it to a near death. Or even made lazy Christ followers who come and see rather than be and go.

If we can get the missionional purposes right we can place structure only as needed and as limited as possible. Mission=more & structure = less

I have come to believe that the established old ineffective American church ecclesiology cannot cohabit or coexist with church ecclessiology of the new and missional disciple making church movement that is needed. The two are at war with each other.

We don’t need a bandaid we need a death that is quickly followed by a resurrection back to the Jesus way.

Get the mission of living to impact lives in the world so that people can see Jesus in us and then flow through us to redeem the world as the main thing and you’ll see death to old thinking and a resurrection to a Biblical and Missional Christianity.

These are just a few ramblings from the comments posted. Stetzer misses it with his main things while missing the supremacy of the Great Commission as the main thing for all.

Why can’t these guys just give up on the churchianity and become the mission on mission with the Master of the Mission.

I’m sick of five things as Stetzer points out. We don’t need a fix we need an entire resurrection following a painful death.

Let’s make disciples who make disciples and then let’s lead those disciples to live out the inward Spiritual disciplines (prayer, fasting, Bible study, Meditation and journaling) and then when they get that right let’s release them to live out the outward spiritual disciplines of (giving, serving, Evangelism, stewardship of resources, living by faith) and you’ll have missional Christ followers on mission. See http://www.truevine.blogspot.com This is our first missional disciple-making movement proving out all I describe. Pastor Terry has added an important post worth reading if you think I am nuts or even if you don’t.

Kill the structure and strip away the baggage of church as we think it and let God build a new view into His way and you’ll enjoy a church alive in the world and filled with being a church on purpose and mission.
Glenn Munyard on January 14th, 2007 7:12 pm

Loving this read!
I agree totally with you Bob and if the structures and forms could be killed overnight then that would be an awesome act for the cause of Christ.
Could it be though that this is exactly what God is doing but we’re just getting a bit impatient, we want it overnight? What I have noticed over the last years is that more and more Christians from the forms and structures, as they get closer to Christ, are seeing those forms and structures for what they are, just forms and structures. This has come from one side of the nation to the other and probably worldwide, my knowledge is limited, but what I see is a new wineskin being formed and it is in the person of Jesus.
Disciples of Jesus then to me is the crux of our issue, not disciples of structure and form. For want of a much better illustration the one of ‘the matrix’ (movie) sits in my head the loudest, the need to free people’s minds so that they see the matrix of the form and structure for what it is and find true life and mission in the form of Jesus alone (that’s probably really corny, sorry). My answer to that is discipleship, one at a time, both those in the structure and most of all those who have no idea of the structure, helping them understand a Jesus in pure form without all the trimmings.
frank doiron on January 15th, 2007 1:20 am

Thanks for the word “divinize.” I’ve been looking for a word that best describes what the church service has become in our hearts. I really believe that “the meeting was made for the church” but as it stands now “The church was made for the meeting.” It is not only a Catholic thing. Remember the Sabbath and what Jesus said about it. When we see the church made for the meeting then we will deify it. Of course a change of structure does not change anyone (for that is the role of the Holy Spirit) but as one whose heart has been changed I want a structure that builds me up, equips me for the work of the ministry and spurs me on to good works….. which scripture says is the purpose of our get togethers. The present structure does not do that….. in fact it works against it.
James Nored on January 15th, 2007 6:30 am

Alan,

I’m glad to hear that you have come to conclude that multi-generational churches should be our goal. I have struggled with this for some time, with missiology running up against Christology (Christ exists in a diverse community, and it takes all types to be the full body of Christ) and ecclesiology. Your conclusion helps me feel better about the multi-generational expression of church.

Bob, I hear your concerns about structure. This, I have always said, is the hardest thing to change. And while structure is not the only thing that determines behavior, it does shape it profoundly. I believe that our structures must be re-examined to maximize missional effectiveness. To be fair to Stetzer, I don’t think that he is saying that those five things are the most important things about the church. Even if they are expressed in different ways in different cultures, they still do seem to be essential parts of the church. And is it not interesting to note that Paul had Timothy appoint elders in predominantly Gentile churches too? Shepherding, it seems, is theologically grounded, and therefore transcends culture.
Bob Carder on January 15th, 2007 9:01 am

Gotcha James, great reply.

As for the link I posted above it is wrong.

http://www.sunministries.blogspot.com

Terry has posted the discussion I mentioned above.

As for forgiveness, Alan forgive me for link post. Better to ask for “forgiveness” than permission. Is that legal for Christ - followers?

Alan if you can could you delete the link in my comment 37
Bob Carder on January 15th, 2007 2:57 pm

Comment 37 should have the link, http://www.sunministries.blogspot.com

Sorry anout that.
Bob Carder on January 20th, 2007 5:25 pm

Why do I have to be the last comment?
Kenneth Thurdeen on January 23rd, 2007 9:27 am

Alan, I am worried about the highly theoretical and ungrounded nature of the ideas presented in Forgotten Ways. By your own admission early in the book you say that your previous church did not live out these principles. You then suggest that we need to learn from the Chinese churches. I was pretty much with you, but from my reading of Forgotten Ways it appears that you have never been to China and have not done any detailed research into whether the principles you posit as a missional DNA are in fact reflected by the underground church in China at all. By half way through I was beginning to wonder whether it’s all just theory from an armchair critic and amateur theologian. I have really valued the work of writers like Mark Driscoll, Mickael Frost and Neil Cole because their thoughts are anchored in real practice in real communities. I’m beginning to wonder whether a lot of the conversation on your blog reflects this elitist, academic stance. Could you tell me where you are living this stuff out and how it is being expressed?
Alan Hirsch on January 23rd, 2007 11:58 am

Keneth, I have prided myself on being a practioner in innovative ministry for many years now. I might be an amateur theologian (I don’t wish to be be a proffesional one) but an armchair academic I am not. The chapter on South’s story was setting the context for some of my own thinking. Red (that’s what it is called now) is going just fine. There are also tons of examples from around the world where missional-inarnational ideas are being taken seriously. I count it a great privelage to be involved in many of the movements that I talk about in the book.

One of the biggest criticisms of any fledgling movement is ‘where is this happening?’ Its a legit question. but when you are dealing with an incipient, even foetal movement, you must compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. Don’t use the ordinary criteria. Try thinking thoough the ‘eyes’ of the paradigm itself.

If you don’t like what you see, ahhh well. At least you have tried to see it.

We live by a vision…

Stay true
Kenneth Thurdeen on January 23rd, 2007 1:05 pm

Alan, I don’t dispute that you used to be involved in ministry at South, but by your own admission you say it wasn’t missional (or at least they weren’t prepared to embrace the mission at your cafe). Your ‘involvement’ in missional projects around the world seems that of a supportive observer. I’d be interested in knowing what project you currently work these principles out in. The danger for the emerging church is that it will be guided by very intelligent men like yourself, Leonard Sweet and others, who can communicate theory, but don’t live it out. Please correct me if I’m wrong. What church are you currently leading?
Celtic Son on January 23rd, 2007 2:53 pm

Hi Kenneth,

I have a conflict of interest! Like you I do have concerns that those who are leading in directions we are exploring are practitioners not armchair critics, I reckon the concept of purely academic theology is an oxymoron! BUT I have also contributed a lot on this blog so this response could just be me being defensive about “conversation” on Alan’s blog reflecting an “elitist, academic stance.” I’ve been called many things - even a heretic - but never elitist or academic… in fact I’m considering whether I should adopt it as a new title… just joking

I have not got a hold of Alan’s book yet (I don’t think it’s in the country here yet!) so I can’t comment on it, but I can vouch for the helpful nature of the discussion on this blog in working through foundational ideas for action…

I’ve been involved in this blog on the basis of learning for the sake of application. It is helpful to have a forum for discussing ideas and finding out where some of my thinking has been tried and tested elsewhere. I lead a church that we planted with two other families in a suburban community almost seven years ago. The church started from a missional heart, but I’ve discovered, to my pain, how quickly a community can get comfortable and inward focussed. This blog has helped me express some of my concerns, and bounce around some thoughts that I am unable to discuss with the majority of people around me - because most are Christendom thinkers and not missional.

I have found that the majority of people on this blog are actively seeking direction that works in practice and are not just critics, including Alan. I attended one of Alan’s Forge intensives a couple of years ago, which was basically a gathering of practitioners, people planning on planting and interns learning on an apprenticeship basis. I do know that a number of missional faith communities have been birthed out of Forge’s development.

I’ve read Alan’s previous book with Mike Frost and found the ideas enlightening. I don’t know Alan personally and don’t know what his present church position is - incidentally the last time I heard Mike Frost speak, he went to great lengths to let people know that he was not leading the church he is involved in. I haven’t agreed with all that Alan’s presenting, I’ve made my points, but his presentation, on the blog at least, has been founded on experiental faith lived out, not just theory.

I’ve found the blog helpful and I’ve found the sharing of ideas with others has helped me refine my thinking, some things I will pursue further, other things, I previously thought, I have revised before inflicting them on the growing faith community around me! I think they at least would appreciate it! When I did hear Leonard Sweet speak I did think that his academic babble was not helpful to practitioners and some other folks from our fledgling church simply said “huh??”

On a couple of occasions on this blog I’ve apologised for using technical language, it just provides a shortcut to an otherwise lengthy explanation of issues that already have a foundation. If someone uses a term I’m not clear about, I can find a definition on the net that saves a lot of blog space. I don’t think that necessarily makes the blog elitist or academic - but I’m aware that’s a response from someone covered by the definition - perhaps I am just an elitist academic who can’t see it myself, but I’m pretty sure that others in my community don’t see me that way.

My experience says it is vital to have a correct foundation to build on. It’s important that we know what we believe, prior to trying to put things into practice. Otherwise we can be actively and very practically building a house on sand. Dialogue on the foundational issues plays a significant part in how I understand God’s intent and design for the church - otherwise I’m stuck with what already exists and doomed to failure.

I agree with the spirit of what you’re suggesting. Too much theology is taught by people currently removed from actual practice, if they have ever been practitioners. It is good to be wise about who you allow to influence your thinking. I guess to a certain extent the proof is in the pudding… or in Christian terms does the paradigm Alan’s proposing bear fruit?

In reflecting your own questions; what’s the basis for your concern, are you involved in leading a church, or looking to plant a new one? What’s the stuff you’re living out and how is it being expressed? What other bases would you suggest for the church emerging to be the church as it’s intended to be?

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Kenneth Thurdeen on January 23rd, 2007 4:00 pm

Celtic Son, you don’t address my primary concern about Forgotten Ways and that is that it has been written by a non-practitioner. I’m not sure when you heard Michael Frost say he isn’t leading the church he’s in. In Exiles he illustrates his ideas by referring extensively to his experience at his church in Sydney. Alan’s thoughts might be useful. Indeed they ring true. But I’m just asking Alan to show us where he is making disciples, or experiencing communitas or operating in a five-fold leadership team.
Celtic Son on January 23rd, 2007 5:51 pm

Hi Kenneth,

I didn’t set out to justify Alan, I figured he could let us know where he’s presently practicing, and in what capacity. I’ve heard Mike Frost twice in the last couple of years - including at the Forge intensive I attended about three years ago - refer to the fact that he is not the leader of little boat, big sea. I intended simply making the point that the fact someone is not the leader of a community doesn’t disqualify their sharing of their experience as part of the community. I’ve no doubt that Mike Frost is a huge influence in his church community, but on both occasions that I heard him he made it clear he was not THE leader.

In terms of being a non-practitioner, I don’t know how long removed Alan is from his involvement in local church leadership - what time frame do you think is reasonable for someone to refer to their experience? If Alan was leading up to a couple of years ago is that relevant or not? I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and Alan did say he was a practitioner, it seems a fairly strong accusation then to assume that Alan is a non-practitioner.

Having made that accusation, Alan can respond - I’d be interested to know where he’s at too. I just wondered about your motivation in making the statement, particularly since you didn’t respond to my questions re: your involvement in church life, either.

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Alan Hirsch on January 23rd, 2007 6:19 pm

I’m not leading a church at the moment. I am involved in an inner city church in Melbourne that minister to the outcast and the poor. We live in a open community house. And I am in a period of significant transition. What I reflect in the book is the mixture of direct experience involvement from a translocal leader’s experience. there are different ways of being a practitioner you know other than being a pastor in a local church. I happen to believe profoundly in the at least 5-fold ministry complex of Eph.4.

And South was missional. It just stopped being missional because of problems in disciple-making.

Other than that, I simply say that if this is not good enough for you, then tough. you’ll have to live with it. It is where I am at in my sense of calling and service of Jesus. And I am accountable to some pretty amazing friends and colleagues in this journey.

And by the way, I don’t appreciate the aggressive tone of your comments. I don’t mind you asking. And I am happy to give a reply. But I don’t know you and don’t feel that you have the right to come at me in that way. Be nice or back off.
Kenneth Thurdeen on January 23rd, 2007 7:55 pm

Obviously you are very sensitive about this, proving my original assertion that you are becoming an armchair theologian rather than a missional practitioner.
Mark Juane on January 23rd, 2007 8:07 pm

Kenneth,

I’ve been following the comments you have been posting on this blog. And I would have to say that your tone and approach are offensive. I don’t know Alan personally except for exchanges on this site but I must say that your comments about him come across as judgmental, arrogant and wholly inappropriate.

I stand by Alan in lovingly asking that you back off and allow this site to be a safe place to discuss very important issues related to his book.

If you still don’t appreciate where Alan is coming from then why not keep your volatile comments to yourself and allow us to continue our conversation here?

I respect you having your own opinions but this is a matter of social manners and blog etiquette. Please be a sensitive enough brother in Christ to respect this request. Thanks.
Alan Hirsch on January 23rd, 2007 8:30 pm

Kenneth, how did you become so offensive man. And I must say unnecesarily so, because you could get an answer without the attitude. You might get further in life if you learned to be more human and loving. I am not sure how you got this bee under your bonnet, but blogging about my co-called lack of experience (which you know nothing about) on various blogs but it is tantamount tobearing false witness. I have significantly more experience on direct mission through church planting than Mike Frost (whom I love) and others you mention.

I have always prided myself in being involved ‘on the ground’ in various settings. I spend 16 years leading a church planting movement that planted churches where no-one else was willing to go. I finished my local church role 2 years ago. I have significant trans-local leadership calling and expirience, and don’t believe my current ministering trans-locally disqualifies me as a activist and pracitioner.

You don’t simply know what you are talking about. In fact if you had any sensitivity in you, you should apologize. If you wish to continue in this vein, you will be blocked from this site. Grow up in Jesus!
Celtic Son on January 23rd, 2007 11:33 pm

Alan…

in my parochial dysfunction, and considering your prior assertion that I claim all good things as Celtic, I figured I had to balance the books. Given the Biblical penchant for names as a prophetic device, I thought I should point out that “Kenneth” is a name derived from a Gaelic term translated as “born of fire.”

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Kenneth on January 24th, 2007 4:32 pm

If I caused you offense Alan, I apologize, but I didn’t think it inappropriate to question whether you’ve ‘proved’ your theories in practice anywhere. Is it not reasonable to ask emerging church theorists where their ideas have been fleshed out? Mark Driscoll’s ideas (not that I agree with them all) come out of his experience at Mars Hill. Same with Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, Erwin McManus and many others. If you were offended by me tenaciouisly trying to get you to show me where “the forgotten ways” have been practiced, again I apologize.
Alan Hirsch on January 25th, 2007 11:36 am

Asking nicely gets a nice reply Kenneth. You went out after me and then proceeded to can me on all the blogs. that is unacceptable mate. It really is bearing false witness. What do you know about me??

I am angry, but I will accept the apology. You can read about some of the things I have done on the various blogs where you have had a go at me.