how deep does the rabbit-hole go?

We have been discussing the idea of cultural distance, systems stories/paradigms, and now we get to take a look at mega-paradigm of the Christendom idea of church (The Patrix??). So then, how do these ideas relate to Christendom and our situation now? Well, the transformation of the church from marginal movement to central institution started with the Edict of Milan (313AD) whereby Constantine, the newly crowned Emperor who had claimed a conversion to Christianity, declared Christianity to be the official state religion thereby eventually delegitimizing all others. But Constantine went beyond eventually proclaiming Christianity as the top-dog official religion: In order to bolster his political regime, he sought to bond church and state in a kind of sacral embrace, and so he brought all the Christian theologians together and demanded that they come up with a common theology that would unite the Christians in the Empire and so secure the political link between church and state. Not surprisingly he also instituted a centralized church organization based in Rome to ‘rule’ the churches and to unite all Christians everywhere under one institution with direct links to the State. And so, everything changed and what is thereafter called ‘Christendom’ was instituted.

Stuart Murray (Post-Christendom) comments on this bond…

“The foundation of the Christendom system was a close, though sometimes fraught, partnership between church and state, the two main pillars of society. Through the centuries, power struggles between popes and emperors resulted in one or other holding sway for a time. But the Christendom system assumed that the church was associated with a status quo that was understood as Christian and had vested interests in its maintenance. The church provided religious legitimation for state activities, and the state provided secular force to back up ecclesiastical decisions.”

What is clear is that a number of very significant shifts took place after Constantine’s deal with the church. In order to see our own experience of Christendom in a clearer light, it is necessary to outline the major shifts that took place after its imposition. According to Stuart Murray, the Christendom shift meant:

The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of a city, state or empire.
The movement of the church from the margins of society to its centre.
The creation and progressive development of a Christian culture or civilisation.
The assumption that all citizens (except for the Jews) were Christian by birth.
The development of a ‘sacral society’, the corpus Christianum, where there was no freedom of religion and where political power was regarded as divinely authenticated.
Infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into this Christian society.
Sunday as an official day of rest and obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance.
The definition of ‘orthodoxy’ as the common belief shared by all, which was determined by powerful church leaders supported by the state.
The imposition of a supposedly Christian morality on the entire society (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied).
A hierarchical ecclesiastical system, based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, which was analogous to the state hierarchy and was buttressed by state support.
The construction of massive and ornate church buildings and the formation of huge congregations.
A generic distinction between clergy and laity, and the relegation of the laity to a largely passive role.
The increased wealth of the church and the imposition of obligatory tithes to fund this system.
The defence of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism.
The division of the globe into ‘Christendom’ or ‘heathendom’ and the waging of war in the name of Christ and the church.
The use of political and military force to impose the Christian faith.
The use of the Old Testament, rather than the New, to support and justify many of these changes.

This shift to Christendom was thoroughly paradigmatic and the implications were absolutely disastrous for the Jesus movement that was incrementally transforming the Roman world from the bottom up. Rodney Stark, widely considered to be the prevailing expert on the church in this period, summed it up in these dramatic terms.

Far too long, historians have accepted the claim that the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (ca.285-337) caused the triumph of Christianity. To the contrary, he destroyed its most attractive and dynamic aspects, turning a high-intensity, grassroots movement into an arrogant institution controlled by an elite who often managed to be both brutal and lax.

Clearly something fundamental had happened to the church in the Constantinian deal. And it is my belief that the imagination or conception of the church that was initiated in this shift still prevails to this day. Its not the same in every way, but the predominatly institutional idea of the church that was initiated here, still dominates our imaginations.

The missional issue arising from this is critical for us to grapple with and it goes something like this. That whilst Christendom as a religious-political-cultural force is finished (it was basically taken out in the Enlightenment period) it is still the overwhlemingly predominant idea of the church that we operate from. It appears that Constantine is still the emperor of our imaginations.

February 10, 2007 | Filed Under the forgotten ways |

Comments

40 Responses to “how deep does the rabbit-hole go?”

Alan Knox on February 10th, 2007 3:10 pm

Alan,

I’m not sure if you have addressed this question or not. If you have, please forgive me. At what point in the advance of “Christendom” do we no longer see the church?

-Alan
Alan Hirsch on February 10th, 2007 6:53 pm

Alan, I think the church continues to exist in the Christendom mode, except its mode fundamentally alters from the previous paradigm. God’s true people have always been present in whatever form and whatever era. I am not trying to suggest that the church disappears in the fourth century only to re-emerge in the late 20th century. Far from it! What I have said elsewhere is what we have today is the one people of God, but two different imaginations/conceptions/configurations of church–namely the Christendom mode which is fundamenally wedded to the institutional paradigm and the missional mode which is more organic and incarnational. Does this make sense? I am not even sure if I really addressed your question, but it sounds like it ought to be said anyhow. And it sound like I know what I’m talking about.
James Petticrew on February 10th, 2007 10:20 pm

Alan, I am in agreement with your argument that Christendom somehow either destroyed or emasculated some of the church’s unique DNA, in other words State sponsorship creates a habitat in which the body of Christ cannot grow to her potential. I think we have to be careful we don’t overplay our hand and blame just Constantine as if everything was right before hand, the trend towards centralization predates Constantine with the rise of the monarchial bishops and orthodoxy as a unifying force was in the same way at work before his “conversion.” Constantine was able to take these trends which existed in the church and use them for we now see as his own advantage.
Paul Walker on February 10th, 2007 11:16 pm

I think what is particularly interesting about the Christendom paradigm that Stuart Murray so helpfully writes analyses, is the way that the Christendom ‘virus’ still persists in a post-Christendom era.

It is clear that the fabric and pillars of Christendom started to decline with the rise of the industrial society, the Enlightenment, urbanisation etc, and has really started to fade out completely in the past 50-100 years. Yet, at the same time, the vestiges of Christendom continue to be seen all over the place! It is fascinating look at things like the monarchy, the established church, and government in the UK, and see just how intertwined they are and deeply rooted in Christendom assumptions. But, although the systems of Christendom still operate, they have been virtually emptied of meaning and spiritual significance.

EVen within the Church, there is a sense in which Christendom thinking is the default. So people still expect new people to ‘come to us’…and, after all ‘This is a Christian Country’ - so why shouldn’t we expect that

Quite often it leaves the Church looking rather foolishly quaint and out-of-touch. We are like the king with no clothes!

BTW I highly recommend reading Stuart Murray’s books. He’s one of my tutors on my MA course - top bloke!
Bob Roberts on February 10th, 2007 11:38 pm

Hooray for Stuart Murray - he’s taught me a lot though I’ve never met him - I’ve read most of his stuff. Paul, don’t know you either, but I like your mind. History is making me re-evaluate some of my previous positions on things. My position has always been that Christendom gobbled up the emerging church - I think I may be wrong. Christendom may have provided the “institutional” base from which it could spread - allbeit you were constantly having to beat it off like an anachondria. Could it be that Christianity could not have spread had there not been the financial, educational, God forbid but even political climate that allowed others to be “educated” then get fed up, or convicted up and then move out to start a movment somewhere else. The spread of Christianity was not “a” movement but “many” movements - some of which we know little of. Christianity was so viral and comprehensive that it worked it’s way into the very structures and fabric of society impacting government, education, if not even ultimatley organizing it - especially education. Did it go too far? Yes - but it still held the seed or “mDNA” of the church. Been reading a ton on movements - do you realize the massive expansion of the church globally really happened from 350 A.D. to 900. From Augustine to St. Patrick - at the same time you had Christendom you had hundreds of movements taking place - they just didn’t get written up because they were not at that time the centers of education and influence - later however they would become. I had it all figured out and then I started reading boring historicans - they’re messing me up.
Bob Roberts on February 10th, 2007 11:43 pm

By the way - I’ve been learning and reading not just from Rodney Stark - but now his footnotes and his bibliography - these have been the books I’ve been reading currently on this. I got to spend a little time with him a couple of months back and he’s the one who’s started me on this trail. Not saying Christendom was wonderful, but not saying it was evil or of Satan either - not sure yet, but am learning it’s a lot bigger issue than one fast read.
Alan Knox on February 11th, 2007 3:03 am

Alan,

I agree that the church continues to exist in the Christendom mode. I guess I was tryin got ask something different, but I didn’t do a very good job. In Christendom, the forms are considered the church. Thus, there are systems called “church” which are not the church according to Scripture. My question was meant to examine the lines between the forms and the church. Does this make more sense?

-Alan
Alan Hirsch on February 11th, 2007 9:50 am

James, good observation. And I agree. I actually think that the church, insofar that it is an organization, has all the potential for institutionalism to emerge. In TFW I call it pre-institutional. Every time pressure from outside was relieved, the possibility, and the reality of institutional religious forms reared their head.

And I agree with you guys in celebrating Stuart Murray and his work. I think he is a great gift to us at this point.
PeggyBrown on February 11th, 2007 10:38 am

Okay, hang in there with me, brothers, while I give this a go. Forgive my ignorance and last of credentials as to what and whom I have read. Hear instead the voice of one who loves the church of Christ with the fierce devotion of a mother bear (that would be a Brown Bear, of course! ) and has struggled with these issues for over 30 years from behind the curtain.

The way I have come to see it is like this: the development/institutionalization of the church has usually looked like “a God thing” to many in all its various contexts. Looking back over 2,000 years, it seems to others more like a series of catastrophes. But to coin Tolkien’s phrase, I prefer to see all of church history as a series of eucatastrophes — where we have seen God step in again and again, with totally unlooked for times and ways and methods, to rescue the church at the very last second from what seemed like certain death/destruction and do great and marvelous things.

It is as I have said somewhere in the threads of this blog…I’m getting tangled up…that there is a state of perpetual balance (equilibrium) between producer and consumer in an ecosystem that is known as climax community. In this state the internal and external environment is so stable that this equilibrium is constant. And it will continue in this state until something upsets it — some catastrophe, be it drought or fire or flood or pestilence. In it’s original form this is known as primary equilibrium.

In the face of the catastrophe there are three responses the ecosystem can make: adapt, migrate or die. In reality, all three responses are seen. The thing I must keep remembering is that if the original environment still exists, the primary equilibrium can be rebuilt over time.

The classic example of primary equilibrium has been the rainforests of the world. The conditions under which these amazing primary climax communities were formed no longer exists. When we lose them, they cannot return.

Something else will return — but it will be called secondary equilibrium — and it may be quite different. It may be beautiful and useful and all, but it will not be the same. Different plant and animal life will be found.

The reason this line of thought helps me is that I see the Kingdom of God (the church) in these kind of ecological terms. The Holy Spirit brought the church into existence on the Day of Pentecost and planted the seed of the Gospel with fire and power. It was a catastrophic event for Judiasm — which the prophets had been speaking about for centuries, but which blindsided most.

But it was not an accident; it was the beginning of the new covenant work of God ushered in by the life, death, resurrection and ascention of his son, Jesus Christ. As the early Jewish members of the church soon found out, things were not going to work back up to things as they had always wish they could be when the Messiah arrived and David’s throne was re-established. No, God was establishing a completely new primary community out of the old one, not David’s kingdom, but the Kingdom of God with Christ on the throne. But God did not require all that his special people had grown to love be discarded, either.

As we have seen throughout church history, when Christ followers have clung to him obediently and loved one another as a way of showing their love for God, the Holy Spirit built an amazing, viral community: ekklesia. It always spreads, even to places we do not notice. Nothing can stop the spread of this virus. Not even Christendom.

What we seem to be surprised by is that the ekklesia encountered, and continues to encounter, catastrophies. Many of them originating from within. And in each of them there were some forms/people that died out…and some forms/people that adapted and others that migrated.

In our small human vision (not bad, just small because we are finite), we are shocked by this and mourn and grieve the catastrophic loss of the familiar. And if left to our own devices, we try to rebuild in such a way as to protect the ekklesia from such an event in the future.

When we do this, we err. We fall into the trap of believing that we are the ones who are given the responsibility to protect the church from such events. But is that our job?

I say no — it is the job of the Holy Spirit. We are to build and protect the truth that is Jesus as we live in love together. But our bridegroom, Christ, has sent the Holy Spirit to build, guard and protect, too. Do we more often aid or thwart his efforts?

The amazing thing is, in my mind, that the Holy Spirit is the holder of the seed/DNA of new life in Jesus Christ. And because this is so, he is able to protect it from mutation. When catastrophe strikes, God is never shocked or surprised — more often he is grieved for our pain — because the seed is safe and the Holy Spirit still can create the exact same environment in which to plant the ekklesia: fertile soil in the forgiven and transformed heart of a faithful believer.

God is not afraid of the chaos, the mess of life. He sees possibilities and is inspired to be creative. And when we are in faithful partnership with him, we are not afraid of the chaos, either. It inspires us to be creative. It is in this that we are seen most clearly as his image bearers, isn’t is?

In terribly over-simplified generalizations (as with all that I have said), the problem with church structure and form is the problem of man in rebellion against God as LORD. We want to do things our way without embracing the challenge of discerning what it is that God is doing and joining him in it. Sounds trite…doesn’t make it less true.

What would happen if the part of the ekklesia we represent was to decide that it would repent and ask forgiveness for our own and our historical brothers and sisters poor attempts at discipleship, and submit all forms — past and future — to the Holy Spirit and see what he wants to do? Ah, this is why is am such a radical, I know…too very grey and touchy-feely

That simple Brown woman just doesn’t get what a big deal this is. Well, there are advantages to being a simple woman in partnership with YHWH — and not worrying about how to get and keep power is one of them–the big problem with Christendom, as I see it.

Are we ready to see what God would like to do with the remnants of Christendom? Must we throw out the baby with the bath water? Is there no room for the Holy Spirit to show his incredible power and creativity?

I pray that there is. I choose to stand with Abraham and Moses and plead with God on behalf of his people — that they be redeemed instead of destroyed, so that the nations will see the power of God and turn to him instead of only hearing our words of self-judgment and ridicule him.

There is not one “right” way to be the ekklesia. There are many and varied ways. How ever many have been seen and documented, I am certain there are more that remain unknown. As long as the ekklesia represents the diversity of humanity there will be infinite variety!

So I rejoice that we are going to look at what has been the ekklesia and what is the ekklesia now and what we dream for the ekklesia. But if we, in our study and searching, get stuck in grief or zeal we are one step farther from processing our grief and restraining our zeal so that we may truly do the many different things that God will reveal to each of as what we may do to contribute where we are.

I rejoice is the richness of this fellowship and believe that we come with the same ultimate goal in mind. I’m looking forward to the journey with you all because I know that God will honor it and we will all be better for being sharpened.
Alan Hirsch on February 11th, 2007 11:35 am

Peggy, there is so much in your comment, I honestly don’t know where to start. Let me at least explain a bit of my problem with intitutional forms of Christian religion. It has to do with how we set up a mediating mechanism by which we both control the ‘end user’ but also the ‘Provider’. All religions tend to develop a ‘priestly paraphernalia’ in order to mediate the God experience. They do this in order to try and hold onto the originating Revelation/Encounter with God, however they might articulate that. And this seems understandable, but it ends us up with an institution that becomes a religion in itself. The problem is that it is very hard to do this with Jesus. Take a look at the post Jesus is my Disequilibrium, with associated comments and you will see where I am coming from.
PeggyBrown on February 11th, 2007 2:45 pm

Oh, Alan, I am so with you, brother! I grieve the fact that I have been called out of the institution into the wild organic…not because I cherish anything about the institution! UGH! I’ve been on both sides of institutions — secular and sacred. They both stink!

But I grieve because I leave behind precious brothers and sisters who are still bound up in it! I am repulsed by so much of what is done that is so harmful — that has harmed me, personally — and yet I love those who are still caught.

Alas, I cannot be the one that helps them…they have already turned away from what light I might have to offer. I yearn for healing and restoration and reconciliation in my heart of hearts. But they will not have it. And so my heart breaks as I struggle with feelings of failure and if only….but no messiah complex, here!

It is this breaking heart that lets them go, leaving them to God’s mercy, so that I may go on ahead in obedience to the call today. Perhaps the light I may make in the distance will be blessed and used to draw others out as well. But I must use action because hearing, they do not hear and seeing, they are blind…otherwise they would turn, eh?

There is a time to ponder and think deeply — and I treasure this place for those because there is no one in the institution who wants to engage with me in it — and I know how to convince with words. But there is also a time to turn from argument and just do. They are, however, like a dance. Thinking, doing, pondering, serving, arguing. I will gladly do it all, as long as I can keep my heart pure and my mind on Christ and my actions full of love and grace. Because when I look too much at the filth and injustice and stupidity, I get angry. And God has told me — me, mind you — that my anger does not not serve his purpose in my life.

Each of you in this place and all the passion and time and brain cells and big words and concepts that you pour out in this mission to return the church to God’s path is precious to me. I am humbled to even be able to join with you.

You are preaching to the choir here, Alan. I just add a little descant here and there. With my whole heart I yearn to call out and remove every barrier to maturity for each person in Christ. And that means moving away from mediating mechanisms, because they always end up stunting growth and fostering immaturity.

I embrace the outrageous mystery that is the church in relationship with Jesus Christ. And those who embrace the mystery know that it is folly to try to hold onto a mystery! I’m for ridding the church of its many idols and returning to the hard work of loving one another — warts and all — ready to lay down my life for you if that is what you need. I am not ready to lay down my life for any institution, however.

So, I’m with you as we shake the rafters and have at the foundations of those pillars. I just don’t want to see colateral damage done in our efforts here.

Thanks for listening…
Matt Stone on February 11th, 2007 4:58 pm

Pray for me all as I prepare to enter the hallowed halls of Christendom this week. Having resisted for many years now I am embarking this Tuesday on a Graduate Diploma of Divinity at Morling as a testing of the waters. I am thoroughly uncertain how a poor postmodern like me is going to cope. I feel like a indigenous African Christian leader coming for overseas education amongst the cultural imperialists. I feel that is the way God is leading me at this juncture but it is definately a leap into strange territory. At this stage I am avoiding all subjects on mission as it would probably make me too angry. Would bring Christendom issues too much to the fore. Instead trying to fill out gaps in my education in other areas. But yikes!!! It’s a scary prospect. I find it easier to mix with witches. I suppose I am in for a fair dose of culture shock myself.
brad on February 11th, 2007 5:58 pm

Wow, Peggy B. Lotsa stuff in your post.!

Since you brought up organic/ecological models, I’d suggest the following:

Some may see a *positive* symbiosis in the interconnecting of church-politics-culture. However, I would suggest this has actually been an example of *parasitic* symbiosis, where one participant (Christendom) benefited and the other (ekklesia) suffered. The parasitic nature of Christendom has actually left a highly toxic ground in which the original ecosystem must adapt, migrate, or die, as you noted.

That is, I think, where paradigms come in. As a student of paradigms and cultural systems, my take on things is that each different “information processing style” at the root of a paradigm system inherently supports specific forms of organizational systems and not others.

Christendom bases itself in Greek, rationalist, linear-logical, analytic processes. These are about becoming more precise, more discriminating, more specialist, and the related infrastructures include clearly defined authority/power roles, insiders and outsiders, and where the opinion of experts counts the most. A problem is, this begins to sound more like the limited accessibility of Gnosticism (where “only smart people count” and “you must prove you are worthy before entering the next stage” ala The DaVinci Code) than the universal accessibility of following Jesus Christ.

For holistic, interconnected, organic network kinds of thinking (typical in non-Western and non-paradoxical cultures), the overall organizational systems seem to be far less hierarchical, or based on hyper-specialization than traditional Western analytic/linear/”logical.” They tend to recognize more complementarity among diverse elements, and perhaps more “flatness” and networks and movements in their organizational systems. A problem is, all the human issues of power and control are still intact.

Meanwhile, the paradigms of the West are flipping back to pre-Christendom processing styles, or to fused East-West styles. Both of these organic or mystical approaches tend to look favor symbiosis (relational connections as integration points), or paradox as integration points. These inherently support “flat structures,” not our typical churchy pyramid infrastructures.

The lands of the West are scorched and “we” (Christendom churches/leaders) ourselves have done this. Time now for new or boomerang paradigm possibilities to move in that may have been dormant, waiting for their providential moment. It’s like in deserts where wild flower seeds may lay dormant for decades, waiting for “latter rains” and then quickly sprouting, growing, blooming, and re-seeding. We just need to be sure that we develop Christ-honoring structures atop these paradigms, lest we make a similar mistake to Christendom, only now in a different direction.

I have Christ-follower friends both inside and outside Christendom-oriented institutions. Personally, I believe the paradigm supporting Christendom is already in the “decadence” portion of its trajectory arc, and will become minimized when my generation and the next die off by another 50-75 years from now. Meanwhile, we still need to serve where the Spirit leads us, even if it is contrary to where we might prefer. So, I still have many connections in institutional churches and Christian agencies, while my heart and development work is far more aligned with those in organic and paradoxical paradigms. Hopefully, the stretching brought about by obedience in both realms will bring growth …
Janet on February 11th, 2007 9:57 pm

Doesn’t Morling have Mike Frost stalking around? Matt, I don’t think you’ll find it as foreign as you imagine!

Just to throw in a wobbly… the IC (of sorts) is growing gangbusters in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia, and has just started growing in the UK after 80 years of decline.

Maybe there’s some life in the old girl yet?
Matt Stone on February 11th, 2007 10:37 pm

Oh, I know a number of people there already, including Mike, Phil Johnson and Ross Clifford amongst others, which is why I am nervously giving God the benefit of the doubt on this. But I also know others of an altogether different stripe that have come out of the same place. At the end of the day it is still a modernist institution with many still in the clutches of Christendom. I am curious as to how some of them will react to the more controversial aspects of my blog as I will not be toning it down for the institutions benefit.
Alan Hirsch on February 11th, 2007 10:37 pm

Jan, mainly in Africa. And it is very different to the Chinese phenomenon. It is thoroughly heirarchical and even despotic. But it is not always that healthy for those very same reasons. Strange eh?

Hey, glad to have you back. Where have you been?
James Petticrew on February 12th, 2007 12:09 am

Alan thinking about this I remember having to read a book on historical ecclesiology/missiology last year called “Constants in Context” by Bevans and Schroeder. What really fascinated me was the chapter on the Syriac Church and its expansion into Persia and China and interaction with the new Islamic super state. What I found interesting was that here was a church which had to carry out mission in a culture where it was never dominant and could not impose itself. Sadly it seems, at least in the West, very little has been written about it and its implications for contemporary mission. Do you know of any one who is writing in this area??
Alan Hirsch on February 12th, 2007 10:18 am

No James, its a tad too obscure for me. Although I am aware of the word you mentioned, its thickness is a a tad daunting. One day.
PeggyBrown on February 12th, 2007 1:58 pm

Matt, I will stand with you in prayer, brother, especially that God will give you peace and wisdom in your heart as you study to fill in the gaps and discernment in your mind and restraint on your lips as you keep your agenda firm rather than allowing it to be hijacked by those around you.

It will not be an easy stint, but God’s faithfulness is without question and I am certain that the experience has presented itself at the right time for you and for those to whom you will be either thorn and solace! I hear that being prepared for the culture shock is the best defense…. Be blessed.

And Brad, thank you for a great comment. I totally resonate with your “parasitic” line of thought!

I feel that I have been called to deal specifically with the “human issues of power and control” that remain intact as we move to launch our kind of organic incarnational mission. This is part of the whole “The Patrix has you” line of discussion.

It is not enough to turn from parasitic institutional hierarchies to parasitic organic patriarchies. The maternal side of both the institutional and the organic feeds and nurtures. When it is parasitic it is like the horific pods where people’s bodies live out their days providing electricity while the Matrix keeps their minds occupied.

The paternal side provides vision and leadership toward maturity and accomplishment of mission. When it is parasitic it imposes unnatural structures to control and stunt growth (keeping order) so as to gain power and status (for self or for the good of the institution…not for the best interest of the people). As bad as this is for the people, it has been (continues to be???) particularly insidious for the women–the proverbial double-whammy.

I feel very much like a dormant seed that has been waiting for the proper time to sprout. Actually, it’s not unlike those seed pods of trees that do not sprout unless they are exposed to the intense heat that can only be produced by a forest fire. Hmm…sounds eucatastrophic to me!

Perhaps there are other seeds that the “scorched earth” of the lands of the West has prepared for sprouting? May God hallow the horrific loss in these lands and use this nutrient-rich layer that covers us (as he has always used the blood of the martyrs) to begin the process of rebuilding the ecosystem! There are places where the “son” has not been allowed to shine for much too long! All sorts of things have been growing…not all of them good, either!

This part is especially messy, though. All the more reason to rejoice that Jesus lived with the mess that is part of being human and was always drawn in compassion to the messy…so, as Jeff Walling says so well, perhaps that’s why he’s called the MESSiah
Janet on February 12th, 2007 5:09 pm

Hi Al… I’ve been back at work after the lazy school holidays… and last week I did an intensive in a bastion of Christendom (CCTC) to knock over a subject for my MDiv.

There I heard from Martin Robinson (consigned to a ridiculously short time slot in my opinion.. oh well!) who pointed to the signs of hope in the UK (mild growth after prolonged decline)… as well as the numerical dominance of the “church of the South” on a global scale.

He noted that the Archbishop (I think) of the Church of England proclaimed “let a thousand flowers bloom”, and that there is a rich tapestry of experimentation going on with church forms. I may be reading into his assertions a little… but I had the impression he was saying that in a time of rapid change we simply don’t know what the dominant form of Christian church (in the true sense of the word) is going to look like. Therefore highly creative experimentation is required… some forms will grow, some will not. To pick up the analogy used above… I suppose I’d see this analogous to natural selection at work on variation in times of massive ecological change. What dominant forms will evolve? It may be way too early to tell.

I think it is extremely helpful to “liberate our imaginations” from Christendom and rethink mission from first principles. However, one of the criticisms of the emerging church is that it is reactive. If there is a tendency to reject the IC outright, this actually can also limit missional imagination.

What if you were seeking to do incarnational mission in a society that IS highly paternal and hierachical and where whole villages gather together to listen the stories of the elders… a church might emerge that looks a little like a Western institutional church, might it not?

In terms of the indigenisation of Christianity, I wonder whether a hierachical church is culturally appropriate in many parts of Africa? It may not be a pure expression of Christianity… but then, I guess the early church involved pretty diverse expressions of Christian community.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!
brad on February 12th, 2007 6:00 pm

Picking up on Peggy’s entry (#19), The Patrix has been especially insidious in marginalizing women. And I suspect there is the natural human tendency for those who have been set aside and marginalized to “do unto others what has been done unto us” when we get a chance. But that does not transform the sick infrastructures. It only transfers to a new group the same old power to abuse. So, we must find ways to be appropriately inclusive while shifting the sick structures of power and control to something far more biblical and healthy. Looking forward to some details of what you’ve been learning, since responses to power/control issues is part of your calling!

And in response to Janet (#20), I think there are situations where more hierarchical forms do fit *as a beginning point.* But I would contend that ALL churches, regardless of their structure, are still “culturally distant” from God’s comprehensive and ideal paradigm for disciples, and therefore ALL churches must undergo transformation to move toward the fullness of corporate Kingdom Culture that reflects a fullness of individual transformation toward Christlike character. And that expanded and more coherent paradigm should lead to changes in infrastructure, strategy, and tactics.

I’d also argue that instead of focusing on a new wave of “experimentation,” we might do better in the long run to examine what should be our holistic, comprehensive, integrated set of assumptions for a Kingdom Culture paradigm, and then strategize contextualization based on that. An overfocus on experimentation sounds to me like more of the same modernistic pragmatism. It may ultimately leave us with more case studies to think about, but in basically the same place. We may discover a list of “best practices,” but won’t necessarily be sure of where they best fit. Seems to me best practices and other pragmatist offerings turn descriptives into prescriptives. Without understandings of assumptions and paradigms, we don’t know WHY our experiments do or don’t work.

So … deeper paradigm work and cultural systems work is where it’s at, in my opinion. It takes as much investment of time/effort to slow down and work up from a more coherent paradigm to the structures level, than to try stuff, see what works and attempt to figure out why, and to clean up the (sometimes toxic) messes of what didn’t work and try to figure out why.
Janet on February 12th, 2007 6:45 pm

That’s a good critique Brad… yes, at the bottom line we are called to faithfulness not relevance. Thinking like a missionary is a layer “above” thinking through what is means to be faithful to the Kingdom of God as expressed by Christ… the icing on the cake so to speak… and there’s no point putting icing on a hollow or distasteful cake.

Peggy, I think I’d understand where you’re coming from better if you described your ministry context… I’m afraid I’m not very philosophically inclined… it would help me get a grasp on what you’re saying.
John L on February 13th, 2007 2:18 am

Hi Alan,

Mike said “The parasitic nature of Christendom has actually left a highly toxic ground in which the original ecosystem must adapt, migrate, or die, as you noted.”

Will Xn ecclesia adapt to the “emerging folksonomous flattening” of media, communications, relationships, social hierarchy, and borders? Perhaps these emerging horizontal dynamics will naturally facilitate (force) a global re-definition of ecclesia?

As postmodern generations become increasingly virtual and interactive, Wisdom will be redistributed from institutional to communitarian. From monolithic to ‘multilithic’. In keeping with an ecological theme, postmoderns may increasingly hold institutional religion with the same contempt they reserve for powerful corporations like Monsanto.

In the same way that Monsanto uses its entrenched political power to genetically modify our God-created food chain, so will monolithic religious control systems be seen as a corruption of simple Christ-following community.

Interactive global culture is just a few generations away. Conversations like this are hinting of massive ecclesial changes afoot that we perhaps cannot imagine.
PeggyBrown on February 13th, 2007 4:11 am

Brad, your helpful comments reminded me of a term that I learned years ago: frozen accommodation. There is a time in a young church’s life when the form must accommodate a non-essential (usually cultural) element until the Holy Spirit has brought about enough growth/maturity that the accommodation can be set aside in order to permit the fullness of freedom in Christ (head coverings for women, slave ownership, gender roles, etc.).

When the accommodation becomes a permanent part of a firmly established and replicated structure — either because leadership has not been diligent to teach and lead or because the leadership does not want to teach or lead — there results a kind of “freezing” that stunts growth and locks a behavior outside of the transformational power of the Holy Spirit. (One of the ways that we set Jesus outside the Rev. 3 door, eh?)

I made a comment a while back to a “Miss Wings” in the thread about a Church Planting Reading List (she was wondering where the voices of women and other marginalized groups, were on this blog and in the literature being read and discussed) about the challenge women have had as they have been given more freedom. I suggested that we did not have to exercise influence in the same was as those who had dismissed us had…she apparently did not return to see if anyone, much less a woman, had responded.

I am very much a paradigm-shifting change-agent type of person…hence my interest in joining this conversation. I will stay tuned!

And Janet, I am in an intensive (13 months now) period of putting organic incarnational servant-leadership form to a vision for a very different kind of covenant community church planting model which takes into consideration just about every kind of issue we have been discussing (also the reason I am so grateful God brought me to Alan and Debra Hirsh and the Neil Cole Gang).

I left the halls of Christendom (a denomination that denies it is a denomination, even!) after five years as Community Life Pastor on the staff of a large church (3,000 constituents, 10 pastors) when it became clear that the leadership only embraced what I was saying on the surface (if at all) and just didn’t get it that this needed to change behavior at the core level. The senior pastor had hired me and was my champion and he left the year after I left. My family still attends this church and I have been blessed to see that some of the new blood is able to take them to some of the places I had hoped for them. I am content to have weeded and prepared the soil some…and trust that the Holy Spirit will continue to do his transforming work in their midst.

One of the biggest obstacles to my vision (for many) is the leadership structure — which, I was interested to see, is much like the APEST model. For years I have been frustrated/disappointed that I seem to be a jack (jill?) of all trades but master of none. No one area of brilliance for me — unlike all five of my siblings, and my church-planting father! What I have come to see over many years (in secular business as well as in the church) is that my competency in many areas, but true brilliance in none, has engendered a great deal of humility and a love of collaboration. Add to that the gender issue of being marginalized and I also had to learn to contribute in ways that were not openly confrontive and demanding as an “entitlement”.

This is what I see as aiding me as I try to bring a leadership structure that brings together all the proper parts of maternal and paternal strengths necessary for health in the Body of Christ. It is a challenging paradigm to shift, but I know my way around this block enough to see and miss the potholes. (Besides, there are more than enough “brothers and sisters” out there who regularly remind me that I am completely out of the will of God and in total rebellion when I even attempt to teach men, much less teach them about leadership! )

And John, I know my way around monolithic corporations — 12 years at Hughes Aircraft Company (50,000 employees), with the last three in Human Relations (is that a corporate oxymoron?)if you can imagine that!

Does that give you enough context? It will have to do for now, I’ve gotta run.

Blessings….
len hjalmarson on February 13th, 2007 5:38 am

“The Patrix” ROTFL.. that one hit me as very funny… and a great turn of phrase

Peggy, you are a high watt bulb.. enjoyed your posts. Another take from the realm of biology would be that whenever we use power (ref Foucault) to accomplish what should have been done by weakness (ref the Cross) we destroy diversity. There is no greater threat to organic life than lack of diversity. When an organism in a biosphere lacks diversity it becomes possible to wipe it out with a very simple infection.. very nearly happened to the church. Interesting that in our day we are seeing a tremendous blaze of diversity in ekklesial life.. a wonderful dance of chaos eh?
Janet on February 13th, 2007 7:47 am

Thanks Peggy for taking time to share. I find context really helpful in understanding where someone is coming from, and helps me to put the pieces together. In “real life” conversations a person’s context is obvious: in a blog I sometimes think: “What on earth are they saying… and why? What’s the driver?”

Brilliance in one area is needed for research scientists or artists… entrepreneurs need an interest in everything in order to be highly creative. It’s a calling all of its own.
PeggyBrown on February 13th, 2007 7:57 am

Len, took me a minute to get ROTFL…I am so behind the curve… Thanks for adding to my blogcabulary!

Another part of my story has been almost 7 years of catastrophic physical injury/weakness…which was exactly the time God chose to bring me into that last ministry experience. He seemed consistently unwilling for me to function in any area of personal experience or strength (mediocre that it may have been, even!) and asked me over and over again to serve out on the edge and in complete weakness. It was quite an experience….

Another thing that will hasten the power of a simple infection to wipe out an ecosystem is an environment that is so clean as to be sterile. If an infant’s immune system is not given early and regular challenges, it will fail to develop.

Being unwilling to cope with normal childhood illnesses that offer a lifetime of immunity, we have chosen to immunize our children. As a result, their immune systems never have to mount any significant defense…only the weak (and frequently ineffective)immune responses triggered by the vaccines. (Don’t get me started here, either!)

I love it that people are now saying that children really need to do more playing in the dirt to get introduced to all those friendly microorganisms. I tell my friends that this is one of the factors as to why my children are so healthy…lots of dirt tracked into my house on a daily basis! LOL!

My mother has a wonderful saying I have come to appreciate hanging on her wall: “My house is clean enough to be healthy and dirty enough to be happy.” It is right next to the one that says: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

Perhaps I should redo that first one to say “My house is dirty enough to be healthy and clean enough to be happy.” (Hmm…that could mean rolling on the floor laughing in my home is very healthy! )

I believe that when any group refuses to submit to the work of embracing the chaos and learning and growing through it, they abort the stimulation of the spiritual immune system. They think they are doing the group a favor by saving them from the pain and suffering…when, in fact, they are robbing them of coping skills the Holy Spirit could help them develop — as well as the deepening and strengthening of the interdependent relationships that happens when a group suffers together. The results down the line are frequently more devastating the the original chaos!

So, I really resonate with your comment…love that dance of chaos
PeggyBrown on February 13th, 2007 8:13 am

Thanks for the perspective, Janet…that would help explain my art/math/graphics teacher brother, my classical pianist/neurosurgical scrub nurse sister, my choral/vocal/worship director sister, my theater/reading/English teacher sister and my vocalist/math/science teacher sister!

It would also explain why my maternal grandmother used to affectionately call me a bit of an “oddie-woddie”, I guess. She went home to Jesus at 99 1/2 years old and about five years before I really got into my “oddie-woddie” groove. The term entreprenuer had not yet trickled down to her…. LOL!
Matt Stone on February 13th, 2007 11:59 am

“In the same way that Monsanto uses its entrenched political power to genetically modify our God-created food chain”

Just an observation but Freedman Dyson has prediced a democratisation of biotech in the new few decades equivalent to the democration of infotech we experienced over the last few decades. Just as computers were once large clunky things that only major corporations could afford but now can be purchased for a few thousand, the era is comming when gene splicers and sequencers will be purchased for a few thousand by any backyard horticulturalist with a greenhouse. Chew on that.
PeggyBrown on February 13th, 2007 12:25 pm

I hate horror stories…but I believe this one without having to chew on it…

Anyone out there read Tolkien’s Silmarillion? In the Music of the Ainur there is a cycle of creative music begun by Illuvitar…then discord is brought up by Morgoth and brings confusion…which was then offset by a new theme that overcame the discord. In the end, each kind of damage Morgoth wreaked, Illuvitar turned in into something glorious that had not been imagined.

May we be among those new themes of heavenly music that God raises up to counter the discord…the organic/incarnational against the institutional church…

And while we’re at it…all the more reason to go completely organic with your food sources!

But you just might need a significant dose of digestive enzymes to go along with that mouthful…chewing alone won’t get the job done, Matt! Better yet, you can all chew on it for a while…just don’t swallow it…
len on February 15th, 2007 3:34 am

Alan, a friend wrote me yesterday with two questions, both of which are relevant to this discussion…

1. are we promoting a theology of marginization… that only at the margins is Christianity authentic?

2. related, is cultural involvement a good thing even at the political level? Should we have Christians in lobby groups, Christian politicians etc? Personally I’ve tended to shy away from this, but I wonder if this isn’t another dualism?
Tiefebene on February 15th, 2007 6:59 pm

Systemlogik des “Christentums” (2): Wie tief ist das Kaninchenloch?…

…
brad on February 16th, 2007 12:38 pm

Great questions from your friend, Len. From thinking a lot about subcultures in the past, I ponder regularly on issues of power and control and marginalization. So, these are very relevant questions.

Initial thoughts on question #1. Christians should be able to live authentic lives in most contexts, but I wonder - if we are living authentically, won’t we garner at least some resistance? Authenticity, if described as a real and obedient (though imperfect) journey toward Christlikeness, is countercultural. But being obnoxious doesn’t count as countercultural, at least in my opinion, and a lot of Christians are marginalized for being obnoxious. If we are to be at the center of a current society, or at its margins, we need to do what God requires of all disciples in all places, times, and spaces to do: real obedience with culture-challenging humility and truth. AND if we are at the center of influence, that still doesn’t give us the right to force obedience to Christianity on others because that removes the responsible use of their volition as people created in God’s image. (And that’s what I see as a major tie-in to the thread on dethroning Constantine. It wasn’t necessarily wrong/evil for Christianity to have prominence in a pluralistic society, but enforced behavior modification on all people, or acting as if state citizenship equals Kingdom citizenship does not have biblical backing except perhaps in the era of ancient Israel as a nation-state. And if you want to argue that the Church/Kingdom = Israel, then there are a whole lot of hermeneutical questions to slog through first …)

Question #2. I’m not too excited about all-Christian lobby groups, or labels where Christian is used as an adjective. I’m not sure I even like “interfaith” efforts, as if only those with religious/spiritual inclinations are welcomed/hip/with-it/relevant/whatever. (I remember the days in the 1980s when co-workers had the bumper sticker on their car: “The Moral Majority is Neither.”)

Maybe there are some concerns where a Christians-only group makes sense. But with such “bounded sets,” how does that serve to disciple anyone on the outside of the set? Yes, it broadcasts a supposedly Christian view (and everyone always overgeneralizes on everything, don’t you think, so that this or that “Christian” group’s view will be seen as attached to Christendom). But how does it serve to invite people in to wrestle with discipleship in following Jesus Christ?

If we’re led to specific social-cultural-political involvement, perhaps best to show up in a relationship that is natural to the setting: someone who lives in the neighborhood, a registered voter in the democracy, a person interested in this issue.

P.S. This ain’t just theory, but is based on reflection of a reasonable range of personal activist experiences. I went to my first “political” meeting at age 9, worked on presidential candidate campaigns in my teens and twenties, including facilitating a block of voters at a county convention at age 25 (and not doing so well at it, I’d add). I’ve been involved in non-profit agencies and social issues that drew fire from church and/or society for views that were found offensive, although they seemed to me in keeping with Christlikeness (e.g., advocating for ecological stewardship, monitoring affirmative action for women at a university, ministering to survivors of domestic violence, creating resource materials for people infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, etc.).

Maybe the larger issue for us is exploring our situations as whole-life stewardship … a God-given-gestalt, as it were. I am responsible to give an account of how I invested my natural abilities, spiritual gifts, ministry opportunities, and life experience learnings in ways that involved community with other disciples to make a difference for the Kingdom of Christ. In taking this approach, I think, as servants of Christ we find that nothing is below our dignity, when done as a spiritual discipline. But not all such activities are wise stewardship if we do them to the neglect of our spiritual calling/destiny.

If someone’s calling is for politics, or other public kinds of roles, they have to account to God for wise/unwise stewardship of their time and talents. I’m not called as a politician or public advocate, but I do political or advocacy stuff as a spiritual discipline when the opportunity arises and I am led to do so. My calling is as a cultural research, so, I need to focus overall on activities consistent with that calling …
Alan Hirsch on February 16th, 2007 3:06 pm

Sorry guys I have been absent. I have been at my Forge tribal meet. It was my wswansong…my handing over before I go to the US. It went really well. I am stoked! I love that crew! Oh yes I do!
PeggyBrown on February 17th, 2007 4:24 am

Well said, Brad. Take it to the neighborbood is the message I have received and am acting on. And, it is very counter-cultural for Christians to live with grace-filled consistent authenticity–so much resistance to true accountability and interdependence and mutual submission…all that power and control stuff!

And Alan, I saw that you were away with the Forge group. So glad it went well. We look forward to having you back in the fray.
Bob Carder on February 17th, 2007 5:12 am

I have no other argument, I have no other plea, it is to bad that Constantine has messed it up for you and me.

Who can really argue against the damage that Constantine caused and still haunts us with? Stuart Murray and Rodney Stark team up with Alan to make some very valid claims. Old Connie lies in the grave gasping breathlessly.

Who can argue with Stuart Murray and his list? I used to think Constantine was a hero, now I see him as a zero.
Alan Hirsch on February 17th, 2007 6:41 am

Nice name though!
JAMES PETTICREW on February 17th, 2007 9:25 am

so alan where are you heading to in the States?
Alan Hirsch on February 18th, 2007 3:52 pm

Start in LA then who knows. We are thinking of San Fran or Seattle. But will try and discern what and where God has for us once we are there.
JAMES PETTICREW on February 18th, 2007 7:42 pm

I was in LA this time last year hqve to say I loved it. Its a shame Alex McManus is no longer in LA. he is Erwin Mcmanus’ brother and in his way of thinking very much reminds me of you. Praying it goes well