About Alan Hirsch

• Meet Alan Donate Alan's Schedule Links What Alan's reading... Archives Deb & Al's Personal Blog Contact

The Forgotten Ways

• Introduction Endorsements Training Resources

Affiliates

• Shapevine Forge Mission Training Network Christian Associates

19 Responses to “some faqs”

1. Patrick on December 23rd, 2007 9:39 am

   With the leadership question I think there should be a distinction between functional leadership and hierarchical leadership, the former leading by role and gift, the latter leading by position and appointment.

   The latter leads, I think, to issues of power and control, trying to impose a wrong conception of Christ and Trinity upon the church. With the former there are those who lead, but this leadership is never inherent, always leaving room for prophets. That’s the big thing for me. Any leadership that blocks the ability for challenge and change is blocking, in essence, the work of the Holy Spirit who is egalitarian. All are equal under Christ, all are participants in the work of the Spirit, albeit in different ways.

   Most broken forms of leadership insist on constraining this work in order to maintain control, and thus are leaders of an organization but not really leaders of the church.

2. Patrick on December 23rd, 2007 9:41 am

   I also think that fear of heresy and confusion has resulted in swinging too far the other direction, leading to calcification of the church. Jesus let people be wrong, even as he continually offered right teaching.

3. deb hirsch on December 23rd, 2007 1:44 pm

   Good comments Patrick. In too much control there is much fear.

4. martin scott on December 23rd, 2007 7:51 pm

   these set of faq’s are so helpful. the myth that ecclesiology leads to ‘the right model of church’ was well exploded. that type of theology will always kill mission. thank you.

5. Inconvenient Truth on December 23rd, 2007 10:45 pm

   Alan,

   In regards to the first generation of Christians, that directly succeeded Jesus, as you said that were into legalism, as Jesus himself was, as was hundred of years of foundation laid down since the time of Moses and the following Prophets.

   How do we reconcile that with what we see of Christians today, who have gone 180 degrees the other way, to the extent that even the direct actions and saying of Jesus himself, are used merely as a supplement to Principles, rather than the Principles, in themselves?

6. Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 24th, 2007 5:12 am

   I am perplexed by the difficulties inherent in not having a CEO/top down hierarchy, namely how to protect the vulnerable in church groups.

   Mindful here of two recent church conflicts. In one the hierarchy failing to intervene was the problem as a member (who we felt was probably on austistic spectrum) was persistently harrassed by other members. In another, someone known to be on autistic spectrum was driven out by hierarchy who couldn’t tolerate or handle her disability. So hierarchies can be the problem or the solution. But what happens without them?

7. Alan Hirsch on December 24th, 2007 8:15 am

   Eleanor, I don’t think non-hierarchical models imply lack of authority. I think real spiritual authority comes from the combination integration of life and message as well as calling. When we rely on top-down power it generally becomes coercive and lends itself to our misuse of power. history is clear about that.

   Inconvenient Truth, Bonhoeffer wrote about the notion of ‘cheap grace’ in his classic book on Discipleship. I think we have over balanced on Reformation perspectives to the neglect of demand on us as disciples.

8. Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 24th, 2007 8:25 am

   I agree, and see what you are saying, but the difficulty is when you form groups that are consensus forming in the main, but also gently looking to one or two trusted others for guidance, but the honest truth is that the ‘others’ available are not at that needed spiritual level and level of awareness and skill in understanding what is going on in a group. Often this isn’t realised until it’s too late.

   One realisation a group of us came to in living with this dilemma was that it doesn’t work if you move a group toward consensus forming decision making, unless they are also committed to working hard on their spiritual and emotional maturity and self awareness of how they are in groups. The people they are looking to really do need to be ahead of them in this area for there to be any adequate protection for victims when things go badly wrong (ie the group or a faction in it going into bullying, scapegoating etc). But I struggle with this whole question, having divided my time in the last few years between looking at church health in groups and listening to those individuals left hurt in the wake of the church.

9. Janet on December 24th, 2007 9:54 am

   Eleanor… in some ways I wonder whether part of the problem with “culturally churched” people is the passivity they have learned via involvement with institutional churches… we are trained from birth to look to the priest to solve the problem, and therefore do not need to develop the skills involved in managing groups of people ourselves. Is there a chance this work better in small gatherings of the previously “unchurched”, who have no expectation religious authority figures will solve problems for them?

   I don’t know the answer to that… but it’s an interesting question!

   Inconvenient Truth… the word “legalism” isn’t the best choice of word in relation to the first disciples. Luke wrote the double volume “Luke-Acts” to describe the life of Jesus and the life of the very early church… you can read in Luke 15 the very early break with Mosaic “legalism” for Gentile converts to Christianity http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015%20;&version=31

   There is no question however, that Jesus invited people to follow a way that involved obedience to God’s Spirit and personal sacrifice… neither “cheap grace” nor legalistic religion, but to servanthood and love.

10. Inconvenient Truth on December 24th, 2007 1:57 pm

    Good answer,

    Bonhoeffer serves to prove the point of my question, for him the epitome of “costly grace” outside of the example of the Early Christians is Martin Luther, who was running away from the Church of Rome, who were running away from all that is Jewish, however the Church of Rome has been the most authoritative definers and interpreters of Jesus and has set the standard, to extent that the current Pope boldly claimed that Protestant communities can’t be called churches because they lack apostolic succession.

    Anyway, my point, Bonhoeffer is merely using acceptable Christian semantics, to make his definition of “cheap grace” and “costly grace” more digestible to his Christian audience, for in reality if we switch “cheap grace” for FAITH and “costly grace” with WORKS, then he reads like the epistle of James. However, faith and works, sounds to Jewish despite the fact that the earliest Christians have been called Jewish Christian due to their adherence not only to Jesus but to the traditions of Law and the Prophets.

    Contemporary Christianity appears to fall short, not only to the standard of the Early Christians but Bonhoeffer’s standard, as well. The differences in both cases seem irreconcilable.

    Janet,

    I’m sorry I was using Alan’s word, when he stated,

    “In fact the early church was very prone
    to a legalism that I find very off-putting.”

    However, the disciples were Jewish as was Jesus, each familiar and compliant with the Law and the Prophets. These disciples came to be the head of the Earliest Church, to whom Paul was a subordinate and sought their judgment.

    What you are referring to is not the head of the Church, but was applicable to the Gentile converts. Even with that James said about these converts:

    Acts 15:20
    “Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

    From this we see the Jewish dietary law, marital laws, and the Sabbath being established amongst these converts as well, moving the towards Mosiac laws.

    Lastly, these distinctions that existed between to the head of Church and the Gentile converts, were expanded on by Bonhoeffer in the later Catholic sense as being one of the greatest wrongs of the church which spread “cheap grace”. Whereas the head of the Church involved with a monastery, were truly following the correct path of sacrifice thereby achieving “costly grace” which is the only way but for the masses they promoted “cheap grace”, which is basically seemed to be described as a substandard knock-off which required no sacrifice.

    Excuse for being long winded.

11. Alan Hirsch on December 24th, 2007 5:32 pm

    Hey Inconvenient Truth, When I was referring to the Early Church here, I emant more the post NT church…the Didache, etc..

12. Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 25th, 2007 3:03 am

    I don’t need a lot of convincing that the established churches have consistently sifted out over time anyone who wants to think for themselves. Whether that is a complete explanation for why around eighty per cent of believers (according to Barna)do not actively engage in mission/evangelism etc I do not know. Many people are simply ‘not that religious’ and never will be. Religious experience is a very minor part of their lives, and doubt almost outweighs belief, paralysing them in the early stages of Christian formation as they look to other yardsticks by which to determine how then to live?

    I think this lies close to the whole issue of faith and works, as those passionately concerned to find a life of holiness and integrity with their faith will be far more inclined to want to carefully search out what is right and wrong behaviour in any situation. The anti-Judaism that embedded in Christianity early on made that very difficult, leading to a lot of confusion and a tendency to encourage arguement about concepts and theology rather than practicalities and the nuts and bolts of how to deal with difficult neighbours, etc. What worries me is the way that text on Acts 15.20 is read as ‘just keep the basics and stop worrying about the details’ rather than being a comment on just the specifically Jewish aspects of Torah law. Was there an assumption that in fact we would continue to consider with great care, for example, whether or not it is a good thing to warn a neighbour that a particular grocer tends to fail to take out of date goods off his shelves. It is the attention to detail in considering how we conduct ourselves in daily life that has been lost, and in this we are encouraged to trust the Holy Spirit to plug the gaps for us. As a Jewish believer this bothers me no end. It is not about getting saved by doing right, doing right/holiness is about honouring God and caring justly and kindly for our neighbours. I am not a theologian and struggle with this, so appreciate insights.

13. brian hofmeister on December 25th, 2007 7:04 am

    Eleanor & Allan,

    I’ve experienced some of these tensions in my limited experience in house church leadership.

    Everyone was worried about heresy and lack of focus without hierarchy in place. To the contrary, I believe we found that orthodoxy/orthopraxy was achieved more readily when everyone had to take ownership of the health of the community.

    That being said, those gifted in leadership did emerge and supply a stronger level of direction. Interesting enough, the followers tended to push for hierarchy more than the leaders. It seemed that the leaders knew they could lead best in a system where people could not be distinguished strictly as a separate class of “followers.”

14. Alan Hirsch on December 25th, 2007 7:58 am

    Well said Brian. I honestly do believe we have to come to the point where we recognize that God has built into his people all that is necessary for health and vitality in Jesus. Controlling people’s thinking has not led us to maturity (the Inquisition being the prime example of coercive, top-down, controlling, ideological, leadership (if you can call it that!) God raises up teachers in the community because APEST gifting is already latent within it. If the environment is sound, then healthy churches can grow.

15. Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 26th, 2007 1:49 am

    Merry Christmas Alan, and blog commentators in dialogue here. Warmest blessings for the new year.
    Keep up the good stuff!

16. Janet on December 27th, 2007 7:06 am

    I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say Inconvenient Truth… are you suggesting following all the requirements of the Torah is necessary for Christian disciples today… or some of it… and if so which bits? I’d be interested to understand your views (and I’ve no problem with your being long-winded!) Although I’m going away for a few days so I might take a while to reply!

    Belated Christmas greetings to all… love especially to Al and Deb.

17. Alan Hirsch on December 27th, 2007 7:28 am

    Thanks everyone for being part of a great discussion here at the TFW. I’ve been going a year now and have come to love many of you. I certainly have been enriched by the conversations. Happy new year!

18. Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 28th, 2007 1:49 am

    Alan, you write : ‘I honestly do believe we have to come to the point where we recognize that God has built into his people all that is necessary for health and vitality in Jesus.’

    But from a church conflict mediation point of view I look around me and see bullying,scapegoating and every kind of low level harrassment happening to people in the church. The last two big congregational conflicts I’ve seen in the last six months both involved people with developmental disabilities being absolutely persecuted by a minority of their fellow Christians, in one case it was the leaders. We may have the all the potential we need to create health and vitality, but we don’t seem very good at doing it. I am not arguing we need a coercive hierarchy in order to protect people, I’m just saying here I have a real struggle trying to isolate what will protect the vulnerable from well meaning but sometimes deeply flawed people like you and me! :0)

    The other point that came to me at 2am in regard to a church conflict but also relevant here, is that the move to collectively held or trustee held money is surely pivotal in the transition of a Christian gathering from being non-coercively led, ie knowing there are people around they can turn to for guidance as and when they need it, and warm and trusting relationships holding it all together, to a bureaocracy forming and institutional life beginning. Once someone or a group are responsible for funds, it all gets potentially heavy.

    Maybe economics is a much bigger factor in creating the conditions for a rapidly growing and adaptable church than I’d figured. Thoughts welcomed.

19. Tim C on January 3rd, 2008 8:18 am

    That whole discussion about church leadership and the first century models in the New Testament is a very interesting one indeed. I think you are right when you say that the elder model is not universal. I just got done reading H. Von Campenhausens book Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power. He does a great job of pointing to the fact that there was no one model of leadership in the NT church. The synagogue, patriarchy, and older men who enjoyed a status of dignity and honor in their village, to name a few, were absorbed and adapted for leadrship needs in the first and second century. It really gets interesting though around the end of the first century when the battles over heresy begin to take on a central focus of the churches activity. It is these very battles over doctirnal issues that crystalized the leadership structures of the chruch into an environemtn potent for hierarchy. In fact, I would say two of the primary reasons for the emergence of a hierarchal system in the late first century to the ealry second is a combination of primarily three factors. 1. a concern for guarding the apostolic tradition 2. the fleshly desire to rule over other people and have the preeminence and 3. the routinization of charisma. Ifyou think about it, all htree of these exist today, with one significant added feature….buildings!

Leave a Reply