The Bible and communitas
This claim that communitas and liminality are normative for God’s people recently stirred up a bit of a storm in a recent speaking tour. Some people in the audience responded with real vehemence when Michael Frost and I proposed this way of understanding of Christian community. This negative response forced a deep reflection on the validity of these ideas but after much searching I have to say that I have not fundamentally changed my mind. On the contrary, this clash in conceptions in relation to the purpose of the church has forced me to conclude that for many of our critics, Christian community has become little more than a quiet and reflective soul-space (as in Alt Worship circles) or a spiritual buzz (as in Charismatic circles) for people trying to recuperate from an overly busy, consumerist, lifestyle. But is this really what the church is meant to be on about? Is this our grand purpose, to be a sort of refuge for recovering work addicts and experience junkies? A sort of spiritual hospital? I believe that the reason for the strong response in our critics is that they actually did ‘get the message’ about missional church but didn’t like it because, in this case, it called them out of a religion of quiet moments in quiet places and into liminality and engagement.
But the primary reason for not changing my mind is not because I simply disagree about their sense of the purpose of God’s people (I do) but rather because I have come to believe that communitas is thoroughly biblical and is inextricably linked to Apostolic Genius (the latent potency that energizes world-changing Jesus movements). When we survey Scripture with liminality and communitas in mind we must conclude that the theologically most fertile sections where in those times of extremity, when people were well out of their comfort zones. The main clusters of revelation seem to come in times of liminality (e.g. Patriarchs, the Torah, the Prophets, Jesus, Paul, John, etc.) and most of the miracles in the Bible are recorded in situations of liminality. (e.g. Exodus, Exile, the Gospels, and Acts) And when we consider the stories that have inspired the people of God throughout the ages and we find that they are stories involving adventures of the spirit in the context of challenge. In fact that is exactly why they inspire (e.g. Heb.11.)
Take Abram for instance, who with his entire extended family (estimated to be about 70 people and their belongings), is called by God to leave house and home and all that is familiar to undertake a very risky journey to a land that at that stage remained a mere promise by an invisible God. And when we look at the various experiences they have along the way, stories that have shaped all subsequent faith (e.g. the offering of Isaac), they are not safe little bedtime stories. Rather they call us to a dangerous form of faithfulness that echoes the faithfulness of Abraham (Gal.3:15ff, Heb.11:9-13.) Or when we explore the profoundly liminal Exodus experience we find that this very tricky journey indelibly shaped the people of God, and continues to do so to this very day. It was also the context of the substantial revelation of God in his covenant with his people. The same can be said of the exile into Babylon many centuries later—this was an extreme situation which changed the whole way Israel related to her God, and still does. The prophets spoke the Word of God into such contexts of extremity. And the fact it was precisely when the people of God settled down and ‘forgot YHWH’ (Dt.4:23-31) that they had be spiritually disturbed once again by the prophets. To awaken the people to their lost calling, the Prophets recalled the dangerous memories about fires on the mountain and pursuing armies and a God who lovingly redeems a people to Himself and enters into a sacred and eternal covenant with them. This sounds pretty liminal to me.
Consider the lives and ministries of Samuel, Elijah, Samson, David and his band, and ask what conditions they encountered and we come up with the consistent themes of liminality and communitas. And when we come to the New Testament we need to look only to the life of Jesus, who had nowhere to rest or lay his head, and who discipled his followers on-the-road in the real dangerous conditions of a occupied land and against a hostile and dodgy religious elite. So much so, that discipleship ala Jesus looks awfully like those risky initiation rites that the African kids have to go through. It was both costly (‘deny yourself and follow Me’) and dangerous (‘if they hated me, they will hate you too’) but it came with the territory of discipleship. But to find these themes in abundance, look at the life of Paul. He describes it pretty vividly for us in 2 Corinthians. Whippings, beatings, imprisonment, and shipwrecks can hardly be called ‘safe, secure, comfortable and convenient’ and yet through these experiences he and his apostolic band totally realign the course of history around the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Acts is so brimful with communitas and liminality that it reads like a rollicking adventure story.
And the point of all this is that these are prescriptive descriptions for the church because it seems that liminality and communitas are normative for the pilgrim people of God in the Bible and in the Jesus movements of history. It is so deeply ‘there’ that I am simply at a loss to explain how we lost this perspective. I have come to the conclusion that the clash of images of the church experienced in the recent ministry trip just serves to highlight how far we have moved from the biblical imagination and experience of Church.
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The main thing in this chapter that I react negatively to is the Masai initiation custom. Imo that’s not loving. But it’s a good example of the point.
“Is this our grand purpose, to be a sort of refuge for recovering work addicts and experience junkies? A sort of spiritual hospital?”
It’s not our main thing, but I remember Someone talking about sick people needing a doctor
The history of God’s people is exciting. I read Acts and I want to be there. I want the church to be like that, although I’m not keen on persecution. I don’t think we should make our life more perilous just for the heck of it, just stay faithful to God wherever he takes us.
Though maybe following Jesus in the ways described earlier in the book may get us into a more liminal state.
Early this year I moved from a comfortable family home and middle-class missional church to a different home & church, and this year has felt like an adventure, I’ve felt less in control, more connected to my fellow workers, etc, so this is ringing true for me.
Alan, I have to say that I so strongly agree–especially about the fact that the church has lost this sense so strongly it seems almost counter-cultural to remind the church that it is, um, counter-cultural….
Having just finished reading Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet, I am reminded that the Bible is God’s Story, told in different ways for different times … but it is the same story: covenant communitas — where the covenant-of-faith (one in Christ) tribe walks in faithful covenant-keeping (hesed) with each other, following the One-in-Three God into all the world, reconciling people and cultures to to God and to each other.
This story is not one we listen to blithely, but rather live dangerously. Trusting is dangerous work because there is always the risk of betrayal and disappointment. But we do not have the option open to us to walk another path and still say we are following The Way of Jesus.
Shalom, brother. Glad to be on the path with you.
Al, et. al.
If a majority of the western church has created this problem but there are those in the church who have held onto ritual process (primarily, though not limited to, non-Western churches, indigenous followers of Jesus, the Roman Catholic church, eastern orthodox church, etc.), how are missional churches creating relationships with these followers of Jesus in order to be discipled back into a firm understanding of liminality and communitas? And, if there is no partnership, are Western missional churches attempting to re-create the ritual process wheel?
Peace.
Dan
Dan, good question. But my take on the ritual process in Rc circles is hardly liminal and communitas. Its largely a indoctrination. I might be wrong here, and I can be persuaded otherwise. Give it a go!
Al,
My primary concern isn’t necessarily with the RC; I would agree with you, more or less, on the indoctrination issue. However, the rituals that do exist might be best utilized if renewed. Renewal of ritual. My wife is the anthropological brains of the family, and her take is that rituals that exist within the church are in need of renewal. Our primary take, though, is more involvement with indigenous followers of Jesus and how their voice speaks to the Western church. It is our feeling that partnerships (and even, hopefully, communitas) with these fellow followers of Jesus will help those of us who have lost an idea of liminality and communitas better live into both.
So, ritual renewal. What thinks you?
Peace all.
Dan
Forgot this one…second question:
Partnerships/Communitas with Indigenous church leaders/followers of Jesus around the world? What think you all?
Peace.
Dan
I agree that there’s something about stress and suffering and adventure that can bring out faith at it’s best… at its purest, most growthful, most authentic, most community-building best. And the scriptures tell endless “liminal” stories… stories of sacrifice and risk. If you’re not willing to risk and suffer, I have trouble seeing you are a follower of Jesus.
But note I said… “willing”. I know many beautiful, faithful Christians whose lives don’t involve unending suffering… more joy than tears in fact… but I still believe they are faithful followers.
It seems to me we are followers of Jesus… and it’s easy to forget the first 30 years or so of Jesus’ life were so unremarkable we know virtually nothing about them. He probably got up each day, worked as a carpenter with his hands, rested on the Sabbath, ate meals with his family… the terribly mundane, day-to-day, simple things that the Jewish men of his time would do.
And he was perfectly faithful to his Father… though some zealots might judge his twenties were “wasted” sawing and filing away in the carpenters shop. I don’t think so… it was his calling for a season. He obeyed the will of His Father perfectly.
So I’m wary of judging others… I think it is perfectly possible to be a faithful carpenter, or accountant, or teacher. We can test our own hearts, and test whether we are faithfully following… but it’s dangerous ground to judge the calling of others.
One of my hobbies(?) is digging in to the “vocation” question with others. And more often than not, it strikes me that our God-given callings very often involve doing things we love, things we are good at, things that are fruitful in the lives of others, things that make a difference, things that make us come alive… not things we hate and are bad at.
So I’m a little nervous of “hairshirt legalism”… following Jesus will always involve little deaths to self, but some are called to be faithful through terrible suffering… others are called to be faithful in the day to day mundane stuff of life… others are called to be faithful in the midst of work they absolutely love. I have no idea why God treats us all so differently… but it seems that he does.
As to your last comment Dan… modern communications (think internet etc.) have made this so much easier than the days of pen and ink and sailing ships! Our church has a partnership with a village church in a third world country, supporting a feeding program there. A number of people from the church have the “liminal” experience of short term mission trips / work parties there… it is perspective-shifting stuff.
I am wondering if an historically entrenched committment to structuralism might partially explain the resistance to the idea of communitas?
People often feel safe, comfortable and in control with the things (hierarchical forms, systems etc) they grew up with.
There is an element of the `chaotic’ - which actually often precedes the creative & changes to status quos - so many people (and I suspect especially religious `systematized’ humans) feel threatened by for a variety of reasons (eg. fears about loss of status positioning or identity due to changes, fears that important beliefs they hold dear will become eroded etc).
Fear of anti-structural and chaotic forces - the new and the unknown - fear of anarchy (a very reasonable fear in some cases) cause people to resist change and opt for the known over the unknown.
I have been a pastor in a mainline church for the past 8 years. Three years ago we have decided to go fully missional.
None of our starting leadership team had the guts to go forward with this. We had to change our worship services, we had to give our bulldings away, we had to undergo a transition in a congregation existing of 5 generations of people.
The smelly homeless and the poor started to come to the services. Some even brought there tick obsessed dogs with them and people just walked out. We invited NGO’s to open their drug rehab groups in our ancient church building. It escalated into a lot of conflict between staff and newcomers: Can they paint the room with a color they wish for? No, you can’t, it has to go through our missional minded board.
We decided to renew our terrain facilities to a place where families can connect. Soon the environmental society gave us a hard time and warned with lawsuits should we change anything without their authority. (The church is actually build on a 1930 stone foundation)
After 8 years of going missional, I am very exhausted and burned-out, mainly because of this liminal phase of change where the ministry of reconciliation has become a full time job to me. I have to manage people more than I did before we went missional. I have to train leaders twice as hard for missional small groups as I did before.
I am fed up. Missional my ass. It is still a system. Wether we start a church among the surfers or the hippies or whatever: you will spend ours of time into staff quarrels, cultural differences, setting up worship, whatever. People are still human beings and not missional beings. They have emotions they like to hide and defend.
In short: I have missed the following in the Missional journey:
* A personal friendship with Father, Son and Spirit. These are not just words to describe Christianity, but the very way he has called us to live.
* Healthy relationships with other believers. Many today think fellowship is nothing more than attending the same service together, when it is meant to be so much more. We help traditional churches, home groups and and house churches discover how to relate to one another in his love and allows the ministry of Jesus to flow between them.
* Friendships with people in the world, so that as God displays his character through us they might come to know the love of God for themselves.
For that to happen we spend a lot of time helping people understand the freedom that Father has given us through the work of his Son, Jesus. Only as we live in his love and freedom can we even begin to experience the power of life in Christ as he brought it to us.
My main objective for 2009 is to enjoy a scuba diving course and start conversations that matter with whoever.
Dan, could you clarify what you mean by “indigenous”? If you mean “first nations” or “aboriginal” peoples, I definitely have some insight into several key issues on that subject because I have “walked” and “am still walking” with Christians involved with them on local and international levels. If you mean something else, could you explain that a bit more, because I would still probably like to respond to your questions involving rituals/liminality/communitas etc
Lucy,
To clarify, I did mean First Nations and Aboriginal people groups. I struggle a little bit with the missional conversation utilizing indigenous as a term for folks other than First Nations people, though I understand that “indigenous” people never called themselves that anyway. It’s just a Western anthropological term; I figure in that context, it’s alright for Western missional folks to use words that came from their own culture.
Peace.
Dan
I think there are several things Alan points out that are true. We do find liminality in many times in Scripture. The Book of Acts is filled with these moments. We also find it historically during certain worldview change points. What is interesting to see, is that during such historical times (The First Great Awakening and Methodism 1725-1750, The Second Great Awakening 1800-1850 Charles Finney and others, 1950-present hopefully missional church) we see a proliferation of sectarian movements and a definite “revival” movement in Evangelical life. Life comes undone and there is greater seeking of communitas. Some estimates say there may have been 3000 religious or secular “communal groups” during the early 19th century.
I believe attitudes towards communitas do have to do with how much we have depended upon the mechanistic mindset of the Enlightenment. It is disturbing to be out “on the edge of chaos.” Surfing there, almost always falling off, is the key question for the future. It is easier to sit on the comfortable fitness peak than move to the edge.
I personally believe that ritual or symbol renewal without a reinterpreted story will end as sycretism.
Thanks, Dan, my replies are a bit slow at the present time due to work and computer factors, sorry. I might tackle this “indigenous thing” in instalments. Other people interested in this thread are sure to add some practical insights from their experience which would be great because I am VERY interested in learning more. I have no idea of you and your wife’s context in mentioning work with indigenous peoples, so please forgive my ignorance and enlighten me a little.
Meanwhile, I’ll begin by saying that, I like the way Alan has given us the information from the Turner study on ritual processes and woven it into his picture of Communitas and how it relates to Apostolic Genius and the Church’s inherent disposition to be missional. However, aside from the reference to that anthropological study, I haven’t seen much gutsy writing in regard to anything approximating “partnering with Indigenous church leaders/followers of Jesus” or met many people who are specifically doing that at any Forge events I have attended here in Australia over the past couple of years, aside from the notable exception of John Smith and his ministry colleagues at St Martins in Melbourne. Please understand, I am not casting condemnation, I am just making an observation from my experience, and I have never had the impression that there is resistance or apathy regarding this subject, just more of an unawareness and huge potential for development.
If we understand that the church was designed and called to be missional from the beginning, we could call that an “Aboriginal” aspect of the church because Aboriginal is from the Latin ab origine, meaning “from the beginning”!!! LOL. I recently found a great quote about the term “indigenous” by a Native American author, Dr Gregory Cajeta Tewa: “The very word ‘indigenous’ is derived from the Latin roots indu or endo, which are related to the Greek root endina, which means entrails. Indigenous means being so completely identified with a place that you reflect its very entrails, its insides, its soul.” Indigenous/aboriginal peoples have a profound connection with “place”. For example, the natives to the Sydney area are called the Eora nation, and Eora means “this place”. They were people of “this place”, people from “here”.
Perhaps through genuine connection and interaction with First Nations people and through renewal in the area of ritual practice, the Church might experience restoration of her soul? The soul, I identify with mind, will and emotions, and I do think that the church, if I may identify her as having body, soul and spirit, does indeed need restoration of health in soul to enable our missional being and doing to be more authentic and wholesome in its impact. Here, I would like to clarify that I am not encouraging or condoning any kind of compromise with shamanism/idolatry which is clearly contrary to dedicated worship and following of the true God. However, there is much in indigenous/aboriginal spirituality which has something to offer to contemporary followers of Jesus Christ. For examples: interdisciplinary, holistic and experiential education, deep appreciation of nature, social and community-based experience, and a sense of “sacred life journey” for the individual. I’ll leave it there for this instalment.
Lucy J
“My main objective for 2009 is to enjoy a scuba diving course and start conversations that matter with whoever.”
Now Gerald… that sounds awfully missional/organic to me!
You’ve gotten involved in what is probably the toughest gig in the West to pull off… realignment of an institutional church with a long history. Of course it is “still an institution”! I remember a number of years ago Alan going on a rant to me: “I don’t know why we bother with revitalisation of existing churches… in my experience, it hardly ever works” (He was director of mission and revitalisation at this stage in our denomination). It takes a phenomenal kind of skill-set to pull this off… no wonder you’re exhausted!
Our own church attempts to do things in parallel, rather than changing the status quo… ie an afternoon church service for and run by people with mental illness and addiction issues. There are various groups that run during the week (eg a study group run with non-church mums in a local school, etc.) We have the paradigm of the strawberry patch… plants may start through connections with the parent plant via runners, but may well develop an independent life of their own. It’s about seeding self-producing groups for the kingdom, not about building the centre alone.
Another church in Melbourne is intentionally “multi-congregational”… multiple groups in multiple sites over various days of the week… in order to connect with diverse “people groups”. It’s also a hybrid of “institutional” and “organic/missional”.
There are more “pure” housechurch organic movements in the West, but they tend to fly under the radar.
Anyway… blessings on you… I hope you find refreshment for your soul while under the sea with God’s aquatic creations!
Lucy,
Thanks for your thoughts on indigenous and aborigine. Those are interesting things to consider.
In regard to First Nations/Aboriginal partnerships with the Church, there are obviously many layers to consider. One of those points, you brought up in regard to rejection, apathy, and unawareness. I’m not sure that I entirely agree with you; in my experience, “ignoring” would be the word that I would place here. Also, when awareness is raised, I think the kick back to paternalism raises its ugly head. Being people of place, it’s quite ironic that the Western church has offered so little place for the voices of First Nations/Aboriginal theologians working in areas of contextuality, who sincerely desire to work with the Western church. A dear friend of mine, Randy Woodley, a Keetoowah Cherokee working in areas of contextuality and racial reconciliation, always tells us that the most difficult people to get to the table are white western folks. Keeping them at the table, when they come, is doubly difficult. One of my concerns regarding the “missional movement” is that it is so very Western church focused. Though that term may be broad in definition, I think defining such focus creates (or has a devastating potential to create) a tunnel vision that disallows us to see such people as First Nations/Aboriginals groups.
When discussing the renewal of the Church’s soul, I think that we have to point to worldview transformation. Out of what worldview are we defining what the Church is? In my guess-timation, when we discuss the renewal of the Western church, or the Western church’s return to a missional call/mindset/model/choose your word, is that we are working within a Western worldview, which, at its roots, is dualistic. (I’m not an expert on this [yet...LOL...]. A traditional Native worldview is holistic. Now, both a Western and Native worldview are both effected by the Fall, so both have their tendencies toward idolatry; therefore, (and if this is obvious, forgive me), we must seek to have a biblically informed worldview (I don’t believe in a biblical worldview). However, if I understand it correctly, a Western perspective of religion places what a person does in church on any given Sunday in a compartmentalized place in their life. Native spirituality, though, is not compartmentalized. Native spirituality is all of life. “The Western notion of religion then is very much a phenomenological one separating the world into the dualisms of mind and matter, material and spirit; whereas, Native spirituality focuses on integrating what is observed with what is experienced” (from Re-Thinking Christian Spirituality: A Better Foundation for Mission by Terry LeBlanc).
The First Nations/Aboriginal followers of Jesus who are the movers and shakers (so to speak) within the realm of contextualization are primarily of mixed ancestry; therefore, they move from within a bi-cultural framework, giving them more of an edge when it comes to discussing the renewal of the Church, though I’m not sure that they would use the term renewal. And, I don’t mean to be rude, and like you, I don’t want to be condemning, but if the leaders (and others) in the missional conversation aren’t aware; and therefore, I would assume (forgive me if I’m wrong) uninformed by these voices, then someone is acting the part of the ostrich; somebody’s head is in the sand. Whether in New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, North America, and various other places, there are voices within each context speaking very clearly in regard to Native/First Nations/Aboriginal contextualization, which offers help to a Western church in “regaining a full expression of the spirituality with which they have been created” (Ibid).
This is probably already too long, so I’ll stop here with a two part question. In discussions regarding the Western missional context, for what part of the Church are we interested in returning to a missional way of being the church? And, if the missional movement is for the Western church (”church in the West”), are we “focused on the spirituality of the Western Christian church as the default arbiter of acceptable Christian faith and worship?” (Ibid).
Peace.
Dan
I’ll be getting back to you, Dan. Just need a bit more time to “chew” on it. Meanwhile, I’d like to join Janet in trusting that Gerald, you will find refreshment and peace in your pursuits next year. Sounds like you hit some tough strongholds during your missional endeavours over the past few years. It’s often the case that it is difficult to see the “fruits” of such enterprises for the Kingdom’s sake straight away. Once we’ve done our best, it’s up to God to do the rest…