(e)mergent Voyageurs

A friend recently invited to sit in on a gathering in July made of up of theologians (profs & students) and young adults (which I assume I fall under) to explore a trend they are seeing emerge.  Many students, once leaving academy and entering into church ministry seem to stop thinking theologically, falling into business models of church structure and leadership.  This gathering is (in part) to explore why this happens and what can be done about it.

I still have a great deal of thinking to do on this topic, but many reasons immediately jump to mind.  I believe that the nature of academy, rooted largely in propositional and inductive approaches to education, provide little modelling of organizational formation.  Two qualifiers here: first, propositional and inductive educational methods are not inherently bad, but limiting and problematic as over-arching approaches.  Second, while academy general does a poor job modelling healthy organizational formation, it does teach a great deal on the ideas and theories of such formation.  However, I think we forget how powerful the methods and models of our education play in shaping our wordlview and resultant expressions of organization.

Another factor in this is that the business model is not only a predominant one within the larger Western culture, which is bound to have a significant influence, but a vast portion of church expressions have also adopted such models.  Church politics and long-standing models are not easily changed.  The bottom line is a still a significant factor for many congregations.  To expect students to function outside of this influence without an intentional effort to change the system for/with them is probably too much to ask.

Perhaps the largest influencer in this, and thus one of the more difficult to grapple with, is the worlview that guides most Western Christians.  For centuries the church has allowed secular modernism to redefine ecclesiology.  Even the perceived separation between ecclesiology and missiology represents a flawed understanding of what the Church is.  More recently, the impact of the Industrial Revolution has resulted in a significantly mechanistic worldview when considering organizational formation and development.  While this may sound innocuous enough, the implications are devastating to how we view relationships with people in those structures, especially in respect to the nature of Body of Christ.

Finally, I also want to point out that there are aspects where the business world has a great deal of wisdom to offer the Church.  Recent developments in organizational development are profoundly spiritual, reflecting ecclesiological truths that we would do well to heed.  We cannot allow these models to be our primary (or default) source of formation, but neither should we demonize them.

What do you think?  What are some of the factors that contribute to this problem and what can be done to correct it?

Previous Post – What Is Organic Missionality?

In a recent (and enjoyable) discussion at Subversive Influence, I found myself articulating and defending my resonance with the theological concept of theosis. For those who are not familiar with the term/idea, check out Wikipedia’s entry here. It will introduce the concept, though not as helpfully as I think it could.

Now admitting this is loaded with complications, as there are many variations in theosis- Orthodox, Catholic and even Protestant, to name a few. So when I say I believe in or find resonance with the idea, it could inspire all kinds of assumptions as to what that actually means. All this to say, unless I say something explicitly, don’t assume that I hold to any of the possible variations. For example, I do not believe that we become divine beings by nature, as God is One.

However, I truly believe that when Scripture refers to the Church as the Body of Christ, this is more than just metaphor. Culminating in the Eucharist, I believe that the Church reflects the paradoxical reality of being and becoming that Body. The Resurrected nature of Christ’s Body- though more than a mere bodily rescusitation- through Pentecost, is still incarnate. As die to self to be Resurrected into that Body. Obviously this medium does not allow a thorough exploration of the ideas.

What do you think? When we read “Body of Christ” in Scripture, do you believe it to be a metaphor or something actual or something else? Anyone ready to burn me at the stake?

A great deal of discussion on the blogosphere these days has been about ecclesiology. This is such a crucial topic, as I believe that the emerging missional movement is define more by its ecclesiology than by its theology. Recently, my friend Len sent out a question to several people about the interplay or relationship between ecclesiology and missiology (the first reply is posted on his blog here). While I am not confident about the hasty answer I sent his way, it has had me thinking a great deal.

As many people talk about the ecclesiology of the emerging missional church they make the common mistake of over simplifying it down to “how we do church”. While there are elements of that in ecclesiology, it robs it of its deeper meaning and purpose. I began to wonder if the Church is the medium for the Message- that is, as Christ embodied the Truth and we are His Body, then our very embodiment as the Church is defined by the nature of Christ (Christology) and His ultimate purpose (missiology).  In that respect, the medium is the Message, at least on one level.

When I consider ecclesiology in respect to missiology and Christology I begin to see how intrinsically these three elements are tied together. I am not sure if we can say that one precedes the others without robbing them of their complex interconnections, though it can be helpful in understanding how we are shaped together. Therefore, as I seek to understand what it means to be the Church, I look first to God, first as Trinity, then specifically to Christ and His Lordship. Out of this it seems to me that the Missio Dei is vitally central to God’s nature, shaping my own missional emphasis, both as an individual and as a member of the Body. It is out of this that my ecclesiology is formed.

Do you think it is right to see the Church as the medium for the Message? How does your ecclesiology find formation? Be sure to head over to Len’s site and interact there too.

P.S. Check out the new addition to my sidebar- a fully editted “Exploring The Community Coming To Be Known As Missional” in PDF format. Check it out.

Emerging Church, Missional