Flexible Ecclessiology?
22 Sep 2005
I believe that ecclessiology is our most flexible of doctrines. In other words when it comes to the mission of the church, in making disciples, that the structures we make, the places we do church have to be formed contextually. So missionaries rather than exporting a form of church to new countries, environments, form the churches indigenously, or rather some do once they see the disasters of importing church from previous missional movements.
So for post-modern people connecting to Jesus and forming church communities, what does church look like without forcing them to do church in modern ways, with modern music, modern clothes.
Much of the emerging church movement/conversation within all denominations (and by that I mean the expression of church that is shared around the same question of how do we do church in our emerging culture and context?), is finding expression in so many new forms of church and new ecclessiolgies. If we are going to be missional we have to have flexible ecclessiologies.
But, here is the big but, I have noticed how so many of us when we change our ecclessiology due to being missional, can become instantly dogmatic about our new forms. I have in many conversations, at many events, and reading many blogs and books, been given the dogmatic advice about the correct forms of church for our emerging culture.
Lets not mistake the freedoms we find and the new ways we prefer church, as the new correct and only valid ways of doing church. We need all the old ecclessiologies, and many more new ones. A deep, broad, diverse ecclessiology, not a new and just as exclusive one.
Tagged: Church, Emerging-Church, Key-Posts, Theology
8 comments
Trackback
Comment by Marc
11.44 am on 22 Sep 2005
This is something i’ve been looking at recently. For myself Celtic Christianity has been return to an earlier form before schizm and disagreement. It is (what I consider) the first Christianity in the uk where I live.
The Catholic church missions have realised over the years that to engage in the culture where you are doing mission and bring that into the context of Jesus and church. This is wonderful way of opening peoples hearts to God.
And this is very reflective in Christian artwork, there is a Black Jesus. Chinese Jesus. and many more and maybe these are symbolic of who Jesus is – for all. In the west our blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus is only a cultural representation of our culture.Jesus after all was Jewish, olive skinned with dark hair.
A movement among the native american indians that caught my eye.
Have a look at this: firstnationsmonday.
There is also a collection of images on my blog called ‘Cultural Chirst’ – sorry Jase not trying to advertise:~)
Comment by James Petticrew
12.14 pm on 22 Sep 2005
This is interesting one of my on going seminars for my doctoral work is looking at what the constants are in the church, and how those constants have been expressed at different stages in church history. The church has always been amazingly flexible in its strutures but there has always been that tendency to fossilise the structures at one particular era. I think the era we are living in now is going to take a massive rearrangement of how we have expressed the nature of the church as we no longer face a “christianised” society but a post Christian culture created by a rejection of Christianity. One of my main worries in the UK and certainly for my own denomination is that we are still producing pastors to look after the faithful when what is needed are missionaries who can do the hard work of what you are describing.
Comment by Jason Clark
2.55 pm on 22 Sep 2005
Thanks for the links marc.
Great comments James, and we don’t need knew missionaries who are as dogmatic about ecclessiology as previous ones.
Comment by dh
3.26 pm on 22 Sep 2005
I really liked this post. You totally encouraged me in this. I too am seeing what you are talking about and I also am concerned as well. While, I too, agree in being ecclesiological. However, there are some foundational doctrines that I feel can not be compromised in our missional quest for the Gospel to preached like the Great Commission commands us. As long as Faith in Christ alone for Salvation is foundational in the message; how we do church, worship, style, forms, environments and all of the things you say are so important and are a great encouragement to the Body of Christ in making the proper context. I’m seeing a great encouragement in Emergent in the new ways of worship, style, environments and all of the things you say. I still feel the message content (not the attitude) of the modern I feel should be intact. All other things, for me as long as it doesn’t go against the Bible, are fair game.
Comment by aaron
3.58 pm on 22 Sep 2005
Well said Jason. Why are so many so-called postmodern christians adopting such a strong modern stance when it comes to models and forms? By that I mean many of us are more devensive of our models and practices then many moderns.
Comment by Randy
6.12 pm on 22 Sep 2005
Jason…I’m cool with fexible ecclessiology (FC). What’s interesting to me is the lack of “innovation” in current “flexing.”
My observation is that groups tend to abandon their own dogmatic heritage and experiment or embrace another groups heritage. So a Pentecostal/Charismatic combines components of the liturgy while a liturgical setting experiments/embraces more pentecostal constructs.
Which leads me to ask
…is innovation really necessary or helpful?
…is flexiblity a by-product of spirit led synergy?
…in our flexing is it important to have a distinction between relevant and sacred?
just asking…cause I don’t know the answers, I guess I’m flexible
Comment by brian
7.35 pm on 27 Sep 2005
great thoughts Jason. I’m dealing with the nature of this discussion where I’m at. Sometimes when the two different approaches clash it’s hard to work them out in the same context. Hard, but not impossible.
Comment by Paul
1.56 pm on 29 Sep 2005
I agree with you jase – form should follow function, context should shape content, structure will be shaped by culture…
I also like that the diversity of christian traditions also seems to being recognised as a strength with conversations and learning from each other.
It is great that new expressions are created and people are prepared to experiment and innovate but that does not make them the way but just a way which works in a given place at a given time with a given people…
Comments are now closed.