Comments on: New Metaphors for Church

By: Peter Carino

Peter Carino — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:36:14 +0000

Paul (11): This is an important thought. The sexy thing to do is to change the externals. They quickly set us apart from the rest or make us feel connected to something new. The problem is that we run the risk of becoming whitewashed tombs ourselves. We can polish the outside and make it look attractive, etc. but be no different than what were before. I believe that we should be concerned less with the words we use (unless they are affecting our thinking) and more with our internal person.

By: Peter Carino

Peter Carino — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:31:24 +0000

Jason (6) One of the challenges we face is that when we dearly love something or someone is to hold too tightly onto it. I love the woman that I married, but after 13 years of marriage she is no longer that woman. If I were to have hung onto her to tightly and tried to prevent her growth and maturing then we would never have lasted this long, or else what we have now would be a distortion of what marriage is to be about. Jesus did not define the church, but he did give a trajectory. If we continue with the metaphor of a family or even a body, then implicit in our understanding will be the concept of growth and change. If we are merely a reactionary movement, then what happens when that which we are reacting against is no longer there? If, instead, we are a missional movement, then by definition we are in a constant mode of change and adaptation.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:44:31 +0000

Paul (13): we already do ;-)

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:02:10 +0000

Jase (7) maybe we could have:

“Organic cell groups led by disconnected dictatorial maniacs…”

as VCS new strapline??? ;)

By: Matt Wiebe

Matt Wiebe — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:31:52 +0000

I wish I could answer your questions Jason, but I’m not sure that I can. But here’s a couple of thing that could help us avoid falling into the same trap (I hope):

1) Remember that there is always some degree of foolishness to the message of the cross, no matter the cultural context. Therefore, don’t try too hard to make the gospel contextually palatable.

2) Humility, plain and simple. Realize that God is partnering with us in the furthering of the gospel and that the fate of his kingdom coming does not rest in our ability to contextualize.

As for what mistakes we’re making, I honestly have no idea. That’s the job of hindsight, usually. But I’m sure we’re making them!

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:55:23 +0000

Interesting thoughts – how much of a new metaphor is a reaction to church and how much of it is a preference for more organic sounding terms, I wonder?

It is easy to change the label on the outside “charismissional” for instance but does it change anything on the inside/practice?

Whilst I’m for exploring new terms that resonate/connect/explain what church is for/doing I’d ask who is the metaphor for really and what does it signify?

Do we have a common shared understanding of the metaphor, do we experience it, connect through it and in some way shape it and redefine it as much as by having the label itself it shapes and defines us?

Do we also no need several metaphors being used simultaneously to give us anchor points and help us live in the dramatic tension of commumities who have multiple realtities and expressions?

I think that we need leadership, hierachy etc but need a flexibility in terms of model/metaphor that needs to flex and change – what might work with 10 might not with 100 etc….

So are metaphors a hope to define what we are not, a statement of intent, or a clue to the reality of where we are…

why limit ourselves to management speak and the animal kingdom, why not throw in sci-fi as well – Jedi council/imperial senate/empire anyone…
http://www.davidwmfisher.blogspot.com/

By: Peter Aschoff

Peter Aschoff — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:43:37 +0000

In our post-inustrial information age of networks, there is no longer a clear distinction between organic and “mechanic” metaphors. I guess my question is whether these are false dichotomies again, carrying the anti-institutional bias of late-modern individualism.

And as you say, Jason, both sets of metaphors could cause considerable damage if we apply them naively to the christian community – which is a sociological phenomenon at least in its structural aspects.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:53:06 +0000

Jason– yes Geertz’s “thick description” deserves our attention, if only because I think that’s what Paul was doing in his “cultural exegesis” on Mars Hill, Acts 17! Notice how multi-faceted his observations were of Athenian culture: he looked at the public landmarks, the literature, the civil and religious customs of the place, and he fraternized with the philosophers…

… then he did the work of ‘transposing’ the gospel into that context

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:56:05 +0000

Matt Wiebe (4) A salutary reminder, thank you. How do we avoid the same problems, what new ones are we making?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:54:13 +0000

Josh (3): yet noone would suggest that Al-Qaeda has no main leader, or hierachy/pecking order. Organic cell groups led by disconnected dictatorial maniacs.

Thanks for the heads up on the book. I’d love to know more of your and Lammerts musings on this topic…maybe a post here!