David Bosch & Churches of Christ #6: Local, Worshiping Communities
Okay, here is my conversation (with myself) about the sixth and final component of a Western missiology -- according to Bosch. Let's not forget that Bosch is advocating a missional way of thinking that no longer views mission work as something we do in faraway places. Rather, he suggests (along with many current theologians and church leaders) that we need to view our own Western world as a mission field. These 6 characteristics describe the kind of church that has a chance of connecting with our contemporary Western world. And how would a church reach a mission field without connecting to it? These 6 traits are the foundation -- not the magic bullet -- for becoming missional here in North America.
So how do Churches of Christ stack up against Bosch's vision? We'll tally the score after today's discussion. Here is the 6th component:
6. Local, worshipping communities. Bosch beautifully makes a case for a renewed focus on independent congregations as the source of mission, not denominational bodies or individual believers. He is arguing not just for autonomy but also for commitment. People have to stop seeing themselves as solo Christians and start making real commitments to worshipping communities of faith. Bosch quotes Hauerwas and Willimon from their now famous book, Resident Aliens. They said, "Christians are sitting on a gold mine called the church, but unfortunately the very categories we have been taught as Western Christians make it difficult for us to notice that it is gold."
Hm. Autonomous churches. Sounds vaguely familiar, eh? If you come from my tribe (Churches of Christ), then you are probably quite familiar with our (unwritten) church doctrine of church autonomy. We have no official ties between individual congregations. Each church is under local leaders appointed by the local church. Even full-time ministers are hired by the local church rather than appointed from outside. Truly, each congregation within our movement is theoretically independent.
I remember attempts to describe our church structure to Europeans. In my 7+ years in Prague, many people would ask me about our hierarchy or our organizational framework. They were typically mystified when I would say that we have no headquarters and that each church is free to make its own choices and choose its own leaders. "Bizarre and intriguing," they would say. "How is there any control? What do you do with a rogue church?" It was a completely foreign concept.
Many major denominations are looking for ways to give more flexibility and autonomy to their congregations. In Scotland, for example, where churches have been declining like no one's business, the Church of Scotland recognizes that its denominational structures inhibit innovation and experimentation. The rigidity of their structures prohibits a congregation from going in creative directions to reach young people or homeless people or whatever group.
Dismantling denominational structures is no easy thing, but it is happening rapidly in the US. Look at the divisions within the Episcopalian Church, among the Lutheran churches and in the PC-USA. In many instances, congregations are simply fleeing one denomination organization for another, but this points to a gradual disintegration of these denominations.
In practice, Churches of Christ were not entirely autonomous. Influential, regional leaders often kept a firm grip on church doctrine and practice through their publications. We had an amazing amount of uniformity for an "autonomous" network of congregations! Today, however, I believe that we are even closer to the ideal of local, worshiping communities than we were 30 years ago. The church where I am, for example, feels free to go in directions that will be most helpful. Once we understand our mission, I think this freedom gives us a wealth of potential for reaching people for Christ.
Unfortunately, many people are rejecting congregational life altogether. They are tired of "church politics" and have decided to just "be spiritual" instead of going to church. Instead of working within a flawed system, they are jettisoning the system completely. They have quiet time with Jesus or just do a family church at home. Our church practices of conversion and hospitality demonstrate the fragmentation of our Christian communities. Our churches are too often amalgamations of unconnected individuals rather than unified congregations that welcome one another in the name of Christ.
I respect the urges and desires that move people in this direction. But this is simply the individualism and division of the "modern era" taken to its logical conclusion. We need churches that are autonomous, but we also need Christians who commit to the Lord's work within imperfect vessels known as the church.
Obviously, Bosch would not advocate renegade churches that have no regard for the rest of Christianity. But he does see the need for decision-making to return to the individual congregation. And in this regard, Churches of Christ are ahead of the curve. We theoretically have the flexibility in place to quickly adapt to changing needs. Now, if only we can convince our own members that we are sitting on a gold mine called the church. It has great potential if we don't abandon it.
So how do Churches of Christ stack up against Bosch's vision? We'll tally the score after today's discussion. Here is the 6th component:
6. Local, worshipping communities. Bosch beautifully makes a case for a renewed focus on independent congregations as the source of mission, not denominational bodies or individual believers. He is arguing not just for autonomy but also for commitment. People have to stop seeing themselves as solo Christians and start making real commitments to worshipping communities of faith. Bosch quotes Hauerwas and Willimon from their now famous book, Resident Aliens. They said, "Christians are sitting on a gold mine called the church, but unfortunately the very categories we have been taught as Western Christians make it difficult for us to notice that it is gold."
Hm. Autonomous churches. Sounds vaguely familiar, eh? If you come from my tribe (Churches of Christ), then you are probably quite familiar with our (unwritten) church doctrine of church autonomy. We have no official ties between individual congregations. Each church is under local leaders appointed by the local church. Even full-time ministers are hired by the local church rather than appointed from outside. Truly, each congregation within our movement is theoretically independent.
I remember attempts to describe our church structure to Europeans. In my 7+ years in Prague, many people would ask me about our hierarchy or our organizational framework. They were typically mystified when I would say that we have no headquarters and that each church is free to make its own choices and choose its own leaders. "Bizarre and intriguing," they would say. "How is there any control? What do you do with a rogue church?" It was a completely foreign concept.
Many major denominations are looking for ways to give more flexibility and autonomy to their congregations. In Scotland, for example, where churches have been declining like no one's business, the Church of Scotland recognizes that its denominational structures inhibit innovation and experimentation. The rigidity of their structures prohibits a congregation from going in creative directions to reach young people or homeless people or whatever group.
Dismantling denominational structures is no easy thing, but it is happening rapidly in the US. Look at the divisions within the Episcopalian Church, among the Lutheran churches and in the PC-USA. In many instances, congregations are simply fleeing one denomination organization for another, but this points to a gradual disintegration of these denominations.
In practice, Churches of Christ were not entirely autonomous. Influential, regional leaders often kept a firm grip on church doctrine and practice through their publications. We had an amazing amount of uniformity for an "autonomous" network of congregations! Today, however, I believe that we are even closer to the ideal of local, worshiping communities than we were 30 years ago. The church where I am, for example, feels free to go in directions that will be most helpful. Once we understand our mission, I think this freedom gives us a wealth of potential for reaching people for Christ.
Unfortunately, many people are rejecting congregational life altogether. They are tired of "church politics" and have decided to just "be spiritual" instead of going to church. Instead of working within a flawed system, they are jettisoning the system completely. They have quiet time with Jesus or just do a family church at home. Our church practices of conversion and hospitality demonstrate the fragmentation of our Christian communities. Our churches are too often amalgamations of unconnected individuals rather than unified congregations that welcome one another in the name of Christ.
I respect the urges and desires that move people in this direction. But this is simply the individualism and division of the "modern era" taken to its logical conclusion. We need churches that are autonomous, but we also need Christians who commit to the Lord's work within imperfect vessels known as the church.
Obviously, Bosch would not advocate renegade churches that have no regard for the rest of Christianity. But he does see the need for decision-making to return to the individual congregation. And in this regard, Churches of Christ are ahead of the curve. We theoretically have the flexibility in place to quickly adapt to changing needs. Now, if only we can convince our own members that we are sitting on a gold mine called the church. It has great potential if we don't abandon it.
Comments