The church as self-referential
Ok, I was going to talk about something else, but Josh's comment made me think about what we talked about in my class. I'm going to write some stuff that is basically how I remember our class going, but it may be a little sketchy, so force me to be clear on the parts that don't make sense!Comblin's argument (as I remember it) about the church being self-referential is essentially that through the years we have developed the practice of reading the Bible in terms of what the church should do instead of what God actually did. We read something and immediately think that it is a one-to-one instruction for the church.
The thesis advanced in my class, however, was that it is wrong for us to read the bible and think only of the "church" (especially in its current institutional form). In the grand scheme of things, the church is at the very best third on the ladder of importance.
First is the Reign of God. God either rules or intends to rule every bit of this universe. I live in Los Angeles, and there are parts of this town where you can plainly state that God is not in control here. My Old Testament professor offers the picture that instead of dancing around theories to say that God is actually in control and just allowing or causing horrible things to happen, it is perhaps better to say that it is God's intention to rule in every situation and we get to participate in that. More on this later, but because we trust God, we trust that it is his intention to make all things right and to reign over this existence entirely.
Second is the Missio Dei, the mission of God. This is illustrated in Comblin's idea that Jesus is totally the One Being Sent. It starts in Abraham being called by God and continues on. It is perfected in Jesus and we can look to the incarnation as our model of being in this world. God is working and is sending his people to join in this work.
Third is the church. The church in this way is a group of people who trust in the reign of God and who band themselves together to follow his mission in a particular place. Instead of seeing the church first, they are caught up in God and the fact that he is active and working today. The church isn't the end in itself, it's the group of people enamored with his mission. My professor put it thus, "It is to participate with God in the healing and redemption of the world by joining a community." The church follows Jesus, who is being sent, hearing the Word, in the world.
So, personally, we need to hear things over and over again (at least Josh and I do). But if we read the Bible as a church only as "what the church is supposed to do" we get in trouble. We miss the fact that it's a story and limit the Bible's ability to speak to us. We narrow it down until it is simply a manual of instruction and it is nowhere near "living and active" or "sharper than a double-edged sword". We decide that our interpretation of what it said on a certain matter is the closing of the case. Now, I'm only talking about the church reading about what the church should do, not about larger morality issues (yet).
If we keep reading the Bible with a church-first rather than a Reign of God-first mentality, we will always get the instution that we have today. If we read it in a way that looks to what God has done and allow it to encourage us toward what he is doing today, we form a community to participate in this work. We sometimes instutionalize in order to better serve his mission, but we don't serve the institution. If something new is needed, we change to fit where God is going.
Brian McClaren showed a picture of this bridge in the Philippines (I believe) built by the Japanese during WWII. As you would imagine this bridge is still intact today, built to last. A few years ago, horrible flooding and rain hit the area. When it subsided, the river the bridge crossed had moved around the bridge. The bridge is still there, and will be there for a long time still. The problem is that it no longer serves the purpose it was built for. McClaren sees the great cathedrals in Europe in a similar way. They are there still, but the culture has moved away from them. They are testaments to great engineering and what once was, but are no longer useful for their intended purpose.
If we chain ourselves to the institutionalization of what God is doing, we will always lag behind. God is always at work, always "doing a new thing". We've got to organize as a community around what he is doing, not around preserving what we already have. To refuse that God may be doing something "outside" is the way in which we deafen ourselves to the Word.
posted by Wayj @ 6:43 PM
7 Comments:
okay, i think i follow what you are saying, but can you comment on some tangible issues. what about woman's role in church. homosexuality. aids. are these examples of where the church is meeting the churches need above the reign of God?
i have an idea of where you might go with these, but to clarify i will not speculate and wait for a response.
This is from Drew Causey:
Hey buddy—I’ve been trying to post on your site, but with no success, so here’s what I wrote:
On Rob Turner's blog, he has a transcript of an interview with Eugene Peterson done in Christianity Today (i think). Here's an interesting quote from it in light of this discussion:
"Frederick von Hugel said the institution of the church is like the bark on the tree. There's no life in the bark. It's dead wood. But it protects the life of the tree within. And the tree grows and grows and grows and grows. If you take the bark off, it's prone to disease, dehydration, death.
So, yes, the church is dead but it protects something alive. And when you try to have a church without bark, it doesn't last long. It disappears, gets sick, and it's prone to all kinds of disease, heresy, and narcissism."
What do you think? In light of this discussion, how necessary is the institutional church to the life of the church? If the church functions in this "third rung" position (meaning they are about seeing the reign of God and function missionally), how much "institution" is needed, if any at all?
Thomas,
Well that is why I put that little caveat of just talking institutionally, but I think you are right. I think a different mindset comes when you as a community have a mission versus when the community is only inwardly focused. If we have a job to get done, we look at who God has placed in our midst and let them lead. If we have an institution to run, we make choices based on maintaining power and control, like any business.
It may be a function of living in California, but I really see the squeezing of women out of ministry as a thing done by the Roman church in the 4th and 5th centuries when they became prominent in the community and adopted a more roman system. (Parishes, etc. are Roman designations.) I think we'll definitely talk more about that later, but I think the essence of it is that of doing things out of love versus doing things out of power and control. What do you think?
Drew,
I certainly won't take to arguing with Eugene Peterson, but I certainly don't think the church is dead. I'm also a little wary of the word "protecting". I think there is a need of the church to build up its believers, but if its the gospel we're protecting, who are we protecting it from? I don't think it's ours to protect but ours to share.
As far as the need (or lack thereof) for an institution, I think we'll always need some sort of organization, but that it should be fluid. I'd contrast Len Sweet's Aqua Church, where the picture is this little boat (the church) tossed about by the sea with Pete Ward's Liquid Church, where the structure is fluid enough to dive right into the culture.
I think the community will always take a shape, it's important to distinguish what determines the shape. The Church of England (of all people) are focusing on the ways they can engage the culture better. Church attendance in the UK is around 10%, and most of that is African immigrants in the country. The fruit of their efforts is a book called Mission-Shaped Church: Church Planting and Fresh Expressions of Church in a Changing Context. I think they are on to something. There needs to be a shape, but the mission determines it. The incarnational community looks for ways to serve and be the prophetic voice to the world, not to secure its place among the great institutions of the world.
i don't really remember where i was going with my comments on those topics to discuss, but i see the church institution missing the point, like "the Jews" in the book of John. if the church structure is ever about power and control, then it has missed the reign of God idea completely. i think we tend to be afraid of what we can't control and the church is a product of this. we feel a need to place control, limits, excessive morality codes on the church's parts and on the missional method of reaching out. we are to afraid that the mission God has is going to destroy our comfort and position as important to a structure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think you've hit the nail on the head! One of the things my professor (Dr. Shenk) is big on is the fact that the church especially in America sees itself as the chaplain to the nation. We are here to take care of those in need. In fact, we are to be the prophets to the nations, not their caretakers.
There are the priestly and the prophetic roles in the OT and there is no question that Jesus is bringing about a preference for the prophetic role. Priests are necessary, but they have in mind keeping the status quo. Prophets come in and tell us that we have strayed or we need to move in this direction.
The church today prefers the priestly model, but the problem with this model is that it is the one that crucified Jesus. As long as we refuse to hear the prophetic voice in our midst, our institutions will work to kill anything new that crops up. Priests are there to take care, to shepherd, but when priests are elevated to too high a place, they will always work to maintain the power. Not in a bad way (in their minds), but in a way that "protects" people from evil outside influences.
Post a Comment
<< Home