We have been conversing on this blog for weeks about Alan Hirsch's fine book, The Forgotten Ways. Today's topic for conversation is his 5th element of apostolic genius or "missional DNA" (mDNA). As with previous chapters, I think this chp will generate a healthy and needed conversation about what makes a missional movement tick. I begin with reminding us of what the first four elements are:
1. Jesus as Lord.
2. Disciple-making focus.
3. A missional-incarnational impulse, and
4. Developing an apostolic kind of leadership environment.
Today's topic: #5: Creating an organic system instead of an institutional system. This book is deeply suspicious of the problem of institutions; the emerging movement shares this suspicion. The book believes in the sufficiency of local churches, small groups, to get the job done -- to let the mDNA do its gospel work. It's about networks, not institutionalizing structures that maintain what has happened or try to manufacture what the Spirit generates without the system.
Hirsch has gathered way too much into this chapter -- there are lists for all kinds of images of how an organic system works (there is some humor to this, surely not lost on Hirsch: he's got a highly-efficient and organized set of lists about an organic, adaptable system). But, the chart on p. 196 says it all, and I will reproduce it here in shorter form.
Is the following accurate? Is this a revelation to you? Is the organic model desirable? What can we do to create more organic missional movements? (Here's the rule: no comments that accuse this of "false dichotomies" -- it's fair to say it; I've said it; now let's discuss if these overall trends are emphases instead of absolute alternatives.) Have you had experiences with the institutionalization problem? What can be done about it? What did you do?
Thesis foundation for this chp: "gospel freedom ... is very difficult to maintain over the long haul." Understatement of the year.
Organic missional movements vs. Institutional religions
1. Pioneering missional leadership is central vs. one that avoids leadership rooted in personality and prefers one that comes from aristocratic class rooted in loyalty.
2. Seeks to embody the way of the Founder vs. represents a more codified belief system.
3. Based on internal operational principles (mDNA) vs. based increasingly on external legislating policies and governance.
4. Has a cause vs. is "the cause".
5. The mission is to change the future vs. the mission is to preserve the past.
6. Tends to be mobile and dynamic vs. tends to be more static and fixed.
7. Decentralized network based on relationships vs. centralized organization based on loyalty.
8. Appeals to the common person vs. Tends to become more and more elitist and exclusive.
9. Inspirational/transformational leadership; spiritual authority tends to be basis of influence vs. transactional leadership dominant; institutional authorizing process is dominant.
10. People of the Way vs. People of the Book.
11. Centered-set dynamic vs. Closed-set dynamic.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hi Matt, again. Man, how I wish this was email and I could insert comments into your context. So I will make this long by copying your post and inserting my comments :
Matt - You’ve been in the house church for 29 years, or you’re 29 and in a house church?
Becky: The house church has existed for 30 yrs, we have participated in it for 29 yrs.
I’m 25 and launched a house church about a year and a half ago, which I “led” for a year. I say “led” because I spent (volunteered) 5 - 6 hours a week preparing for our weekly Bible study, and several more hours each week “visioning” with my friend and cofounder, Ryan.
Becky: For 99% of the time, we have gone through a book of the Bible by various "teachers." I suppose they do spend different amounts of time preparing for it. As for "visioning," we had meetings where all were welcome to come, and we hashed out (read : discussed) what our group was all about. Somewhere along the way we just let that go and took what came, that is, ride the tide of what God has for us to do, brings for us to do.
Matt : To me, a Christ-honoring church/fellowship/community is one that does the best possible job at making disciples–increasing the number in the Kingdom, and increasing the breadth and depth of Biblical and Spiritual knowledge of each of those disciples, all the while guarding against doctrinal error (heresy).
Becky : Wow, a lot said there. To me, making disciples is teaching soundly those in the fellowship. As for increasing the number of converts, the way ours has worked is we who have grown from being soundly taught (and from more than the "teachers", as there is freedom for all to make comments, bring comments, interact) go out to the span of what our life area covers and living our life is our witness and what comes of that, comes of that. If some convert from our influence, great, but we are not out there to preach conversion. To me, "making disciples," is soundly teaching those in the fellowship. I agree with the rest of what you say there.
Matt: In my experience, house church’s strength is intimacy and degree of participation, and subsequently, belongingness. I believe those things are absolutely necessary to any healthy fellowship. However, I discovered many weaknesses as well. First, its “invitation only” nature was prohibitive of exposure to very many people (according to my definition of an effective church, this is a negative thing).
Becky: See, I don't see that as a negative. I think the nature of bringing to church, believer or not, and someone coming to conversion, is about one on one relationship. So if I am in relationship with someone, I end up talking about my house church and letting them know they are welcome to come if it sounds good to them. I think one on one relationship is crucial to what it means to be a christian in all things.
Matt : Second, its small, intimate nature was prohibitive of the exercise of some of my pastoral gifts, such as preaching and drumming (I played hand percussion, but it’s just not the same as a kit). OK, so drumming isn’t a pastoral gift. But it IS a gift!
Becky: I see more possibility of gifts able to be used because all people are encouraged to bring what God has given them and put them in to form what the church is. Whereas, in my time in established church 29 yrs ago, there were many who just went to sunday school and sat there and listened to the sermon and didn't even think there was more for them to do.
Matt: Third, there were several small children (under age 5) among us, which made it nearly impossible for anyone, let alone the parents, to concentrate on anything. A year is a long time to “get used to it”, and we never got used to it (ours was a baby).
Becky: Some parents complained of difficulty being part of what was going on because of the demands of their kids. That is, in our weekday small groups. It wasn't what was hard for me. One of the things to come out of the experience was this - it takes a village. It wasn't unusual for any adult to attend to a kid or correct a kid.
Matt: Our goal was to do both house church and larger group gatherings with all the house churches meeting together for corporate worship and preaching.
Becky: Yeh, we did the weekday small groups once we grew large enough to have a weekday small group of 6 to 12 people. (6 was not a rule, once it got above 12, it was a rule that we split to make a new group. Also, in the small groups, there was no group hopping allowed unless there wss irreconcilable differences.) These groups were to build commitment and knowing each other, the place where "love one another" got to the down and gritty from being able to know someone closely. We would say it was a blessing and a curse. A blessing cuz it was good to have the support and closeness, a curse cuz you got to know someone well enough you brushed against the thorns and had to work out your "stuff" that made the thorns to brush up against. I use past tense, because we are 12/14 people now (I'm not taking the time to count ppl on my fingers.) Oh, and then we would have the weekly corporate meeting where there was formal teaching, worship, sharing and prayer. There's always been time allowed for people to participate by bringing what God has for them to give, and this was true even in the large gathering. We go from 2 to 2 and a half hours in the corporate gathering. Also, in the corporate gathering, we ended up taking the kids out after the first parts were done. We rotated who took care of what group of kids, as we decided to split the kids in age groups.
Matt: But regardless of my experience, if yours is more positive, then by all means, keep it up as long as God is blessing it with fruit! Best wishes to you and yours.
Becky: And one thing we held onto from the beginning is we are not a blueprint of how to do house church. There is no blueprint of how to do house church. The establishment of a house church must be God breathed, and what happens in the house church unique to who is in it and what part of the city culture it is in. The people in the house church must work to decide what they will be and who they will be. They must work to figure out what God has them to be, in the beginning, for the formation. For us, who has come and who we have ministered to and what we are and the shape of what we are has changed and changes as God brings different people to our group. We started with some coming who were giving the church one last shot. Now we have ex-cons from a prison Bible study coming. It changes to shape of the group.
Becky: Hope this has been a good exhange/convo.
Hi guys, not sure if you've all veered off by now and I am now way out in commenting now, but I thought I'd try anyhow.
Just a quick point to say that I am not neccesarily proposing that we all adopt 'house church' models or that we fully abandon larger corporate gatherings. That has all to do with forms. We need to go deeper and ask the questions as to whether these forms best serve the missional purposes of the church. And we also need to be aware of how they hinder these kingdom purposes. My feeling is that the institutional forms tend to lock down the missional as well as the incarnational impulses that must drive movements. Clearly the most remarkable, world transforming movements did not have them and they were far more effective than we could ever be. Strange eh?
Alan,
Have you read Hunter's The Celtic Way of Evangelism? He doesn't even have to assert the point that Imperial Christianity stifles movement. HOW FITTING that I should be saying this on none other than ST. PATRICK'S DAY!, but the story of St. Pat's evanglization if Ireland and his efforts having been cracked down upon by the Roman "Church" speaks for itself. Hunter's telling of the story has left an impression in my heart, mind, and soul that will never recede.
Becky,
Sorry, did not mean to skip over your response. That's cool to hear that you've been a part of the movement before it became fashionable (it still isn't fashionable in the Midwest, where I'm from). Glad it's been a great experience.
With regard to disciple-making, I'm sure you'd agree that one cannot become a disciple apart from being converted. Conversion is the first step in Christian discipleship. What annoys me about the whole purpose-driven thing is the dichotomy between discipleship and evangelism. You came very close to saying this, but I think you meant it, so I'm going to agree with you in saying that evangelism is utterly impossible at worst and ineffective at best if post-conversion discipleship is not happening. The Church cannot hope for the world to be attracted to Christ, if we are not being conformed to His likeness. What do we have to offer those who "accept Christ as Lord and Savior" if we are not ourselves living in the Way of the Cross and truly delighting in Christ, day by day? Nothing! Which is why, as a matter of ecclesiology, I stress discipleship before (but not over) witnessing. You have no business calling others to lay down their lives for Christ (which is the requirement of receiving Jesus as Lord) if you yourself do not have a surrendered life. So I think we're in complete agreement here. However, the way we "do church" should always make it optimal for people outside of Christ to take that first step (conversion) into our fellowship...optimal.
Regarding the exercise of gifts, have you ever tried preaching to people sitting 10 feet away from you on your couch? It's relational suicide. Trust me, I've tried. Teaching, yes. Facilitating, yes. The Socratic Method, yes. Preaching, no. But preaching--or stump-speaking--is a biblical mandate for elders and evangelists, contrary to Pagitt's view. Is it the be all, end all of corporate ecclesia? Hardly. But it is necessary, in certain contexts and for specific purposes. So, to make a long story short, there are lots of gifts that are encouraged in home church, but preaching is not one of them. And if just so happened to be inclined toward certain types (most types) of musical expression (i.e. rock, folk rock music) home church makes this impossible. Let me know if you all have whipped out the electric guitars, amps, and drum kits in your living room. ;-) One of the values of emerging church is creative expression, and living rooms impose significant (often insurmountable) restrictions on numerous expressions.
All this is why I favor house church (home groups) as an indispensable part of a larger, corporate context. That way you are not neglecting the intimate fellowship and opportunities for everyone to utilize their giftings, nor are you neglecting the mandate to "preach the Word, in season and out" or contextualize your faith creatively. And, by the way, the church I am a part of now (6,000 member) has virtually limitless opportunities for service, and they insist (it is a requirement for membership, I believe) on every one who attends to be involved in serving in some ministry or another. They're constantly pushing for it, as well as for home groups. Being active in a home group is also a requirement for membership (although you don't have to be a member to join one). All in all, I think the either/or mentality excludes huge numbers of people, which is why I favor "hybrid" churches.
Thank you as well for the great dialogue.
Hi Matt. I think we are the only ones still using this blog thread to convo, but what the heck!
I guess from my 29 yrs in the house church I don't see what the difference is from opening a book of the Bible, going through it as "teaching," and, "preaching." Our group meets in a circle and depending on the house sometimes quite, shall we say, an "intimate," circle, that is tightly packed. The teacher sits wherever he/her is in the circle, sometimes with a chair in front of him/her to hold the notes and Bible, and goes at it. I'm not sure what you mean by preaching. One characteristic of our church is during the teaching and afterwards it is open to make comments, either bringing in more info on a point or telling the teacher he/her is off their rocker ( hehe)
As to instruments used in worship. No we haven't used electric guitars and amps and drums. But at one point we had an accordion! Which I say with great laughter. At the time I had to work hard not to laugh out loud. Singing hymns and choruses to an accordion! It was an experience lol!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.