Glocal Christianity

Why esoteric Christianity will never reform the church

An unusual juxtaposition of reading material has got me thinking about esoteric Christianity and anabaptist Christianity and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

On the one hand I've been rereading "Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition" by Gnostic author Richard Smoley. In this book Smoley discusses the Secret Church, the Johnanine church within the Pererine church.

On the other hand the recent conversation on not going to church prompted me to reread "The Politics of the Cross: The Theology and Social Ethics of John Howard Yoder" by Craig A Carter. In the book Carter observes "Yoder contends there are three basic types of ecclesiology: [1] the theocratic vision, [2] the spiritualist reaction and [3] the believer's church."

It was Carter's description of the spiritualist church that grabbed me: "From the perspective of Pilgrim Marpeck [believer's church], the Spiritualizers and Zwingli [theocratic vision] were quite similar insofar as they both denied the ultimate importance of proper church order. Schwenckfeld [spiritualist reaction], because he thought only spiritual reality matters, did not challenged established worship and church structure of Christendom and thus suffered no persecution ... spiritualism is able to function quite well within the framework of the theocratic society that it rejects, as a 'church within a church.'"

Now, once we recognize esoteric Christianity as a variant of this spiritualist reaction that Yoder speaks of, it becomes immediately evident that many of the same criticisms apply. Thus we can say that, as esoteric Christianity functions as a "formless form" of church rather than an "alternate form" of church, it is unable to concretely challenge the "Christendom form" of church, even when that form becomes horrendously corrupt. 

In other words, esoteric Christianity doesn't challenge exoteric Christianity in any tangible way precisely because it devalues the tangible. It does not offer revolution, it merely offers reinterpretation.

Not so with anabaptist Christianity. Anabaptist Christians suggest alternative forms of church are essential if we wish to reform the church, and I'm convinced they are right. But where I find the anabaptist tradition sometimes lacking is precisely in the area that the esoteric tradition is strongest, in its development of a Christian psycho-theology. Therefore, if anabaptist Christians seek to be genuinely holistic I think they need to work more on developing a holistic understanding of humanity, an understanding that includes the psyche and psychological experience. So, while I reject esoteric Christianity as a dead end on the post-Christendom path, I think esoterics still ask some very good questions.

Don't ever go to church again

One of my pet annoyances is talk about "going to church". You know the scenarios. Mum and Dad rushing kids to the car, "Come on, we'll be late to church". Teenagers organizing their social life, "Hey, let's meet after church". 

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Acts 17:24 

To speak of church this way is to fundamentally misunderstand church. Church is not some place we go, it is who we are. The building is not the church, we are!

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-20

This annoyance turns to exacerbation when I hear "going to church" talk coming from supposedly "aware" Christians. Because it's not what we say in our thinking moments that reveals our deep thoughts, it's what we say in our unthinking moments. "Oh, it was a casual slip". Well, yes, it was a slip, but there was nothing casual about it. The roots of this distorted teaching go deeper than we'd care to admit. It needs to be weeded out.

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16

So, let us resolve never to go to church again.

Unity in Community

What does it mean to be a unified Christian community? It's interesting to note that when the issue of unity comes up in the Acts of the Apostles, musical conformity NEVER rates a mention. Nor does language, dress, social structure or even, dare I say it, theology.

So what does rate a mention? Read it for yourself, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

To be unified was to share one hope and one wallet, to share one love and one way of life.

In a sense I exaggerate, there is a sort of theological conformity expected here. But it's  theology of a very basic and very practical kind, a theology that requires no college degrees, that even a child can understand. To be unified as Christians means to trust in Christ and to live like Christ, together, with one another. Our unity should be gauged by how we live Monday, not by how we sing Sunday.

Community, let's get real

Did any of you catch Bob Hyatt's article, Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea? I must say, my own experience leaves me inclined to agree. Virtual conversation can compliment real community, but it can't substitute it. Virtual conversation can open up new possibilities, but those possibilities becomes most crystalized in face to face communion. I say this having met up with a few "facebook friends" in the flesh only last week. Meeting in the flesh is not equivalent to meeting in cyberspace, it's far better.

Is paganChristianity unChristian?

You know, I think I finally nailed where I part ways with Frank Viola on "Pagan Christianity". It came out in conversation.

I was discussing the book with a friend on Sunday, who, like me, liked the book but had a few misgivings. And I said, "Apart from the euphamistic way he uses the word 'Pagan', which really grates with Pagans, what's most problematic for me is that he shows insufficient appreciation for just how unessential many first century Christian practices actually were."

What I mean is this, I think Viola is unquestionably correct in identifying many contemporary Christian practices as noncore, nonChristian even and thus nonessential. Where I think he errs is, in insisting there's a pristine Christianity waiting to be restored.

Consider, a huge chunk of the New Testament consists of Paul's letters to various Christian communities. And a huge chunk of that consists of Paul castigating Hebrew Christians for pushing nonessential Hebrew practices onto Gentile Christians. But does Paul ever castigate Hebrew Christians for practicing circumcision and kosher diets amongst themselves? No. Curiously, no.

What this suggests is, Paul was keen to differentiate between what was essential and what was not, but he regarded what was not as culturally "optional" rather than intrinsically "antiChristian". What this suggests in turn is, neither should we assume that everything which is "Pagan" is intrinsically "antiChristian". We need to look deeper before we decide that, before we write off Gentile (that is, Pagan) Christianity altogether.

Thus, though I agree buildings and podiums and pews and ordination ceremonies and Christmas celebrations have nonChristian origins, I disagree that Christian communities are less than authentic when they don't ditch everything, at least not automaticallty. Instead I would say, let's look at this through the lens of critical contextualization. It may be that we can use some of these things redemptively. Then again, maybe not. I may still land in the same place as Viola when its all said and done!  

But the difference is, I tend to stress "essentials first" rather than "essentials only". Though I can apreciate the value of microchurch, I am not so keen on saying there is a biblically mandated size restriction; and though I can see the pitfalls of ceremonialism, I am not so keen on poo pooing symbolic expression and embracing iconoclasm. I think, so long as it's helpful, everything is permissible.

Beyond tribalism

The problem with most churches is not that they're uncontextual, its that they're too contextual for too narrow a segment of our culture. They are contextual for the tribe of white, aspirational, family-orientated people who like to play life safe. And consequently, not so contextual for people who are not. This segment is a significant segment of our culture, but only a segment.

The alt-tribal church

Now, one solution that has been suggested by the missional crowd is more tribal churches. To shift from a geographic focus to a demographic focus. But I have found geography has not been rendered irrelevant by globalization. Place still matters. Tribal churches greater chance of success where geography and demographics reinforce one another. For example, Goth friendly gatherings have more chance of success in dingy inner city suburbs than in leafy outer suburbs. Pagan friendly gatherings have more chance of success in Salem and Nimbin. Café churches have more chance of success in Café strips. Place still matters. When people wish to gather offline and not merely online, when people start bringing families and not just themselves, they don't want to migrate half a city away every week. Even when they belong to the tribe, the tribal church may be too distant for more than an occasional visit. Place still matters. So tribal church is only half a solution.

The multi-tribal church

The other half of the solution, as I see it, is multi-tribal church. Genuine multi-tribal and not just white, aspirational mono-tribal masquerading as multi-tribal in their rhetoric. Multi-tribal needs to be modelled at every level, beginning with the leadership level. Multi-tribal needs to celebrate, and not just tollerate, tribal diversity. But when you have genuinely multi-tribal church, everybody, even the tribless, are in a cross-cultural situation ... together.

Our church

It's this latter approach that I see as necessary for my context. We live in one of the most multicultural suburbs in Sydney, which is one of the most multicultural cities in the Southern Hemisphere. We have over 50 languages spoken in some of the schools in our area. We have only a bit over a hundred people in our church. Even if we dispanded the church and sent out every man, woman and child in pairs we would not have enough to send someone to every tribe. And of course, not everyone is a gifted apostle or evangelist, so this is a rediculous expectation. What we can do though is learn how to be more embracing of any and every tribe. And be missional amongst whoever God places in our path.

But don't think these approaches are unrelated. They are the two extremes of a broad spectrum. And contextualization is needed along the whole spectrum. Where is your place?

When a Church is not a Church

You've all heard the rhyme:

Here is the church,
Here is the steeple,
Open the doors,
See all the people.
   

Reflecting on the deficient theology of this, Mark Roberts suggests an alternative:

Here is a building,
On top there's a steeple,
Open the doors,
The church is the people!

If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you've heard many criticisms like this, that "the church is not a building, it's the people". But I've always thought, its what people say in their unguarded moments that reveals what they believe deep down. It's not what they say about church when asked to give an explaination, it's what they say when they're getting the kids ready for a Sunday service and rushing out the door. 

What is Christian community?

Community is very important. It's part of the air we breathe. What makes Christian community different from community as we find it elsewhere?

Where is Hillsong?

Where is Hillsong? If you have been reading this blog for any length of time you'd know that I occasionally cross over to the dark side (Stu, this is your opportunity to raz me) and visit Hillsong. After all, I like to write about Sydney and Hillsong is the most globally recognizable church in Sydney. So, ever wondered how close? This map gives you an idea. If you go directly south from Hillsong you'll see a little white man. That's me. It's probably about a 20 to 30 minute drive cross country. That's reasonably local in Sydney terms. We're all in the Hills area, in case you ever wondered where the Hillsong name came from.  And by the way, the above map is a map of Christian churches across Sydney. The red dots I mean. If you want to search for other churches in Sydney, see here and search for "churches".

Mega CHRISTIAN SINGLES church?

The largest ever survey of American megachurches has revealed, "nearly a third of megachurch attendees are single compared to just 10 percent of a typical congregation," and "although megachurches have nearly twice as many new attendees, most of the new people are already Christians and came from another church." So how much church shopping is related to spouce shopping do you think?

Somewhat more surprising, the survey also revealed that "megachurch attendees are less committed financially than those in a typical church with 32 percent saying they contribute nothing or give just a small amount when they can."

Contemplation and Community

“Transformation into Christ is not just an individual affair:

                                there is only one Christ, not many.”

Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p156-157

Subcultural Church: Reverse Discrimination?

Do you think subcultural church planting could be viewed as an eclesiological form of reverse discrimination?

In the civil rights movement, reverse discrimination is a common term used to describe policies or acts that discriminate a dominant or majority group in favor of a group historically discriminated against, with the aim of redressing imbalances. However, reverse discrimination has been subject to much criticism on the basis that "discrimination is discrimination" and reversing it still leaves many barriers in place.

In my experience with subcultural cell groups it takes considerable affirmative action and reverse discrimination to preserve the subcultural identity of such groups within a multicultural context. You can't just invite anyone, you have to discriminate if you wish to preserve that identity. And who knows what you do with the second generation, who may have different interests to their parents.

Over time I came to see that approach as very problematic. It encourages too much "Jesus and" thinking when what we should be aiming for is "Jesus only" thinking. Where is the freedom in Christ?

If we were to be totally indiscriminate, churches in multicultural contexts would tend to become multicultural churches. I have come to see that the answer to discrimination against minority subcultures within mainstream churches is not reverse descrimination, it's Jesus inspired indescrimination.

Emerging Churchianity

What's your understanding of the difference between churchianity and Christianity?

I was just reading Sally's comments about being fed up with churchianity. Coincidence maybe, but I wrote some stuff to our mission team about churchianity earlier in the week. Maybe there is something in the air. In any case it prompts me to ask the question.

The thing is, while I value conversations about church and the new forms that are emerging, I think we've lost our way if church dominates our conversations. What's far more essential, what's far more important to be talking about, is Christ.

Conversations about emerging church are only going to appeal to the already churched. If we're authentically interested in the unchurched then we need to have more open ears to their interests and how Jesus relates to them.

Multicultural Impact

A video from Urban Mosaic on missional enagement of multicultural cities.

Is your church as diverse as the city you're in?

Priesthood of all Believers

Well, our lead pastor is now gone. Off to Wyong. My wife did a stellar job organizing the farewell on Saturday evening. Jamie gave an excellent last sermon on Sunday. Now its over. The heat wave is over, the rains have come. What a weekend.

I think interesting times are ahead. I think it will test how much some of my baptist comrades really believe in the priesthood of all believers. Our associate pastor will only be able to do so much, responsibilities need to be redistributed, rethought, reimagined. 

What about you? Do you think many Christians really get the priesthood of all believers?How much do our church structures contribute towards believer disempowerment? How many people truly desire empowerment? Now that's a question! Do we have unhelpful images of Jesus that may contribute to this?