I see an increasing number of articles that are asking important and hard questions about our self-understandings and self-identity as Christians. Answering these questions is essential in the task of being the missional, evangelistic body God intends. I am pleased that we as a brotherhood are thinking again about what we mean when we use the words “church” or “Church.” Such rethinking is essential if we are going to become genuinely missional and escape the “attractional” model of doing church. (I am amazed at how often we measure success by how many people can be attracted to our building.) In my own recent experience, success has been suggested based on the number of people at a funeral, the number who attended a secular program held in our building, and the number who came for Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Easter activities. We have traditionally measured what we do as church by attractional standards, the #1 question being: how many were present? We have seldom counted how many studies were taught, how many contacts were made, how many people were served, how many evangelistic conversations occurred, or how many were brought to a saving relationship with God through Christ.
Just how significant this process is has been re-enforced on my mind as I have considered possibilities for new signage around our church building. We have correctly observed that the building is not the church; the church is the people. So we say, “the church of Christ meets here” (little ‘t’ and little ‘c’). Does that mean the congregation doesn’t meet anywhere else? Does it limit the use of our buildings (in our own minds)? What does ‘meets’ mean? Is this for fellowship? worship? study? We often put up a schedule. Are the times listed the only ‘meetings’? I saw a church sign that read, “Home of the _____ Church”. What does that mean? Is it accurate?
In today’s world, we feel compelled to ‘name’ the local congregation. We use the names of towns, streets, subdivisions, even intersections. What do those names say? Restrictive ‘names’ among the denominations often signified parishes or limited areas of service. Before street addresses and 911, intersections gave directions. Some religious groups have gone to numbers: First, Second, Third. A group in Lansing, Michigan used an interesting name: “The Original Church of God #2.” What does our ‘name’ say? Does our name say where we are, or whom we try to serve? Does it restrict us? Is it dated or contemporary? Is it welcoming or discouraging?
Have we lost something in our insistence that the church is not the building but the people? Religious leaders, pastors and ministers in various religious groups, even Christians in the pews, have known and said for some time that the church is not a building. This means that the church is not a place! Being the church does not depend on being at a certain location. The church does not become something special when it meets at M&O. We should also note that the church is not a thing. The answer to the question, “Is there a church in such-and-such city?” must not be answered by whether there exists an official institution, a regular meeting, or a meeting place. If there are Christians living in the city, the church exists in that city.
One of the things that occurred in the Constantinian era and after is that the church was institutionalized, that is, it came to be thought of as a something that existed based on its superstructure (religious leaders, buildings, official status) apart from the participants. The move to identify the church with a place thus became an easy transition. Both of these concepts (church as institution, church as place) seriously weaken the church. Neither place nor thing provides much vitality to attract others. (You may note that most growing churches get a tremendous amount of identity from the people who are involved and always present to welcome, connect, and share life.) Place and thing eventually result only in loyalty to self.
The rethinking of what we mean by ‘church’ has taken us down some strange and interesting roads. Some has suggested that the church is to be defined as “shared event”—with the event most often cited being that of worship (although it is often re-characterized as “celebration”). The church cannot be adequately defined by event. Eventually the church will revert to being a ‘thing’—a different kind of thing than an institution, but nonetheless a ‘thing’.
For the last few weeks, I have been working on materials to help the church where I minister rethink our vision and mission as a church. I am considering mottos that might communicate our purpose succinctly and clearly. I am thinking about values and beliefs. We began the process in a very interesting discussion last Sunday morning in a combined Bible class (purposefully combined, because all needed to hear the same conversations to begin the process). One comment suggested that the church’s identity focuses around ‘joy’. I could not help but think of a similar identifying statement from Phyllis Tickle (Emergent Village): “I believe both church and Church are “a body of people, delighting in God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit.”
To write a mission or vision statement is no easy task—it can provide daunting challenges. A church may find that the differing views of mission (what the church is to go forth and do), or differing visions (the goals or objectives of the church) among its members are either conflicting or contradictory. The problem in clearly stating the vision and mission begins in self-identity. Who are we? What are we here to do? How will we do it? The order of the questions must be preserved.
My hope in the process is that we might find self-understandings that give us encouragement and demand action and dynamic living, a body in motion, fluid, morphing and changing, flowing into the crevices and corners of our society, our community, our nation, and our world. This church cannot be pinned down, located, or humanly owned or controlled. When anyone attempts to confine the church which Christ established, empowers and directs, the true church will simply rejoice and move ahead into the mystery of the future. (Such will obviously require that we escape any understanding of church as tied to location.) I also hope that our self-understanding (based on God’s calling) allows us to be comfortable and even delight in the midst of ways and cultures that are biblically relevant and acceptable but are not part of our traditions. Such a self-understanding is essential if we are to bring the saving gospel of Christ to our world.
My purpose in writing is not to give final answers. My purpose is to suggest a conversation. I am absolutely certain that this is a conversation we must have if we are to survive as a viable body beyond the 2000th anniversary of the establishment of the church, now only a little over two decades away.
(to be continued)