Month: August 2013

Is your (view of the) church too small, Pt. 3

Alright, time to wrap up my thoughts on John Armstrong’s, Your Church Is Too Small. You’ll need to read my earlier posts for some background. But in short, this is a book challenging Christians, particularly evangelicals, to expand their view of God’s church in a way that includes the visible global and historical church.

One practical implication of Armstrong’s argument is that it will mean paying more attention to church history, especially in the first few centuries—the broad Christian “tradition.” Yikes! “Tradition”!

IMG_4403  If you’re still reading, “tradition” is not a dirty word for Armstrong, and is something that needs to be rediscovered. In fact, tradition(s) exist in subcultural forms in all ecclesial expressions. Following the broad tradition means majoring on the major teachings of the historical church, and recognizing that particular doctrinal distinctives, while valuable, are peripheral to the larger mission of God’s kingdom. Here Armstrong acknowledges Robert E. Webber’s “ancient-future” approach as having potential for pointing the church in the right direction.

The church needs to better appreciate that the Spirit has been at work in and through history. This means the Christian connection with the Spirit is also connected with the global, historical church. At the same time the church today needs to recognize that history and culture has changed dramatically in recent centuries. We no longer function in a “Christendom” context, and need to give up the idea that our culture (he’s primarily speaking to North Americans here) functions on certain Christian assumptions from earlier times.

Recognizing a connection to church history, while at the same time that our current historical situation has changed, allows Armstrong to challenge both “seeker driven” and “traditionalist” churches. For him, only a “missional-ecumenism” that appreciates the rich resources of the ancient church will provide a robust way forward. Armstrong states:

“Many churches have adapted to the culture in a way that has left them with little or no prophetic message. They have embraced a paradigm designed by Christendom and aimed at consumers—a paradigm that has left them with a shallow understanding of the gospel. Some who fervently believe in the need to remain faithful to the gospel have reacted to all the changes by accusing fellow Christian evangelists of being compromisers. Neither strategy is effective. We need a new paradigm, a model for mission that is rooted in the dynamic of antiquity and the dynamic prospects of a different future.”  (ch. 19)

Armstrong’s message is both challenging and encouraging. It is also arguably more faithful to the biblical and theological tradition of the church catholic (universal). He is also not unaware of the need for the “rubber to meet the road,” so to speak. So, he provides examples of a number of churches that are living out this missional-ecumenical approach to serve as practical examples that may be helpful for local church philosophy of mission discussions. Overall, in the midst of rapid cultural transition this book offers a theologically robust alternative to the sometimes overly pragmatic cacophony of voices on church mission and growth techniques. I recommend it.

Is your (view of the) church too small? Pt. 2

By way of reminder, last week I began a review and reflection on John Armstrong’s book, Your Church Is Too Small. In it he argues that our view of the church needs to expand beyond our own local congregation. Really, he is emphasizing that the evangelical world has lost the idea that the church is “catholic”—again, not Roman Catholic, but a visible (not merely invisible) global community of God’s people.

Closely associated with this view of catholicity is church unity or oneness, a sense of belonging to the broader church made tangible in what we do in local congregations. A deep appreciation for the catholicity and unity of the church is needed in order to fulfil God’s mission in the world, says Armstrong. And he argues his case biblically and theologically, as well as practically.

Biblically, Armstrong points to John’s Gospel, for example, and highlights Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17). Why would Jesus have bothered to pray for unity, asks Armstrong, unless this would be a real challenge for the church? Practically, it’s far easier to simply ignore the broader church and other congregations, and build one’s own local kingdom, isn’t it?

But Jesus’ prayer for unity means that Jesus believes that the church unified was and is the best witness to the reality of God. It also means that Jesus knew this unity would not be easy. And so he prayed for the church, specifically for its oneness.

One of Armstrong’s most troubling observations (to me at least) is this: The evangelical church typically operates with the assumption that a divided church is normal, if not normative, and good. Armstrong writes,

“Many Christians, especially evangelical Christians, have accepted the idea that a deeply divided church is normative. Some even believe mission is best advanced through this divided church. To challenge this mind-set is not easy, but I believe it is time for Christians to reconsider the ecumenical implications of believing that there is ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’.” (ch. 19)

How did it come to this? Where we think disunity is normal, and perhaps more effective for doing God’s mission? Is there not a profound misalignment here with Jesus’ prayer for unity?

To be clear, Armstrong is not asking for a unity that supresses diversity, nor one that ignores doctrinal differences between denominations. He is not advocating an embrace of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (although he believes both of these traditions have much to offer and need to be listened to carefully). He is, however, asking Christian leaders to seriously consider that church unity and catholicity is part and parcel of the mission of the church, local and global.

So, lots to think about here. I thought this topic would be a two-parter, but I think I’ll stop here (which means a part 3 is in the works).

To recap, Armstrong is advocating that the present acceptance of church disunity is a tragedy, and that church unity and catholicity should be an integral part of kingdom mission. I think he would say that a local church that does not have church unity and catholicity woven into its mission is a church operating with a deficient view of what God has called the church to do. Without working toward tangible, visible unity and catholicity as part of its call, local churches will not properly bear witness to Christ.

I think Armstrong is really on to something here. How about you?