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”!
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.
Peter D. Neumann 
Adding it to my Amazon wish list.
I appreciate these blog posts.
I wonder what a church or church plant would look like that didn’t use, “church for people who don’t like church” as their motto / driving value and instead opted to consider being church as church was and is within the context of church tradition.
Specifically, I wonder how many people would go to a ‘new’ church that utilized a liturgy, or at least was informed by one – to name one aspect of church tradition that has been on my mind as of late.
Though, I suppose, if the church grew not from the membership of its ecclesial peers, but from the making of disciples new to the faith, some presuppositions of what a church today has to look like wouldn’t be as prominent within its members.
Not long ago, a couple I know very well left an evangelical church to serve at a church in the Orthodox tradition. This decision promoted much confusion and some anxiety from their family who, knowing little at the time of the tradition of the Orthodox Church, thought that they were joining a cult! In time, they came to learn, in part, of the rich history of the Orthodox Church and there doesn’t seem to be any tension between the family that attends the evangelical church and the those that attend the Orthodox church.
This was a young couple at the time, 25 or so I believe they were – ‘mellenials’ looking for more tradition, for more ‘atmosphere’ perhaps. I’m not sure. However, I note within myself (now 25 as well), a pull towards parts of church tradition that have long been (or even more recently) siphoned away for whatever means. Going from Hillsong to hymns, pondering the present-day feasibility of a connected, catholic Church, and really a whole lot more. But I’ll stop there. This comment is already monstrous.
In any case, I know I’m open for discussion for greater consideration of Church history and tradition. I’m certainly hopeful of a more globally-aware, more connected and cooperative band of churches in the time to come, and I’m glad books like this are being written.
Great thoughts, Tim. I’m glad you’re reflecting on these ecclesial matters. I appreciate the post.