Tag: Catholic

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?

Is your (view of the) church too small? Pt. 1

A couple of days ago I finished John Armstrong’s, Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity In Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church. It has given me lots to think about. Here’s the link to the hardcopy (I read mine on Kobo): http://www.amazon.ca/Your-Church-Too-Small-Christs/dp/031032114X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374853633&sr=8-1&keywords=your+church+is+too+small

IMG_5013  This is not a church growth book, in the popular sense.  The “too small” church does not refer to the size of any particular local congregation, but rather to the vision of the church typically assumed in evangelical contexts. In this view, the church is a local assembly, invisibly (read vapidly) connected to the church universal. This allows local congregations and pastors to think they can get on with the business of the church by building their local congregation while practically ignoring the rest of the church globally.

Armstrong believes that this view is a key theological/biblical problem and practical hindrance to the mission of the church today. He argues that a crucial component of the way forward for the church in a post-Christendom world is a rediscovery of the need for church unity and catholicity. Part and parcel of the church’s mission is tangible work toward demonstrating the universal visible reality of the church, and so Armstrong advocates what he terms a “missional-ecumenism.”

Armstrong readily admits that he once held the traditional evangelical (shal)low church view, along with its suspicion of ecumenical dialogue, for a long time. It was only through study of Scripture and church history that he claims led him to appreciate that a stronger catholic view of the church is what will ultimately enable the church to fulfil its mission. “Catholic” here does not refer to Roman Catholicism. It simply refers to the idea that the church is global and visible in a variety of cultural expressions, and yet at the same time is one by the Spirit—and that this needs to be visibly expressed. Part of the church’s mission, then, is to preserve its catholicity in order to be the best witness to the world. Ignoring this aspect of mission is actually counter-productive to being the people of God and bearing witness to Jesus—in other words, not sufficiently missional! Yikes!

I’ll pause here, and leave the rest of the review to a future date. But it’s a good place to ask whether our own view of the church looks like what Armstrong describes as typical among evangelicals (and Pentecostals too) especially in North America. In short, this is the view that says we belong invisibly the church universal, but what matters is my local congregation, period (more or less). Unity is of course important within the local congregation (to keep things functional, and the pastoral vision central). But working for any broader church unity is of little practical importance, and may even work against promoting our local church by giving attention elsewhere.

I was pleased, back in 2005 at an A2 Conference in Chicago, to hear Bill Hybels admit that this had basically been his view of the church until God began to change his mind. He stated (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here) that in his mind he had wished other congregations good luck (hope it goes well with you!), but in practice all that mattered was the Willow Creek congregation. I appreciate Hybels’ honesty, humility, and willingness to change his views—a lesson for us all. But it does confirm Armstrong’s suspicion that for many, if not most evangelicals, catholicity is by default off the radar when it comes to church mission and priorities.

So, what’s your view? Does catholicity factor into what your church prioritizes? Is it part of your personal view of the church? Should it be? If so, in what ways and to what extent? Have you ever considered that working to preserve catholicity is an integral part of the mission of the church, and by extension, your life mission?