Firstly, the purpose of the church is not clearly articulated in the New Testament. It is assumed, but there is never any statement that the church should be seeking to evangelise to the world as a church. (Though I think it should, but that is a longer point). The point here is that unless you have a clear doctrine of church you cannot work out what the relationship should be.
Secondly, is that the relationship between the church and the world is fairly complex. This has been illustrated by Carson in Christ and Culture Revisited, where he assesses Neibhur and others who have tried to develop models of considering the relationship. While this is a dense book, and largely assuming a US audience it is worth persevering. Here are some of the models that have me thinking:
There is of course the idea that the church can transform the world and it is here to do so. While this can be taken to its nth degree in the social gospel advocated by Gustavo Gutierrez it can also be taken in smaller degrees. For instance the church can seek to change the world to be a little more like heaven, while acknowledging it will never quite succeed (see Phillip Jensen’s talks on the Resurrection from Matthias Media for an example of this).
Abraham Kupyer has a different approach and that is that it is not the church, but Christians who seek to change the world and makes a distinction between them. Hence while he sought to establish Christian schools and Christian universities they were not church institutions. This keeps the purpose and the identity of the church unique. My question here is do Christians need to address the world as a church from time to time? For example the Australian government will soon review the laws on R rated computer games being available in Australia. While I am planning on getting my Christian friends to lobby against this, should I also ask the Christian leaders of denominations to do so as well as representatives of the church?
At the other end of the scale we see Darryl G. Hart and Frederica Mathewes-Green. They argue that “we have about as much chance of influencing culture as we do of changing the weather”. What we need to do is rather seeking to help people change things, help people weather the inevitable storms. Hence the church and Christians have no place in seeking to transform culture. I believe this is what Driscoll can accuse people of the church merely being a parasite on culture. We are not contributing and we have so much to contribute! On marriage, relationships, work, and especially on the subject of rest in a stressed out world. Further it makes the assumption that just because it cannot be done does not mean it should not be attempted (see my previous post).
My final approach is my own and it works like this: a couple of equations. By contextualisation I mean not just understanding the world, but actually getting our hands dirty and being involved in it. Jesus did! By confrontation I mean the inevitable confrontation that takes place when people talk about Jesus as his lordship confronts people who should be under it.
Contextualisation - Confrontation = Liberalism
The church is merely another part of the world, it has no relevance to the world because it is only a part of it.
Confrontation – Contextualisation = Alienation
The church confronting the world with the Gospel without being a part of the culture it is in means that it will be ignored by the culture and therefore alienated from the society. I am sometimes asked why the church is not persecuted more and wonder if the reason is that we have been alienated instead.
Contextualisation + Confrontation = Persecution
If you are a part of the world and yet confront it with the Gospel then there will be some conflict that takes place. I have put persecution here as the result. But this is only because it makes my equation look cool! There is another possibility as articulated by Carson:
"The complexity will mandate our service, without insisting that things turn out a certain way: we learn to trust and obey and leave the results to God, for we learn both from Scripture and history that sometimes faithfulness leads to awakening and reformation, sometimes to persecution and violence, and sometimes to both." Christ and Culture. Pp227-228
Still have not worked it out yet other than, it is really complex. Or in the words of Diver Dan of Sea Change (one of my heroes) “Hmmm…tricky!”
4 comments:
Thanks for your thoughts!
I wonder if one of the big "new" factors here could also be the post-institutional, post-denominational church. Church and state continue to disengage from each other in the west and many Christians are understanding their faith in more de-institutionalised terms. Whether chasing the Acts 2 church, trying to revitalise denominations and so on, I wonder if Christians today are more uncertain about what now makes "the church" in the first place.
Cheers from Adelaide
Thanks for your thoughts Pete. I was wondering how 1Cor14 and the idea of 'edification' fits into the overal purpose of church and then the missional vs attractional church debate. That is, what is it that actually 'biblically' attracts people to church? Not just a cool event but people actually edifying each other, building each other in Christ, loving and serving each other. Similar idea in 1Peter 2 (and going from memory): live such beautiful lives among the pagans that they may see your works and glorify God'. So, is part of being a missional church to be building up your believers who you have NOW not stressing about how many non believers you don't have?
With the whole relationships between the world and church Andrew Cameron's New College lectures from 2005 are excellent.
Here is the link
http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/New-College-Lecture-Series-2005.282.0.html
One of the main things I got out of them was that as a Christian community we are able to show the world how a community can operate (a glimmer of heaven?)
I like your ideas on contextualisation vs confrontation. Though I wonder whether confrontation is the right word? Sometimes a 'soft difference' (in the words of Volf's article by that name) is better than a rough or hard distinction at times.
hey pete
would you mind if I tided up your equation?
contexualisation less confrontation = syncretism
confrontation less contextualisation = sectarianism
c + c = engagement (which may result in persecution or pursuasion)
still not tidy enough but I like where you are going
btw welcome to blog stuff
hello!
i'm a random fellow blogger and person-involved-in-university-ministry (but not with AFES, gasp!)
i found this post really interesting and surprising. i don't hear many sydney anglicans talk about 'the church' (they seem to prefer individual, post-institutional, post-denominational christians, as mr davis suggests)
i also have never ever heard a sydney anglican even acknowledge people like gustavo gutierrez. i'm sure this is as much my own ignorance and prejudice about 'sydney anglicans' but still.
i like your equations at the end of your post as well. (and i'm not quite convinced by shanerogerson's version of them, sorry shane)
i think you're absolutely right that one of the big challenges that a lot of churches miss is how to be both contextual and confrontational. i'd love to hear more about what you think that would look like in practice.
rock on! i look forward to reading more posts! :)
Post a Comment