I been following a blog “debate” (well, not so much a debate as a bit of an online polemic, as tends to be the nature of blogs).
It began when the blogger (who I know) posed the question “Do you think there will be any historically white evangelical Anglican churches in existence twenty years from now in South Africa?”. If you want to read the posts, you can find them here, here, here, here, and here. Now the question as initially posed irked me, because it hides what I think is a far more important question. I have an unfortunate propensity on hearing a question and ask myself, is that really the important question, and what are the assumptions and presumptions on which it is predicated? Let's first consider the question as posed. Undeniably there are issues about the future of the church in this a still-fractured, hurting society of post-apartheid South Africa. But as posed the question is, in my view, at best very ambiguous. Probably the question is asking if a particular form of church, that which reflects a remnant of the apartheid era, will still exist. Fair enough, but the problem is that the question provides 3 qualifiers to the noun “church”; it refers to "white", "evangelical", and "Anglican", each of which complicate any sensible answer. Moreover, it does not ask the underlying question of “Who cares what the answer is if we can't say what 'church' means in this hyperactive, post-Christian, pre-apocalyptic(?), and relativistic society?” But lets try and answer these first three points:
However, step back for a moment and reconsider the question. Underlying the query of what the future might be for a type of “church” are two far more fundamental questions that are simply crying out to be examined through the lens of “being real in the world”. First, what is “church” today? It seems clear that the questioner had in mind the likely longevity of a certain expression of Anglicanism, but how important is it to answer whether such an expression of church will continue to exist or not? Its always useful to challenge the premise by many that persistence is a good thing. So then, what is "church" for today? Because clearly much of today’s "church" seems to have lost the plot. For all intents and purposes the everyday use of the term means the institution (when not referring to the building). Yet when Jesus says to Peter “upon this rock I will build My church” he is not referring to the plethora of institutions we've unfortunately constructed, and which have become rather like a modern day Tower of Babel where no-one understands anyone else. Yet in this diversified and complicated context, surely each of us need to be rigorously examining what it means to be church in my community. As those who read this blog will know, this question has tortured me in recent times, and still troubles me deeply (e.g. Assumptions; An atheist, catholic, and evangelical; The music that was 2015; and more). The inertia of the church, as it broadly exists, seems so huge that any course corrections seem nigh to impossible; meanwhile much of Gods work goes untouched for want of labourers to go into the fields – they’re so glued to their pews while engaged in introspective preservation of their church culture. Second, what expression of church (the ____ ____ Anglican?) is God calling us to? For whatever we understand “Church” to mean, at its heart the church is called to be missional, worshipful, and discipling – anything beyond that is merely decorative clothing. So then, what is the relevant expression of church for today's culture, for my context, for my community, for the place where God has placed me? What descriptors, in the language of the questioner, would best fill the blank in the phrase “a _______ _______ church”? It surely won't be the same everywhere, but what is it for the context I inhabit? So we have two fundamental questions that are longing to be interrogated under the lens of relevancy to God, and relevancy to the world. For the first of these questions, "what is church", there is surely an orthodox response in the Bible; “Let’s see how inventive we can be in encouraging love and helping out, not avoiding worshipping together as some do but spurring each other on” , as put in colloquial language by Eugene Peterson. That's an useful encapsulation of being orthodox church, yet requires freedom of expression, permission to be different, authorizing people "try, even if you fail". (Three great talks on this: using your gifts, the vision, and being part of the story). The answer to the second question is surely addressed by Paul when he says “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some”. When did your church last prioritise the challenge of becoming what's needed to reach others? This, I suggest, is a good way to measure the outcomes from our collective worship gatherings (our "services") – when, through our worship we find God's heart of compassion such that we would even stand in the shoes of another to understand how best to reach them. Of course there's much more to be said. So much more. But for me, in my time, and in my place, these are the important questions I believe we should be wrestling with: what should church be and what should church do, here and now in our community, and do we have the courage to follow through despite our habits. To cite the bible again in Eugene Peterson's colloquial language "What I’m getting at, friends, is that you should simply keep on doing what you’ve done from the beginning [as in the church in Acts]. When I was living among you, you lived in responsive obedience. Now that I’m separated from you, keep it up. Better yet, redouble your efforts. Be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent and sensitive before God. That energy is God’s energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure."
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|