*I've moved, and my posts have come with me! Check out my new blog at www.jeffrey-davis.net/blog/*
Ok. So this is one of those posts that I would really like some feedback on.
*Note: Some thoughts here are quite raw and unprocessed, some are more developed--so take them for what you want. Hopefully, they'll merely spur us all on to further thought...*
I am constantly thinking of and meditating on how the Church assimilates itself into the community. For 100's of years, that has been for it [the Church] to gather into a building once, twice, three times, or more, during a given week to join in a variety of functions.
The result of this structure? In
most cases, misplaced dependencies on both the church building itself and the very act of gathering there; a highly programmed, robotic, and compartmentalized "faith"; organizations that reflect the appearance of fortune 500 companies rather than communities of faith; an atmosphere that enables (and nearly demands) a lack of authenticity with those we claim to be unified with--undermining the very claim itself.
There are pro's to the current structure, yes, but I personally feel the con's far outweigh them.
The opposite extreme is to abandon all structures and institution to view our entire lives as "church". It is, as one friend has described it, "to do [be] church with everyone, everywhere, all the time". In this line of thinking, or manifestation if you will, we recognize that the Kingdom of God is bigger than any kingdom (which is what many "churches" of the current structure seem to be) that men can create. It is a life free of petty competition regarding "how many people come to my church vs. how many go to yours". A life where value is placed on a few strong relationships instead of 1,000 shallow ones. A life where there is no "leader", but the connected individuals journey together into the mysteries of God and learn from each other.
Obviously, there are pro's and con's to this structure as well. (Not that I feel it is even remotely possible to come to a conclusion based on pro's and con's...)
Then there are "communities of faith" who can be described as "emerging churches"; or churches in emerging culture, if you prefer. As I think on many of these churches structures, they seem not all that different from the current structure. The differences, however, are significant and I agree with them wholeheartedly. Some believe it is merely a style difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. The style is
sometimes different only as a result of a difference in thought and mind. These communities do truly long to be formed into a connected community that exists outside the four walls of a building, yet can still gather there regularly to join in worship.
The risk? We are clearly a society and a world in the middle of a paradigm shift. We are still so close in proximity to the current institutional structure (not to mention that many of us in emerging communities grew up in "the institution"), that the danger of once again becoming dependent on the collective gathering together remains ever-present.
As you can see, I don't quite know where I fall on the spectrum. I do know I fall somewhere in between the gross over-simplification of emerging communities and the "church all the time, everywhere, with everyone" ideas. To which one of those do I personally lean further towards? I do not know at the present.
Who knows. Maybe what it boils down to is 10,000 little individual passions and convictions that are relative to each community's unique location and situation. Maybe its not. Its definitely not something that we'll settle here in this post, but I look forward to wrestling [in a healthy way] over how the Church manifests itself for a long time to come. So please join me in my gratitude and respect of God's mystery and creativity.
So as I mentioned at the beginning of this long post (sorry, but I keep most of 'em short), I'd love to see some civil conversation from those of you who fall in all points on the proverbial spectrum.