A Missiological Ecclesiology?
- David Martin
- | Mar 18, 2010
- Media Links
- Subscribe
At a recent talk by Tim Chester – of ‘The Crowded House’ fame, he very helpfully explained the thinking behind the way his church is set-up. Basically, it has two emphasis – firstly it has a strong robust ecclesiology; a very challenging picture of the church. And secondly a constant, relentless missionary emphasis desiring to see those who are hostile to Christianity become committed followers of Jesus. Now before I say anything more, let me say that by and large I found most of what he said refreshing, challenging and inspiring. He is obviously committed to Jesus himself and knows the love of God and so he is a courageous brother in Christ…but of course some of what he said I found worrying in the emphasis he gave.
Firstly let me summarise the positives. They mainly have to do with his ecclesiology – the way we do church. At Crowded House they work very hard at creating a culture that challenges the idea of church as a meeting that you simply attend once or perhaps twice a week. Instead of attempting to maintain programs and organise meetings they intentionally avoid pouring time, money and gifts into an event. Rather they actively attempt to create a culture where the church equals a community to which you belong. The gulf between the mentality that sees church as a meeting to attend and a community to which you belong is massive and for most of us unbridgeable. However, at Crowded House they have discovered an approach that goes a long way to bridging that chasm. From the very start, if you were interested in joining the church, it is made abundantly clear that belonging to Crowded House means living your ordinary life with gospel intentionality. And what that means is actually very simple, but as they have found, extremely effective at creating a sense of community identity. People in church are encouraged to be church not just when they meet together ‘formally’, but equally so when they need to go shopping in Tescos, or watch a favourite T.V. series or eat dinner. So instead of doing ordinary things in life alone – why not include one another in the doing of them – sharing their lives together, sharing their encouragements and disappointments they have as Christians through every day life activities. This has had the effect of creating a thick community; providing endless opportunities to do the ‘one anothering’ that is spoken of throughout the New Testament. It is a strong robust ecclesiology.
Now what that would look like in Immanuel would pose many challenges. In Crowded House for example many of the members try to live within walking distance from one another. We are scattered all over
Moving on secondly to the negatives, which mainly have to do with his missiology – what mission/evangelism are and how they are done today. The biggest question here is simply this: how do unbelievers come to know God today? How are those spiritually dead raised to eternal life? And at this point I’m afraid I disagreed with the emphasis given by Tim. To me, it appears that their ecclesiology is so strong that it distorts their answer to the question about mission/evangelism. If I understood him correctly, Tim answered the question as to how people come to know God today by saying that it was primarily through the life of the community. A community, yes, living under the authority of God’s Word, but the community took pride of place nonetheless.
As he explained from the story of the Bible, humanity in Adam and Eve were meant to reflect God’s image to the world. After the Fall this fell to the nation of
Now I absolutely agree that the life of the church is one of, if not the greatest apologetic for the Christian faith. A lively, earthed, provocative community of Christians is hard to stand against. My issue however is one of priority. Does the living word depend on the community? Or does the community depend on the living word? And even in asking the question I’m thinking that I’ve put it too simply and can hear Tim’s retort – that what we see in the Bible is the word creating community, but only through that community and the life it lives under the authority of that word do others come to know God. But the emphasis I gleaned from Tim was that the word or at least God’s mission in the world depended very much on the quality of the community’s life. Again, I am not arguing against Tim’s ecclesiology at this point. I am greatly attracted to it. But what does worry me, as far as I can see it, is an over emphasis on community to the point where it almost becomes a new mediator between God and man. I wonder if the spirit of our age that loves to make an idol out of community might be at work? It also raises questions for me concerning the nature of scripture. Crowded House is unashamedly evangelical and therefore as they say ‘word based’. But it could appear from what Tim is saying that Scripture is actually insufficient to make God known. Following on from this is a question about the role of the Holy Spirit as the interpreter of Scripture in the life of the believer and community?
Again such a missiology does raise many questions for Immanuel. Firstly of course we must gauge how important the role of mission plays in the life of our community. In Corwded House it is central to all that they are about. They look at their networks and neighborhoods completely differently, seeing opportunities to speak about Jesus everywhere. But they are humble enough to admit that not any one individual has all the answers. It is the life of the community that provides the greatest plausibility structure when anyone asks – what would it look like if I were to become a Christian. The way that someone does become a Christian or finally comes to see God as God is another question however. In Immanuel the priority given to the sufficiency of Scripture, and God’s Holy Spirit at work in our hearts to open blind eyes means that we are seeking to point away from ourselves in the hope of introducing people to Jesus. But even at this point, to what degree do people in Immanuel understand that to be where our confidence or rather emphasis lie?
In conclusion let me repeat. I love Tim’s ecclesiology, but wonder if it does not distort his understanding of mission. The church is certainly the product of Jesus’ words, but whether the church is the means by which people are raised from death to life is extremely suspect. Perhaps Tim would agree and I have picked him up wrong, in which case, I hope that we have all been challenged to think a little harder about why we do what we do as a church and how we should be going about doing it.
For a complete and thorough explanation of Crowded House please read,
