So yesterday at the Summoned to Lead conference, we did a short panel discussion right after the morning break, leading up to lunchtime. Let me set the stage by saying that we had no warning of what was coming — we agreed to sit on a panel but didn’t know when (or if) it would take place or what exactly the format or subject matter would be.
So after the morning break I was just sitting down at our table with a fresh cup of coffee and a brownie when I saw Gerry heading our way with wireless microphones in hand. “Put these on,” he told Jamie and I, as Leonard Sweet was telling the group something about a panel or forum or something for this session — I missed what he said as we were getting ourselves to the front and set up. We got started without further introduction, and after a few introductory comments about “inherited church” (a better term than traditional or institutional church, actually), a question was posed to us: What do you think the future looks like for the inherited church? — or something to this effect. Okay, I’m seriously on-the-spot with this one, and as it turns out I’m going to lead off. I know that Gerry can affirm the inherited church model at least somewhat, and Jamie can beg off to some extent by saying he’s part of a parachurch organization, but here’s me the ecclesiastical vagrant, somewhat stuck. The audience? 150 pastors and leaders, about 70% Pentecostal but basically everyone is not just attending an “inherited” form of church, they’re leading in one. What would you say?
Here’s what I said, being on the spot and having to think fast. Leonard Sweet had been talking about metaphors, so I said I’d answer with a metaphor. “How many of you,” I asked, “have clothes in your closet at home that have been there long enough that they’re coming back in style?” I told them I thought that the inherited church faced a future that would be much like this… further decline ahead, but not to be written off because something of a resurgence probably awaits. I think I may have also said something about struggling for relevance, I don’t recall.
Thinking about this metaphor afterward, I think I want to suggest that if this really is the future for the inherited church, it seems to me that a remnant of this model will always hang around until people return to it, but until then I might think twice about how much time, energy, and money I would want to invest into it. Of course, I’m also second-guessing the metaphor a little, maybe that’s natural.
Was there discussion following your answer? Or follow up questions? I’m wondering how they responded.
Not to be critical (realizing you could be facing a hostile crowd) but if this is the future, I’m depressed. To me it means “what goes around comes around” but my heart yearns for a re-awakened imagination. When God brought his people out of Egypt or when he led them into exile in Babylon he stripped away all they knew to re-awaken a new reality in them–a reality where He was their source and guide.
If this “movement of God” is really just “a cycle the church goes through” I’m discouraged.
I was a bit surprised at the lack of comment on my response, but there were two other responses after mine to focus on as well. I can’t recall if this was the first or second question — second, I think now — the first was about capital-E Emergent and the emerging church etc. In my response to that one I made some comparisons between the church that is emerging in Canada and Emergent-US with mentions of Emergent-UK and Forge in Australia (I have a lot more to say on this) so in passing I started a thread that Leonard (as the moderator) brought us back to next.
So in some ways the crowd wasn’t nearly as hostile as you’d have thought. I really have to give these guys credit, they were very open, hungry, and wanting to listen and explore. They wouldn’t just swallow anything, but neither did they write it off quickly. Great group.
As to whether this is just a fad, I would say no, there will be lasting change from the whole emerging conversation — I agree, it’s depressing if that doesn’t happen. For the inherited church — and here I’ll specify the evangelical-style forms of it — to experience a resurgence of any type, two things will need to change… their expression of church and the culture they’re in. Postmodernism will fade and be replaced by something labelled who-knows-what. Changing culture is a certainty. Is a changing evangelical expression of church a certainty? I would say yes, because if it won’t be changed by internal factors, it will be changed by external ones. If God wants change, he’ll get it one way or another.
So when I see some kind of resurgence for evangelical-style inherited churches, I mean to say that there is “stuff” of value in these expressions that we ought not to lose, and conditions may become right for these to have a resurgence. I don’t know when or how strongly. I can point to the non-evangelical style of inherited churches and point out how some are already experiencing a resurgence in the whole ancient/future longing. People are turning from tongues-speaking and commentary-gobblilng to more smells and bells. The Western church has noticed the Eastern church.
In a nutshell, if we someday take the inherited church out of the closet again, it won’t look the way we remember it, it’ll be modified, changed, and may still need some patching and updating. If I were to extend the metaphor, I might point out that when we take these fashion-returning clothes out of the closet again, somehow they just don’t fit quite the same way they used to.
As the panel member who got to dodge the question, somewhat, for being “parachurch”, I have to agree with your assessment. When Barna sees the dwindling of the local church, I think it is accurate. However, I think it is an unfortunate and (possibly) unnecessary reaction to the over-centering of our faith on the Sabbath gathering. As our faith and lives become centered around the Missio Dei, many will pull away from the local church in reaction. Sadly, I think it is inevitable.
However, after centuries (and more), I agree that this will be a short-lived trend, hopefully a “death” that makes way for the resurrection of a new, vibrant missional community of active and embracing grace.
Peace,
Jamie
Bob,
While I hope that the church/temple as the centrality of the practice of faith does not return, neither do I want to see the inherited church abandon. What will that look like? I am not sure, but I refuse to believe that churches who look and function like the inherited church cannot be vibrant, missional communities of faith. I owe too much to them to dismiss them as simply flawed.
In my estimation, generally speaking, the Church as a whole would do well to move towards a more missional model, but if nothing changed at all- no matter how unfortunate that would be- I believe there would still be an active and authentic witness of Christ in the inherited church.
Peace,
Jamie
“Jamie the artful dodger”… I quite like that! If had to redo a blog, that would be it!
Peace,
Jamie
I can tell you that if God’s spirit is truly in it, we’ll all be flocking there, following the cloud. I’m not sure I share your hope as long as it will itself emerge as something new and different but built upon its former foundation… the metaphor here is of a city built upon its own ruins. Have people ever flocked where God’s spirit is?
We’ve been building on a foundation of what seems right to us rather than searching for a city who’s architect and builder is God. (Heb 11:10)
Man… I’m a real downer, aren’t I. ;-)
You know it, Bob! Perhaps it takes an exceptional moving of God’s spirit for people to flock to it. Not “Toronto” or “Brownsville” but “The Great Awakening.” I do see your point in the skepticism though.
So how would you answer the question: What do you think the future looks like for the inherited church?
I am watching, reading and trying to process 2 days of mind jammed stuff. I want to comment, I need to comment…but I have to wait to comment! Briefly, it was a great two days…but I must unpack the implications of what is being talked about on this blog.
Love Ya’ll
Ok. Here’s my answer: What does the future look like for the inherited church? Who cares?
I think as long as man is called man, he will continue to earnestly pursue the god of his own creation. We will continue to create gods for ourselves in our image. For some, it will be a transcedent god, others an immanent. For some it will be a righteous and holy god, for others loving and accepting. For some a nurturing protecting god, others a wild, missional one. We will continue to look to other men to explain and quantify this god for us. We will continue to compare the gods we have created and argue between ourselves over whose god is the true god.
In short, the inherited church, like our inherited nature, will always be with us.
So, why continue to define new forms or lament when old forms perish? Why continue to question whether to improve what exists form or build new? Who cares?
Sounds bleak, eh?
But there’s hope. Much as the inherited church will continue as it is, God’s Spirit will continue to move as it has–through the unassuming lives of quiet men and women who know Him–really know Him. These folks don’t create huge followings, they don’t cause great revivals, they don’t start “vibrant communities”, they don’t carry impressive titles. They live largely unimpressive lives of extraordinary communion with God. I think we’ve all encountered folks like this. They are and will continue to be subversive influences in the margins of the inherited church and the world.
The appeal of the church that is emerging for me has been this stripping away of the inherited church and a seeking after God–not the one we create but the One who creates us. But when we start to quantify it, name it, try to replicate it (chase after “smells and bells”), man-ufacture it, we wreck it.
I’m not saying I’m one of these folks but that is where my spirit is satisfied. It’s this stream that I will patiently pursue–not a hope in a resurrected, modified inherited church.
That probably doesn’t make any sense…even to me.
Bob,
The out-of-style clothes metaphor just landed in a moment when I was stuck for a good answer. Now I’ve got the benefit of hindsight, and actually was discussing it again last night with friends. I decided I still like it… the idea that the inherited church isn’t going away anytime soon, always there but for some time it’s relevance is significantly diminished, until someday in the far-off (?) future, you open the closet and approach said vintage clothing afresh, and differently than you have before.
Nah, wait. Reading your comment once more, let me just say that it does make sense to me… and I believe that I agree with you. In a sense, it doesn’t matter, and won’t really until it comes around again. Chances are though that if it ever does come around again — it’ll be for someone else. Dunno about you, but whenever I pull anything that old out of my closet, it isn’t too likely to fit me anymore.
Bro,
Thanks for the reply. If only we could have a couple days to think about answers everytime we’re “put on the spot”.
I have lunch with the pastors of the church I left behind pretty regularly. We still talk church talk. The thing is, they both recognize that the things they do (the sermons, the worship, the programs, the prayer meetings, the classes, the Bible studies) aren’t the things that are effective. In fact, just the opposite, they prove distractions; places to “hide” from true relationships.
We all know that we’ve been transformed by people rather than programs. And when we look at the people who have transformed us, it isn’t because they always had the answers or were “perfect” examples or led us so faithfully. It was because they were there. Often listening more than speaking. They knew us for who we were and liked us anyways. They were Jesus to us and taught us to be Jesus for others.
That is the church. I recognize it. My pastors recognize it.
Yet they are caught up in chasing the congregation from fad to fad, from “expression” to “expression”, living up to constantly changing expectations. The fact that this question was even posed at the conference reveals the heart of the questioners. A chasing after the wind. Meaningless.
So we sit at our lunches and ponder what the church needs to look like to be about the business it does best–transformation. How do you tell people to minister, exhort, pray for, care for, and share burdens with each other? You can tell them (I’ve been told). But until I had a friend minister to me, exhort me, pray for me, care for me, and share my burdens, I didn’t know how. That happens in the evangelical church, the liberal church, the Roman church, the Orthodox church, the charismatic church, the church that is emerging,…..
Hmmm… I guess the form doesn’t matter, does it.