I had an interesting conversation today with a couple friends about ecclesiology in the emerging church.
The criticism came out that many of today’s church planters don’t have a solid ecclesiology and are moving away from traditional (modern) forms of church structure without a solid direction or focus of where to go. The implication in the conversation was that ecclesiology is a fixed idea. It is neither evolutionary nor developed and cannot “get better” or be improved upon because it is either fixed in the ancient Christian tradition or it is bad ecclesiology.
Personally, I’m not sure that I agree that ecclesiology is not evolutionary. As society and culture grow and evolve our understanding of church community has to as well. I agree with my friend (and Paul – that guy that wrote Romans) that the focus should be in Christ and the cross but the idea that teaching and monologue (as traditional forms of church) are indicative of that is a non-sequitor. The body of Christ, I think, is more about practise than understanding, and so shift to the social from intellectual seems appropriate.
I think we are returning to some of the early roots we have forgotten but I don’t think what we need is a wholesale return to the past we need a synthesis of the ancient traditions with a forward thinking ecclesiology. That is, the focus is fixed, but the how, the who and the what are in flux. I believe that the role of the church has evolved over time and continues to change into the future. Sure the focus on Jesus and the cross is fixed but the role the church has played in communicating that has and will continue to change.
In my eschatology, the church, by focusing on Jesus, has been and will continue to create the kingdom of God that Jesus taught about. So naturally our role will continue to evolve as the kingdom does. It is more than just a forward thinking eschatology it is a continual re-evaluation of the role of the church in the fixed focus and mission of Christ.
I can see the point in regards to Jesus, that we see through a glass darkly, and any insight we appear to have gained has always been true behind the glass. Fair enough. I can buy into the idea of capital “T” truth as long as we aren’t claiming ownership or mastery of it but the church is different. It is an organic structure. It doesn’t exist in theory or truth. It only exists in the practise of… well, church. In people finding and fulfilling their role in the kingdom of God.
you have very intelligent friends.
I like it.
In retaliation against what we hate the most in something we love the most we could end up creating something even worse without being grounded. Good thoughts Jeremy, the site is looking real good too!!
Vaild criticism, but I feel like the risk is worth the reward. In our quest to manage all risk we have taken any sense of exploration away from the church. Somewhere there must be a better balance than what we have now.
Once again, I would suggest that our ecclesiology is not evolving. Our methods do, but the Church’s identity, as defined by Jesus, Paul and the early believers needs to remain fixed if we want to stay rooted to the ancient Christian tradition.