Starting Again

[Matt Williams]

Hey Danny,

I'm sorry I've upset you. Really, I'm glad you have such a passionate heart for mission. I certainly don't want to avoid that discussion, but I was concerned about how you were framing the discussion. You did say in your opening post:

"Anglican churches not on mission should be left to die in order to start again."

Which was what I was reacting to, not to avoid a discussion about missiology but precisely because I think missiology will only be healthy and faithful when it is in its proper theological context - which is as a component of ecclesiology driven by Christology - not itself the driver of the shape of the church. These are not tangents, they are the essential basis of solid missional thinking. I honestly think your statements that ecclesiology should be driven by missiology are actually a dangerous way to think. I'm not assuming you embrace all the implications of that statement I see coming, but the structure of thinking opens up space for dangerous missiologies that value creating a welcoming-shaped church even when that plays out over against creating a Christ-shaped church of word and sacrament. Of course, an indissoluble part of being a Christ-shaped church of word and sacrament is being missional.

Perhaps the distance between us is because I've had different experiences with that way of thinking to you. For instance, something I have encountered in quite a number of Anglican churches in Sydney is the contention that we should abandon Anglican use of the sacraments because it doesn't make outsiders feel comfortable. I have encountered Baptist churches that don't teach the bible because it doesn't make outsiders feel comfortable. I know you don't believe either of those things, but it is one way a belief in missiology driving ecclesiology has played out. That's why I'm strongly opposed to reconfiguring our thinking as missiology driving ecclesiology. I'm not assuming you follow it through in those ways, but because you said "missiology should drive ecclesiology" I am reacting to the idea at the source, from which I have seen many risky praxes flow, and can imagine many more.

I am aware of Satan's agenda because Peter tells us that Satan is prowling around looking for someone to devour, and letting churches die does seem to me to correspond with that. I'd say rather we need to patiently re-educate churches that aren't on mission to live out their calling and be on mission; as Tim Waghorn indicates he has found opportunity to do.

It's good to bring John 15 into the discussion, although as you note such pruning is the work of God - it is a warning to us to bear fruit, not a recommendation to start pruning each other off. It is hard to know when, as it were, to shake the dust off our feet and move on in our ministry. But I tend to think that a lot of Anglican churches are not on about mission because they have not been taught to be so; which is why I think starting with patient re-education is owed to those people who have been attending church for years seeking after Christ, and may not have been offered all that he entails. It may take some time to have their vision of Christ, and therefore themselves as Christians, reshaped. I am sure you don't oppose my doing that, brother.

Matt

[Matt Williams]

Thanks Tim,

My apologies to anyone feeling uncomfortable from my exchange with Danny, we've sorted ourselves out offline and everything is fine between us.

M

[Jereth]

Matt Williams wrote:

"The key reason for the church's existence is mission"? What happened to glorifying God and enjoying him forever? And surely the true church (which we have to treat the visible church as for the time being) is the resurrected multitude giving glory to God? So the key reason for the churches existence is to be the people God has redeemed. We are not instruments of mission in God's toolkit first; human beings redeemed to enjoy fellowship with a loving God second. Surely it has to be the other way aroud?!

Thank you Matt. What I said needs some refinement.

The church isn't just about "do-ing", it's also about "be-ing". And I think you're right, first and foremost we are -- we are what God has made us.

Being what we are, we have something to do. I think that the primary thing we are meant to do is mission.

1 Peter 2 comes to mind:
What we are:
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood,
What we do:
to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

What we are:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,
What we do:
that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

As for mission being central to what we do, I think the Great Commission is key (as Danny has pointed out), as well as Acts 1:8 (you will be my witnesses to the end of the earth) and many other NT texts.

You're right that our being should shape our activity rather than vice versa. However what Danny is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that our prime activity (mission) should influence the way we set up and organise ourselves as a physical, earthly institution ("the church"). That's not the same as saying that mission should re-define who we are on a spiritual level ("The Church").

Cheers
Jereth

[Danny Saunders]

Thanks Jereth for claryfying my thinking for everyone, sometims I've rushed ahead without making such clarifications along the way as I'm already out at the end point, for this and any other offense I've caused, I do apologise.  

Thank you also for introducing Acts into this discussion. I think any fair reading of Acts would show that missiology is meant to drive ecclesiology. The mission of the gospel advanced and as it did so theology and church issues were 'nutted out' as they arose, rather than those issues driving what shape the mission took. Paul was called to do mission amongst gentiles before the rest of the Jewish apostles and believers understood that 'it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.' (Acts 15:11). Of course this 'by grace alone' soteriology to us is obvious, but it took the mission to the gentiles for it to be understood in the wider church. Missiology drove ecclesiology. It wasn't then until much later, once the churchs were established and actually had converts that the letters and pastoral epistles were written that talked more about ecclesiology - as the need arose.    

The problem with us Anglicans is we have an institution so we therefore think things are OK. We have an institutionalised church and so we tend to think ecclesiology is obviously what's important. The trouble is the institution sometimes forgets that people make up the church, not institutions. Our institution then demands time, energy and money to be maintaned and the reality is this is a failing institution. How much money, time and energy is being spent on Lambeth and GAFCON combined when the issues being discussed are unworthy of a NT church, ie. a church should never have deteriorated to this extent, but it may be  because of our ecclesiology and the need to maintain an institution that this deterioration has occurred. Of course there'll always be false teachers and there's no completely 'pure' church, but surely we can learn some lessons from our congregational brothers and sisters about church discipline and church membership so that such issues that we're facing needn't arise (ie. appointing an openly practicing homosexual leader)?    

Current statistics show that Anglicans make up a very low percentage of Christians in Australia and from whatever number of Anglicans there are, many are then nominal. The time, energy and money spent on maintaining a failing institution would be better served on gospel mission strategies and programs or simply the organisation of prayer meetings praying that God may have mercy on us and renew this failing shell.  

Are we not unlike the Israelites ignoring the state of things and the change that is needed by simple pointing to the temple. Jeremiah 7:3-4 -'Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Reform your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place. 4 Do not trust in these deceptive words: “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord."'

If we didn't forget our first calling to be a missionary church and hold to the gospel as of primary importance and then allow that mission to shape how and what we do as church, perhaps we wouldn't be in the state we're in.  

[Justin Denholm]

Danny Saunders wrote:

How much money, time and energy is being spent on Lambeth and GAFCON combined when the issues being discussed are unworthy of a NT church, ie. a church should never have deteriorated to this extent, but it may be  because of our ecclesiology and the need to maintain an institution that this deterioration has occurred. Of course there'll always be false teachers and there's no completely 'pure' church, but surely we can learn some lessons from our congregational brothers and sisters about church discipline and church membership so that such issues that we're facing needn't arise (ie. appointing an openly practicing homosexual leader)?    

Danny,

Surely, though, one of the purposes of an ecclesiastical structure is to maintain discipline? Agreed, this is clearly an area where the worldwide Anglican communion has failed, but I think this is a problem of using the system improperly, rather than a problem with the concept of ecclesiastical hierarchy per se. The issue we face is in fact one of insufficient application of structure, not too much.

At least in a structural system, there are mechanisms by which a church or diocese which is practising or teaching falsely can be corrected. If you take off all the structures and just adopt a congregationalist model, individual churches have little to hold them back if they 'go off the rails'. In our context, I would have certainly liked to see the brakes kick in a little earlier then GAFCON, but I'm still grateful that a sizeable chunk of our worldwide church is vocal in urging the TEC to turn back.

I'm also not sure what you mean by saying that these issues are unworthy of a NT church. These are issues that we see addressed in NT churches (eg in Corinth) - clearly they were both present then and worth addressing. I don't think we've deteriorated, we just remain the church. If you mean that we should have learned their lesson and the church should be better than this, I quite agree, but such is life in a fallen world...

Justin

[Matt Williams]

Thanks Danny, lots of interesting ideas here.

It strikes me that your reading of Acts confuses temporal priority with theological priority. The mission of Christianity was known before the full shape of the church was worked out - but that does not mean that the full shape of the church was determined or driven by mission.

[If anything, Acts (not to mention Galatians) teaches that temporal priority in revelation is not the same thing as theological priority - otherwise you would have to learn to be a good Jew before you could be a Christian!]

Nonetheless perhaps we can agree if I put it like this: some vital aspects of the shape of the church were driven by mission, because the whole shape of the church was driven by their understanding of the whole shape of Christ. And Christ was undoubtedly on about mission.

However Jereth's post alerted me to something - perhaps you mean something a lot smaller than I do by 'ecclesiology', by actually only having in mind those sorts of aspects of the church that are driven by mission? It might help us for you to outline the sense in which you are using that word.

Another thought - I wonder if we can too easily get deceived by looking at our slice of history, so that we imagine that slides into heresy belong to big denominations while new gospel church plants are faithful. Actually the bigger the collective church body the longer it takes for it to slide into heresy because there are so many checks and balances. Individual churches can do it overnight - just takes one misguided charismatic leader to rise up and *presto* we're Arians/Eutycheans/Sabellians etc - and no-one else in the organisation both has authority and is theologically aware enough to spot it!

[Jenny George-2]

Absolutely agree Justin.

Just a quick reply to Jereth [edit: see later post - I actually meant Danny]: Congregationalist models are really not better at church discipline. (Believe me!) In fact things in local congregational churches are fraught with difficulty. Congregationalist churches are notorious at chewing through pastors, because authority structures are so nebulous. That means that pastors can be hamstrung from calling people on sin because their jobs are on the line. Little local churches can also (and frequently do) go right off the orthodox track with almost no-one around calling them back.

The Anglican ecclesiology isn't perfect but I think it's structured in one of the most helpful ways possible. Practically the disciplinary structures aren't always used well but the built in processes are pretty good and if properly used should be quite effective.

Jenny

[Jereth]

Hi everyone,

I just want to clarify that I am not actually an advocate of congregationalism (perhaps I was mistaken for something that actually Danny said). I agree with what Justin, Jenny and Matt have said that congregational churches generally lack the means to impose strong discipline. For example I have heard anecdotes about Baptist churches sliding into heresy within a single generation with nothing to halt the slide.

At the same time I agree with what Danny is saying about restrictive and counter-productive institutional structures. I do believe that churches ought to form alliances and there should be structures in place to facilitate accountability, discipline and orthodoxy. However when these structures become an end in themselves, and are working against Christian orthodoxy and discipline, they are a problem and should be eradicated in favour of new structures.

The NT has much to say about what "The Church" is in terms of the body of Christ, the company of believers who are redeemed and are being built up to maturity and glory by the indwelling Holy Spirit. It also teaches about maintaining order and discipline, and the role of teachers and authoritative leaders. In this sense the NT teaches us "ecclesiology".

However, I am convinced that the NT does not prescribe any particular form or model of "church", in the sense of physical institution or organisation. These things appeared in church history out of necessity. So you could say that the threefold ministry (for example) was a providential outcome which worked well for many centuries, but you can't say that it is taught or prescribed in Scriptuere. Same goes for things like synodical government, diocesan organisation, parish boundaries, etc.  A time has/will come when these sorts of physical structures are no longer useful or relevant, or indeed doing more harm than good, and should be discarded in favour of new and faithful structures (which are themselevs understood to be temporary and meeting the needs of particular times and places).

So looking at Anglicanism, the historic parochial model of church at best is hampering mission, or at worst has totally failed. When a heretical bishop can sue one of his parishes for their property, because they are being obedient to Scripture, and that parish must take refuge under another bishop 6000km away, you know that the structure is ready for the scrap heap!

Jereth

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth wrote:

Hi everyone,

I just want to clarify that I am not actually an advocate of congregationalism (perhaps I was mistaken for something that actually Danny said).

Whoops - you're right, I did mean to respond to Danny. Sorry Jereth.

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth wrote:

So looking at Anglicanism, the historic parochial model of church at best is hampering mission, or at worst has totally failed.

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from but I think at best the parochial model is still a great idea. The thing it does is a) make sure that everyone is covered: every person in Australia should be in someone's mission plan and b) defines the boundaries of who each church should particularly be thinking about. It can be a bit daunting to look out at the world and wonder where to start. Parish boundaries give you a place. It means that a church that finds a big housing estate in its boundaries has to start thinking about how to do ministry to the people that live there. Churches in the heart of a shopping district have to think about what it means to do ministry there.

You're right that we may need to rethink, e.g. whether boundaries should be physical or drawn some other way. But I reckon parishes are still a good model.

[Jereth]

Hi Jenny,

You are right to point out the positive aspects of a parochial system. Yes it is good to ensure that every region is (potentially) covered for mission. Hence we probably shouldn't abandon the parochial system altogether.

But there are some negative aspects of the system too: for example, the way people get really incensed when one parish (or diocese or province) initiates a mission within another parish (or diocese or province). The way people are so protective of their "turf". I think that's an outdated way of thinking which should no longer be sanctioned. (Cf. Kevin Rudd's 2020 conference with its ideal of a "seamless national economy"!!)

The reality is the Anglican denomination is a very heterogeneous entity, and this undermines the parochial system. If a parish or an entire diocese is dominated by liberals, as if often the case, then in my view evangelicals from other parishes/dioceses have a God-given responsibility to "invade" these areas for mission. It would make little sense to sit back and expect the liberals to bring the message of salvation to the pagans in their "territory" -- that's just not going to happen. And in a situation where a diocese is outright heretical, and unrepentantly so (eg. New Westminster in Canada), then I reckon it is a matter of urgency that Anglicans (or other Christians) from elsewhere come in and take over.

Respect for boundaries only makes sense when everyone is playing the same game, IMO.

cheers,
Jereth

[Danny Saunders]

Please read what I actually wrote. I wasn't advocating congregationalism, I said simply that we can learn some lessons from our congregational brothers and sisters about church membership and church discipline.

Thanks for all these other thoughts and comments. It has been very helpful to get all these different perspectives. This has really helped me clarify my own thinking and shown me where further work is needed. I think I'll be staying an Anglican for now.

[Jenny George-2]

Danny Saunders wrote:

Please read what I actually wrote. I wasn't advocating congregationalism, I said simply that we can learn some lessons from our congregational brothers and sisters about church membership and church discipline.

Um, I did read what you wrote. I disagree with you. I don't think there's very much at all that we can learn from congregational churches about church membership and church discipline. I think as a way of organising church they are very poor at those things. What lessons in particular were you thinking of?

[Danny Saunders]

Hi Jenny,
 
Thanks for your considered input. My point was simply that I haven't advocated congregationalism per se but rather suggested that we learn lessons from how they do membership and discipline.

Really happy for you to disagree with me, but here's some lessons and lines of inquiry I was thinking of for your further consideration:
 
In regard to church membership - do you really think that the Anglican system of allowing a person to be a "member" in the sense of being placed on an electoral roll simply because they've been attending for 3 months is adequate?
 
Our loose membership structure then makes it difficult to exercise church discipline. Technically, an Anglican church isn't even meant to run a "membership course" so how can we justify any discipline when "members" come and go as they please and may not even hold similar theological positions to its leadership? It seems to me that loose membership equates with loose discipline.

The lessons we can learn from congregationalists then is in regard to tighter membership structures which are then more conducive to tighter discipline, because by virtue of a formal membership structure, members may have to agree to, or are more likely to, submit to the discipline and theology of the church leadership.

I'm not suggesting this is "fool-proof" or that I have thought this all through or have all the answers but simply that the Anglican way of doing (or not doing) membership is a problem in itself.

What do you or others with experience in conregational settings think?

Together In Him,
Danny.

[Matt Williams]

Hey Danny,

If that's what you're thinking of, I think it's a really good thing to consider. I agree with you about some of the problems associated with having too loose a membership structure. But tight membership structures are not found in all congregational churches, nor are all episcopal churches without tight membership structures (many Eastern Orthodox churches are very tight within an episcopal framework).

So I don't know that I would think of 'tight membership structure' as something to learn from congregationalism. In fact, I think congregationalism weakens the benefits of a tight membership structure, because it risks turning tight membership policies into tools of cultism and emotionally invested power plays. I've seen that even in several Baptist churches. Only in a more integrated network of church authority can you provide proper checks and balances needed to lessen the likelihood of such a result.

Blessings
Matt

[Gordon Cheng]

Danny Saunders wrote:

The answer is to plant new missional churches

Hey Danny,

this is nicely put, except I would have left out the word 'missional' because I don't understand what it means.

If it means preaching the gospel to start new churches, then that is great news. You won't get any help from the Anglican denomination to do it, but who needs help? If God is good, you just need one person telling the gospel to others, and you go from there.

[Danny Saunders]

Thanks Gordon,

It's very disappointing to me that the word "missional" is so misunderstood or unknown in Anglican evangelical circles in Australia, but given our record for engaging in mission should I be so surprised? The word and its meaning and how that influences ecclesiology is much more established elsewhere, at least in the US where it has been used for some time now.

Here's a great summary by Ed Stetzer, whose books are also very helpful, especially as you or others continue to consider church planting.

http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/the-meanings-of-missional.html

Check it out and let me know what you think.  

[Maria]

I have just read 'God Next Door, Spirituality & Mission in the neighbourhood' by Simon Carey Holt. It has challenged me to think more about the parochial system and our involvement in our local area. I think many believe it has become irrelevant due to our present mobile nation. Many new missional churches are choosing a target audience based on demographics other than place. While I thought Holt at times overemphasised 'place' to the detriment of other important Biblical calls, I was greatly encouraged and challenged by the book. Have others read it - perhaps they might care to share their thoughts on the book?

[Jereth]

Maria wrote:

I have just read 'God Next Door, Spirituality & Mission in the neighbourhood' by Simon Carey Holt. It has challenged me to think more about the parochial system and our involvement in our local area. I think many believe it has become irrelevant due to our present mobile nation.

* Jereth gets on hobby horse *

I've come to realise that the whole thing about "mobility" is a crock. I hate how sprawled and spread out Melbourne is, and how dependent we are on driving long distances to see our friends/family etc. It's inconvenient, expensive, anti-social, time consuming, and bad for the environment. And I've found it really quite unrealistic to invite people to church when church is > 5km from where they live.

Why can't we be like Asia/Europe and live in 6-storey apartment blocks with stuff within walking/cycling distance? Oh, that's right, it's because of those stupid "save our suburbs" whingers. (aka ultra rich people who own big houses in Toorak and Camberwell). And because our Government is too cowardly to take a stand against these idiots and develop Melbourne in a sensible way. For heaven's sake, opening up growth corridors in places like Pakenham and Berwick, building freeway after freeway... does anyone in government have any brains? Melburnians are such morons.

* Jereth gets off hobby horse *

Rachel and I are looking forward to a time in the future when we can attend a local suburban church and be involved missionally in a local area in which we live.

cheers,
Jereth

[Jason]

Though Berwick is a lovely area, and I know of a really good Anglican church there ;)

It's too late to go back to the village church idea as nice as it might sound. And high-density population centres have their own problems associated with them. But I don't necessarily agree with the State government's policy. Like everything, it has its disadvantages and advantages - including for mission.

I think, though, as a church, we're already ultra city-centric because it seems to be the most "strategic" (if I hear that word again in relation to ministry, I might just puke) place to be. Or there is the misconception that city church = important church, (outer) suburban church = bogan-ville.