The past several decades have seen a seemingly endless obsession with trying to discover strategies to help denominations and congregations become more effective or successful. Consistent with the DNA of denominationalism, these strategies are usually defined with respect to carrying out the purpose of the church. To put it simply, in attempting to renew the church, you can’t get there from there. It is essential to probe deeper beyond the mere attempt to reclaim the purposive intent of the church.
The argument I am proposing is that the denominational, organizational church has focused more on matters of polity than on ecclesiology. This ends up making the operational ecclesiology of the denominational church more functional, or instrumental, in character. In contrast, the missional church conversation has reintroduced a discussion about the very nature of the church, its essence.
This conversation no longer understands “being missionary” primarily in functional terms, as something the church does, as is the case for the denominational, organizational church; instead, it understands “being missionary” in terms of something the church is, as something that is related to its nature. This represents a change of kind in the conversation about the church where ecclesiology is, once more, front and center.
Craig Van Gelder in “The Missional Church & Denominations”
Hey Brad-
Thanks for the post and I would agree with you. I might even take it a step further for our denomination which is PCUSA. Essentially we have gotten so conditioned to think of ourselves as a non-profit corporation that we have simply lost the ability in many quarters to reflect on these deep identity issues. Instead, as I travel around speaking in churches, I hear the whole missional conversation getting run through the grid of “agencies”, “functions”, and/or “programs” of this non-profit we call church. This is true all the way up the food chain as well for us. I have serious doubts as to our ability to survive this paradigm shift although because of our money and endowments we may continue for some time. A great example can be seen in some of the debates we are having and have been having for years. We look for polity solutions rather than theological ones because we simply are not equipped and/or willing to do the messy work of seeking the Spirit together.
Does Van Gelder share your view? I have loved his other stuff. Is this book worth a look?
Peace,
Doug
Brad, how do you see this in light of Jesus’ statement that He will build the church? Do you see the organizational efforts going beyond what Jesus said?
Doug, yes I have found this book to be very helpful and insightful. The book has been especially interesting to me as I work for a denomination on both a local/association level and a state/convention level.
Much of what Van Gelder is saying speaks loud and clear to me. Most (or all) of the efforts I see in the denomination to “renew” the church continues to focus on polity/organizational tweaking with very little serious theological/missiological reflection. Moreover, much of the book speaks directly to work I am doing for my dmin project.
Jonathan, I guess I have never considered the organizational piece moving beyond Jesus’ statement. I think denominations have certainly played a vital and necessary role. There is a need for churches, especially small churches, to network together for encouragement, fellowship, specific mission efforts, perhaps training, sharing of resources, etc. And while I do believe there is still a need in many of these areas, we live in a very different day in regards to the need, focus and effectiveness of denominational work.
What I really like about what Van Gelder is saying is that the missional church conversation, with its increased emphasis on framing a missional theology, offers a much more fundamental approach to rethinking and reframing the ecclesiology and polity of denominations and their congregations than does the DNA of traditional, functional, denominatinalism.
“The argument I am proposing is that the denominational, organizational church has focused more on matters of polity than on ecclesiology. This ends up making the operational ecclesiology of the denominational church more functional, or instrumental, in character.”
Another possibility is that certain ecclesiologies lead to a preoccupation with polity and the “instrumental.” So, for example, my own denomination (the PCUSA) has had a Constantinian/Christendom ecclesiology that has sought to acquire and use power to transform and control (the “Christ transforming culture” type). Perhaps it is from this ecclesiology that a focus on polity, which promotes order, has emerged. In other words, a focus on polity is part of the ecclesiology rather than a substitute for ecclesiology.
It seems to me that a “contrast society” ecclesiology would not be as prone to preoccupation with polity. Rather, its focus would likely be practices that differentiate it from the world.