The Conversations of Our Times: Part Three

The Incarnational Conversations 

This is the third in a series of observations on some of the more significant conversations occuring within Christianity that will have a profound impact on the church. You might want to  first read the two previous posts on this theme. 

Alan Hirsch is the primary mover and shaker of the Incarnational movement. You can see his blog at http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/. You can also click here to see a book review I did of his book, The Forgotten Ways.

Alan’s primary message is the U.S. Christianity is only reaching 35% of the population and that number is shrinking. In order to reach the rest of the postmoderns we must go back to first century ways of doing ministry and that spells trouble for the institutional church.

Incarnational church leaders focus on going to where people are instead of attracting people to come to them. The incarnational church (most of which are fledglings groups) sends people out into the culture to spread the seeds of Christianity. Having a worship service and doing things to attract people to the church aren’t a concern. Relationships and friendships among the neighborhoods where one lives are their primary concern.  The Incarnational model is seeking to bring the church back to its historical roots and free it from its institutionally dominated understanding of what it means to be a church.  However, taken to its ultimate conclusion, the institutional church isn’t needed. Most of the incarnational churches exist apart from any form of institutional church and are more akin to house churches.

Alan’s first book, The Shaping of Things to Come, is a book that should be read by every Christian who knows something is wrong with today’s version of Christianity but can’t put their finger on what it is. The authors challenge every facet of Christianity today from ordination to the traditional creeds and offer a new, but ancient, way forward. It is well worth the read because it will open your eyes to some possible ways to redo or undo your ministry. 

Throughout the book I found myself saying “Yes, But!” On one level I envy the journey on which they invite us to join them. On another level I wonder what will become of the institutional church if what they propose is followed.  They are surely on to something, but following it might totally destroy the church as we know it. They go far beyond “reshaping” or talking about innovation as is found on the cover.  A better title for the book might be “The Rewiring of Things to Come: The Beginning of a Revolution.”

The authors are advocating a wholesale rewiring of Christianity back its 21st century roots. They actually show how to be the church without being institutional at all. They talk about a missional, incarnational, messianic, apostolic church that is found within the surrounding community rather than within the four walls of a church.

Although I agree with Hirsch about the church forgetting what it means to be the church, I feel it’s impossible for Christianity to survive without the institution in a society where institutions are part of the basic fabric of life. I know Christianity flourished under Mao in China without any institutions, but that was China in a day when public institutions were not part of the fabric of society.

So, here’s my question in the Incarnationalists: Should we downplay the importance of the institutional church just because the vast majority of them are ineffective and do not reflect the spirit of Christ or should we seek to return them to their biblical roots? Can a totally non-institutional church thrive in a society based totally on institutions? If you really hold  to your beliefs, why do you still leave room for the institutional church?

Next week I will take a look at the Organic Movement, which some might put in the same camp as the Incarnationalists, but I don’t. I will give special attention to Viola’s new book, Reimagining Church.
 

5 Responses to “The Conversations of Our Times: Part Three”

  1. Bill T-B Says:

    Bill, do you really want an answer to your question or is it rhetorical? You yourself regularly remind us that we are living in a pre-Christian society. The pre-Christians lived in an institutional based society. I’m not sure you can get more institutional than the Romans via the Hellenists meets Judaism. Not that’s institutional. Christianity seemed to thrive in that day and time with very little formal institutional oversight (though to be fair, there was certainly an institutional center in Jerusalem that even Paul put himself into accountability with … and he had no real “need” to, since his sending “agency” was Antioch, not Jerusalem).

    But the real question is to ponder how long the faithful will continue to grapple with an organization that shows little interest in serving the purpose for which they were created … to make, nurture, equip, empower, and encourage disciples of Jesus Christ.

    Bill Tenny-Brittian
    Senior Consultant
    Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian
    Blog
    Follow Me! Twitter Connection

  2. easum Says:

    Bill, I know where you’re coming from. You are basing your comment on the worst of churches rather than on the emerging forms of reproductive churches that are spreading like wildfire at the moment. I know they arent in the majority at the moment, but they are rapidly gaining ground, just not as fast as the mainline churches are closing. I will write about the reproductive conversations in a couple of weeks.

    Long ago, the faithful quit grappling with churches that fail to equip the saints. Most of them arent mainline and most of them have emerged in the last twenty years. Im referring to churches like Northwood in Keller, Texas, Community Christian in Naperville, New Hope in Honolulu, just to mention a few.

  3. phill Says:

    I have always wondered why it has to be one way over the other…why can not a church be both attraction and incarnation

  4. easum Says:

    Phil, i will argue later that it can be and shoul be. Jesus said come and see and he also said go make disciples. more on this later

  5. A Wort Says:

    Hi Bill
    Interesting Question! I just think that the problem that we are experiencing in the institution is not so much a corporate problem but rather individual, that finds manifestation in the corporate/ institution/ church.
    The misconception on what spirit is can be one of the central problems in this issue. I think if we truly define spirit according to the life of christ and we live that, something totaly new will come into being. The church was a direct result of Jesus living spirit to the fullest, (servanthood, love. etc.) If we will come back to that as our starting point we as an institution will again connect with te heart of God and the Energy of Gods Spirit will sustain the Body again.
    I realy think we need to rethink some of our central concepts and Ideas which was formed and institutionalized. Redefine certain “contextual truths” and live live as Jesus had defined it.
    Bill arn’t we in as a Church in a second reformation and shouldnt we validate it. WE CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD IF WE RECOGNIZE WHERE WE ARE NOW!
    The fact is that the Body does not get the results we so badly crave, lets redefine and REFORM.

Leave a Reply