It was a couple of months ago that I picked up a book by Bishop Graham Cray called Disciples and Citizens. Having in the past worked for what was then called the Movement for Christian Democracy and having a considerable interest in how Christians can impact politics for the good, there was something about the book that piqued my curiosity and made me take it off the shelf. The blurb on the back says:
Many of us find integrated, whole life discipleship very difficult. It is easier to live, not so much a double life as a dualistic one, where faith is a personal matter with little impact on work and other spheres of life.
Graham Cray shows that there are profound gospel reasons for taking seriously both our national life and our call to be Christian citizens. A nation’s social health is a matter of Christian action and concern because it matters to God.
So far I’ve read the first two chapters and I’ve not been disappointed. There are various highlighted passages so far, but the following stood:
…God’s kingdom is his reign over all things which cannot be limited to his inner reign in the hearts of those who believe. ‘Neither in Judaism nor elsewhere in the New Testament do we find that the reign of God is something indwelling in men, to be found, say, in the heart; such a spiritualistic understanding is ruled out both for Jesus and for early Christian tradition.’
Of particular importance is this idea that we need to get away from a dualistic faith, which creates a division between our church persona and our ‘real-life’ one. Its that Christian Schwarz of Natural Church Development fame calls ‘radical balance’ where our lives don’t sink down to some sort of lowest common denominator in each area, but instead strives to achieve the highest Christian standards in all areas of our lives. Only this sort of attitude will see Christians being lights in the darkness of this world.
I’d argue the clergy/laity divide in attractional church undermines the progress of lay people in discipleship and in pursuing holiness. I mean just how much holiness do you need to make coffee on a rota at church? What’s the point? It’s so difficult for lay people to find what Alan Hirsch describes as communitas, there simply isn’t anywhere for all that energy to go, so there’s no point in working for that balance - the church will simply frustrate it.
I understand your position Eleanor, but nowhere am I saying that the pursuit of discipleship is confined to the clergy/laity model of church. I am a strong believer in both the priesthood of all believers and an individual’s responsibility in finding ways to disciple themselves.
Having said that, the majority of believers find themselves in the type of church that so many amongst current thinkers are always so willing to talk down. Not only do they find themselves there but many are content there. The reality is that this situation is unlikely to change in the near future and therefore there is a responsibility on those of us called to a restoration ministry to find ways in which we can reach out to the abandoned places of the ‘church empire’. With so many willing to abandon and denigrate traditional congregations I’m proud to say that I am called to this sort of ministry.
In view of this I will continue to pursue this calling and try to find ways to encourage believers into becoming disciples. Graham Cray’s book is an exciting addition to the relatively small number of books written from both within a traditional denomination and a UK perspective.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a particular sized gathering is more or less good than another, (though I would question the sense in organising a church around gatherings of a size larger than it has leaders able to handle).
The clergy laity divide is what is consistently undermining the missional stance of the church, and while it’s great that we have leaders who feel called to caring for the older congregations, and making them truly great, and that shape of church may well survive alongside the others, I’m looking to what keeps gatherings missionally orientated here in the UK post-Christendom and specifically in rural areas.
Attractional church has serious problems built into its structures, culture and expression. It is designed for Christendom context. I pray God’s blessing on you in your ministry!
Warmest blessings, Eleanor, Sister under private vows
“I’m looking to what keeps gatherings missionally orientated” is exactly what I am striving to do as well. One of my largest concerns within some of what is calling itself missional is its unwillingness to be missional amongst what has gone before. It seems that some are more than willing to launch new inititiatives, but few are willing to try to breath new life into established churches.
We are not supposed to be missional amongst people who are already believers. They are often very happily settled in churches that are designed around lay people not doing very much, or just helping with the maintenance activities. All is happy, it may be dying off along with Christendom and church-going, but who wants to change? Many of them have had decades of ministers trying to change them already?
Imagine G. and B. the key lay people in a small congregation. G runs the house groups/small groups/cells/discipleship whatever they call it. Out of the dozen or so who turn up, one or two always seem to want more, they want solid Bible study, real powerfilled prayer meetings once a week for their neighbourhood, etc, and something to equip them for evangelism. But the other ten or so want to do that quiz programme that was such fun last year, and the barbeque, and the coffee morning. So G goes, apparently sensibly, with the majority, and keeps a healthy sized group running. The one or two who keep appearing wanting something more, stay only a while before they get the message and move on elsewhere. Meanwhile his wife B. is doing exactly the same thing with the young people. She notices, if she goes too deep in youth group, most of them complain and drift off, or don’t come the following week. If she doesn’t provide anything deep and challenging, she will always loose the one or two.
Now imagine that happening over several decades, and several successors to G and B. And someone from the Bishops/DHS/Area Superintendency etc comes down to visit the congregation and finds the minister complaining the congregation is so passive it is very difficult to find anyone who will really commit to doing anything missional?
When you go into that situation as a new minister, you are doing beautiful work for God caring for sincere and genuine people who deserve the finest pastoral care. But missionally speaking, you are flogging a dead horse.
If you try to turn around that situation, by bringing in new people, not only is there conflict because you are going against the very grain of that congregation’s church culture, but you are working against the grain of what is needed in post-Christendom, you are trying to make attractional church missional?
That’s the reason for the very sad and difficult decision many of us make not to pursue ministry in established attractional churches. Someone has to do it, but unless you are very gifted and have fifteen years to spare to work on one congregation, it just doesn’t compute.
But disagree by all means, (huge grin). It’s a fascinating and very painful dilemma and it would be wrong to pretend there are easy answers.
Warmest blessings
I understand exactly where you are coming from and going to Eleanor. And being in a situation that is similar to the one you describe and being incredibly frustrated over it does not make me believe any less in the possibility of a transformation happening.
The question that we need to be asking is how, through the power of the Holy Spirit, are we able to make the move from passivity to missional living a possibility for those who find themselves in this situation. It might not be a comfortable process but we owe it to all those who have had their discipleship undermined to give it a go, and not simply abandon them like a dead horse.
However, in one way I’m disappointed that we have got into a conversation about the various merits of missional vs attractional church as this post was supposed to be about a book that is talking about being what we should be as disciples in the world. It therefore contains important points that everyone calling themselves Christian should be considering. I suspect though that this point will now be lost!