Some Thoughts on Church

This one has been brewing for a while, then I read about the Bill Hybels/Bono exchange at the Willow Creek Leadership gig, and it prompted me to get these thoughts down. (Disclaimer: I wasn't there. But, thanks to all those tweeps who were there and helped me with their recollections of the conversation. Also, there are some very good detailed blog posts here, here, and here.)

As anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on this blog will know, one of my pet peeves is language. More to the point, the issue is words. How we use and abuse them, how we interpret, reinterpret and misinterpret their meanings, etc.

"Church" is one such word.

First, there is an assumption. For the most part we have translated the Greek ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) as "church". Therefore, to many of us, as long as we call our own gatherings and institutions by the same name, they must be the same thing. Then we turn around and use that as some kind of perverted excuse for the church's shortcomings. As someone once said to me, "Sure church sucks, but it's the Bride of Christ, so what are you going to do?" I reject that thinking outright. Just because we call it by the same name doesn't mean it's the same thing, and it doesn't mean it should be accorded the same unquestioning allegiance as the original construct. "Church" does not get a pass; we must always question what we are doing. Always.

Second, there is the constantly evolving meaning of the word, which I think should be encouraged. The problem is many of us have our pet definitions; this is what church means, and therefore this is what it will always mean. Even as society, culture and humanity as a whole continue to evolve, so too will the Body of Christ. It will look different for different times. It's the ethos or the heart of it that will never change. The problem is we have long since lost sight of what that heart is, and so lacking that deeper understanding we have no choice but to cling to whatever iteration of church we happen to experience and appreciate... and to defend that structure at all costs.

Finally, and at the risk of contradicting my first two points, I think there is also an issue of "trajectory". I believe the People of God are on a trajectory of understanding what life in the Kingdom looks like. To the extent that the organized church will participate in this (r)evolution, it is on the the same trajectory. The Spirit is slowly working on us, teaching us what it means to follow Jesus, and bringing us back into alignment with God's purpose.This implies movement, change. In this environment nothing should stay the same for long because we are always learning, growing, maturing.

All that to say my view of "church", and my use of the word, has changed dramatically for me over the past several years. For these reasons the following interaction between Hybels and Bono frustrated me somewhat:

Much in the same way Bono called out the church in 2006 to do something about the fight to end global poverty and AIDS, Hybels turned the tables to question why Bono has not been publicly connected to a local church. Hybels asked, "A while ago, you applauded the church and said it's doing better. And yet you yourself have stayed at an arm's distance from a local church. It is very frustrating to me. For some of us you have become such a proponent of it, it just seems like your allegiance to it and your actual engagement in it would be higher than it is. It seems contradictory." As Hybels finished his question, summit attendees were applauding, drowning out the beginning of Bono's answer.

Bono responded first by saying that he fears denominationalism, but then gave a much more in-depth answer: "My father was Catholic and my mother was Protestant, and that's unremarkable anywhere other than Ireland, where I grew up. And I've always found myself equally comfortable or uncomfortable in any churches, and I go where the life is. When I am in New York, I'll go to St. Patrick's Cathedral, a big Catholic cathedral, and I'll go sit in a corner and look at the stained glass windows. If I'm in the southern states of the United States, I'll go to a Baptist church. If I'm near Saddleback, I'm going. If I'm in London, I'll go to an Anglican church. I can get into the formalities. Again, I go where the life is. But, you know, equally, I'm happy just walking down a beach or a road. But what I find really hard to take is a lifeless ceremony and I've seen a lot of that in churches. If I feel there is honesty there, truthfulness; doesn't have to be a charismatic preacher – doesn't have to be the most super-intellectual teaching – but if there is honesty and humility, and a place where everybody's welcome no matter what they look like or how they act even, then I feel comfortable. I'll go."

(Bono Returns to Willow Creek, atU2.com, August 9, 2009)

My first admittedly flippant reaction is to say that if Bill doesn't think Bono is part of a church, he obviously has never been to a U2 concert. But in all seriousness, that actually hits the nail on the head. Bill's church and Bono's church are two different things completely. I don't want to put words in either man's mouth, but this is what I see: Bill's church is an organization, a structure, an institution, a place to belong, where Bono's church is an ethic, a worldview, a life to live, supplemented by occasion visits to "Bill's churches". There is the dichotomy, right there in plain sight. Don't get me wrong, Bill's church is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. I'm just not sure that it is going to change the world, and I'm equally uncertain that it is what Jesus had in mind.

The same day that I first heard about the Bill/Bono thing, I read this from African theologian Emmanuel Katongole:

"...by showing how the various social problems arise out of a particular social imagination, one is able to see the church, more clearly, as a set of stories and practices that reflect an alternative or at least a different imagination and vision of society." (A Future for Africa: Critical Essays in Christian Social Imagination, p. xvi, emphasis mine)

Alternative... Different... Instead, I wonder how often the church is used as a vehicle to make us feel better about adherence to the standard vision of society? Katongole goes on to say that the church is the vehicle which shapes Christian social imagination, and a key ingredient in that shaping is the "formation of truthful lives." Again, I wonder if the church is more comfortable forming submissive lives, that is, submission to the status quo. In short, is the church somewhere to go on Sunday, or is it (to be) an alternative worldview, or even an alternative reality?

I may once again be exercising my spiritual gift of hyperbole, but I suspect that the Bill/Bono exchange will come to be seen as something of a watershed moment.

Church: Is it a place to go or a life to live?

Comments

[Eric Blauer]

I would say "both" to you're final question.

I think we stay more close to the "way" it should be; if we stay in the "bride/marriage" imagery of scripture. The way of a marriage is rooted more in faithfulness and uncoditional love and less about structure, revolution, emerging or unchurch, post church issues of structure.

Frank Viola deals with this same set of questions from a slightly different angle:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/08/frank_viola_on.html

[Sue]

Hi, Im from Melbourne.

The trouble with all of that is that it doesnt even begin to take into consideration the entire picture of where the world is at altogether in 2009--and how we got to here. Or how/why conventional religiosity (however well intentioned)is very much part of the problem

These three related references provide a unique critical perspective of the situation.

This one criticizes conventional exoteric religiosity--which is the only kind of "religion" that now exists.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

These two references provide a very sobering description of the world altogether in 2009

http://global.adidam.org/books/not-two-3.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

[Tim Chesterton]

Don't get me wrong, Bill's church is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. I'm just not sure that it is going to change the world, and I'm equally uncertain that it is what Jesus had in mind.

So how is your church changing the world, Mike?

[lynne]

I see Mike's group of peeps who do life together like the woman who gave her last coin, an offering that is far more pleasing to God than all the big organizations throwing bags of money without sacrifice. That's just my 2 cents worth.

[Jonathan Brink]

What shows up for me is the distinction of church for Hybels and Kingdom for Bono. I don't want to make a saint out of Bono, but his boundaries are larger, where Hybels is probably much smaller, and it look like him.

[Heather]

I'm pretty sure i have it on dvd.

[Mike]

Tim, you never do like the posts that are critical of the church, do you. That's unfortunate because the act of questioning, which I've already said I believe is important, even critical, is itself an act of criticism. But, to your question.

I believe we're already changing the world by simply aligning ourselves with the notion that that is our purpose. We see the role of the church as joining in God's redemptive plan for all of creation, and this is decidedly different than the plan of personal salvation I grew up (in church) with.

And I like Jonathan's reference to boundaries. It's not about what is your church doing versus what is my church doing, but what is church?

[Tim Chesterton]

I agree that the question of 'what is church?' is fundamental. The reason I don't like the posts that are critical of the church is that I'm not quite sure what's meant by 'the church'.

To me 'the church' is not an abstract concept; it is embodied in flesh and blood people I know and love (and yes, who I often get frustrated with too). I know many, many people in traditional churches who are committed heart and soul to being the hands and feet and ears of Christ in a needy world. I'm sure there are many such people in Bill Hybels' church, and I'm not at all sure that their work isn't helping to change the world every bit as much as that of a high profile media personality like Bono.

[David Warkentin]

Hi Mike, good thoughts on distinguishing between Bill/Bono. I think you're right about the different visions for church. I think it's probably also true that Bill thinks his view of "local church" is also better than Bono's view of loose affiliation to the institution. Where they are similar, however, is they both display strong commitment to being where there is "life" as Bono put it. They just have different versions for where "life" as a Christian can be experienced.

As someone who has grown up and is now employed in a culture closer to Bill's than Bono's, I have much to learn from Bono - church is where there is life. Can what we do in our local churches actually not be church if "life" is absent? And what if that "life" is actually found outside of our local church walls? A sobering thought...

[wilsonian]

This is what kept coming to mind last night when I was supposed to be sleeping...

The nature of Bill's church is divided; Bono's is cooperative.

The nature of Bill's church is competitive;
Bono's is collaborative.

[idelette]

I watched the whole thing and it so wasn't this. I think Bill asked him an honest question. And Bono actually said that he was part of a congregation.

I think the problem came when the audience missed the picture. The loud applauding for something they thought Bill was asking. And Bill corrected them on that. That was not his heart. Did you see that??? That's where I see the two camps split off.

I agree that church is much larger, but I also agree that there is something about being rooted in a community of broken people that brings a lot of life.

Also, I think you actually miss the beautiful thing that Bill Hybels is doing here. He brought a rock star to the small view of church. He's trying to present a different view. Did you watch the parts about local churches rising up out of Bono's challenge from three years ago and doing amazing things? I'm sorry. Building a state of the art soccer stadium for kids in Khayelitsha for me very much looks like people changing the world. Raising $500,000 and getting EVERYONE in a small body to get excited about building a hospital in Malawi-the single mom putting aside her coffee money alongside the kids selling lemonade for Africa. I think that's changing the world in a very big, beautiful way.

I'm tired of the fragmentation. Us and them. Why focus on the differences?

What is it that UNITES us? Bill AND Bono. We're all in this together.

[Mike]

Wilsonian, I've think you've nailed it.

And Idelette, there's some good stuff there to think about, so thanks. However, I think you're talking about the ideal, whereas I'm talking about the actual, church.

I did catch the part about the congregations rising to Bono's challenge. But it was exactly that, a challenge. More to the point, it was a rock star showing up and reminding "the church" what the Gospel of Jesus really says, and shaming (some of) them into action. I think that goes to my original point.

I'm tired of the us and them too. But without a valid diagnosis the illness goes unchecked. "Why can't we all just get along" doesn't change anything. And to be accurate, I don't spend a lot of time focusing on the differences; I've moved on. It was Bill Hybels calling out someone (who I think has done more to realign people with Kingdom purposes than any pastor I know) for not being part of "a church" that got under skin.

We need new eyes to see.

PS. Thanks for the heads-up on "Free". It's on the iPod and going to Africa with me.

[idelette]

I bet you Bill Hybels would be the first to admit he probably should not have asked that question. It blew up in his face a bit. It doesn't detract from what he is doing as a whole. I think that was his humanness; maybe a root of self-righteousness.

As I am processing this, I am realizing that Bill's one question asked in the wrong spirit, triggered a whole lot of wrong spirit responses/ripples--in me, anyways. Comes back to the responsibility of the leader to walk in the right spirit. The fall-out is so much larger than we even know. Wow. But then, the Grace aspect, for the one who was human. Let's be that church, please.

Re-read your first para.s, before the stuff on Bono/Bill. I can meet you there.

Have a good trip.

Peace.