<Theofragen>

I have recently been doing a good bit of reflection regarding the Church's reason(s) for existing. Some would argue, it seems, that the Church is the threshold by which humanity enters into a salvific relationship with Christ. Others might feasibly contend that the Church exists in order to be Christ's incarnational presence (His body) in a world that desperately needs a touch of grace. Still others might lay emphasis on other manifestations of the Church's reasons for existing: to vie for social justice on behalf of the oppressed and marginalized, to edify and equip the saints for service, to share the Gospel with the world. Certainly all of these answers are appropriate, the reasons need not be either/or. The easy answer to this question, and the one toward which my moderate proclivities are inclined, is to say, "Yes" to all of them and brush one's hands of the discussion. Yet, it seems to me that a fair amount of vituperative diatribes and vehement denunciations of the aspects of different manifestations of Christianity revolves around disparate theologies, which in turn informs variant methodologies. Have we lost sight of the reason that we were "called out" in the first place?

C.S. Lewis wrote:

This is the whole of Christianity. There is nothing else. It is so easy to get muddled about that. It is easy to think that the church has a lot of different objects--education, building, missions, holding services. Just as it is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects--military, political, economic, and what not.
But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden--that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.
In the same way the Church exists for nothing else but to draw men [and women] into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became [hu]man for no other purpose. It is even doubtful, you know, whether the whole universe was created for any other purpose.

If Lewis is right, and I think he is, then much of the in-fighting amongst Christians is wholly antithetical to the Gospel, the Church, even Christianity itself! This leads me to a second reflection. If the church truly exists to draw humanity to Christ (incorporating the manifold implications of such a relationship), then perhaps the manner by which the Church endeavors to accomplish such a feat ought to shift as the culture shifts. We are well aware of the horrid morass that resulted from 20th century missionalization efforts in Africa and Asia seeking to make "little Christs" that looked strangely like "little Americans." Because humans can never divorce themselves from culture, and given the fact that culture changes and varies, it seems that the manner by which we engage people must necessarily change as well.

This is a reason that I agree with Brian McLaren, who contends that the term "Emerging Church" is less than helpful. It sounds like it is a new denomination or something (like the Baptist church or Orthodox church). I have tended to speak of this movement as a conversation, following Tony Jones. McLaren has pressed us to consider labeling this conversation under the heading, "The Church that is emerging." I like this. Some iterations of the Emergent Conversation have sometimes sounded like a neo-gnosticism. "We have discovered the secret formula for being Christians and all of you 'traditional' folks, have missed it." Such a mentality misses the mark. Nevertheless, those who are participating in this discussion, largely, are passionate about how the church might actualize Her purpose in a postmodern, post-Christian world. This necessitates rethinking everything (theology, method, sacraments, etc.) save our central focus of drawing men and women to Christ.

Perhaps there is something that I missed in this reflection. What are the holes that I ought to fill? Any ideas? Peace.

The Church that is Emerging

4 Comments: