A few days ago I did a post called "Bridging the Chasm," where I piggybacked on a post from Michael Spencer at the Boar's Head Tavern. Michael listed seven ways of bridging the chasm between evangelicals and the world and from time to time I want to add my own thoughts to his, which I'll do now.
Michael's second suggestion is:
2. We can look at church models that are significantly communicating and communing with the secular culture, and find out what the bridge approaches could be. I suspect there are more than we might think. Secularists have to raise children. They think about money and aging parents. They enjoy art and music. Could we make a new endeavor to being part of the larger culture, especially in helping/sharing capacities?
His fifth suggestion is:
5. Establish ministering Christian communities that specifically exist for penetrating culture and communicating with culture. The idea of "secular orders" in the Catholic Church is a good model. Particularly, we need communities that do servant ministry and have no threatening political agenda at all.
I see the two as pretty similar and want to address them with a few thoughts.
One of my favorite books of the last couple of years is The Celtic Way of Evangelism by George Hunter. One of the things that Hunter does is contrast the Celtic way of evangelism with the Roman way of evangelism. Among other contrasts, he speaks of the difference between Roman Catholic monasteries and Celtic monasteris. The Romans tended to build their monasteries on the outside of cities, whereas the Celts built theirs right on the edge of the village or in the village. The Roman method of evangelism was to believe in order to belong, whereas the Celtic way was to welcome unbelieves into the community in order to lead them to faith. For them they let people belong in order to believe. The Celtic way was to build the monasteries either on the edge of the village or in the village and they had lots of activities that benefited the village.
In some ways the Roman model is correct in that it is clear that formal membership in the community of believers is contingent upon faith. But that doesn't preclude the believing community from opening its arms and allowing unbelievers to come in and participate in the life of the community.
Another thought comes to mind in this and this one was shared with me by a fellow pastor. In the 1700's and 1800's there was a group in England known as the Clapham Sect. These were believers who had wealth and influence and decided to use these things to impact society by forming several organizations that were the equivalents of today's non-profits. What is significant is that the members of this group used their money to fund community projects, not exclusively church ministries. I am quite sure that they didn't let their churches suffer, but they poured massive funds into ministry in the community. Here is an excerpt from an article on them:
If you had money and influence, how would you use them? A group of well-heeled and well-placed Englishmen and women had the chance to answer that question at the end of the eighteenth century. Their decision is instructive. It changed their world.
Lampooned in their own day as "the saints," this group of prominent and wealthy individuals were known as "the Clapham Sect." They were named for Clapham, a village south of London, where most moved in evangelical Anglican circles. Busy professionals, all of them, they still made time for Christian action and gave liberally and effectively to worthy causes. Their foremost endeavor was to rid the world of slavery.
The Clapham Sect turned their attention to multiple projects which promised to transform morals and society. They worked to ban bull fighting and bear baiting, to suspend the lottery, and to improve prisons. Their support for factory acts bettered working conditions. At their instigation, Sierra Leone was founded to provide a home for refugee slaves. Zachary Macaulay became first governor and drove himself beyond exhaustion for the good of the colony.
It was the Claphamites which funded Hannah More's schools. Additionally, they had a big part in the formation of church, Bible, tract and mission societies. Against the opposition of the East India company, this valiant band fought to allow missionaries in India. Parliament eventually agreed. It was thanks to the Clapham group that chaplains were provided to East India company employees.
What I am impressed with about them and what is different about them is that they poured their resources into non-church based gospel ministry. They were all churchmen of course, but the church truly functioned as a base of mission. And these were not para-church organizations that they founded. They were business and political organizations that applied the gospel to business, social and political concerns.
I realize that I am using a politically minded group like the Clapham sect as an example of what Michael endorsed, when he said that we should not have a threatening political agenda. So, it may seem that the two are at odds.
But, remember that the Clapham sect was in England, where the head of the government is the head of the church and we face a different set of church-state issues than they did. Suffice it to say that I agree with the spirit of Michael's exhortation. Somehow we've got to extricate ourselves from the current public perception that evangelicals are simply an arm of the Republican party. At the same time, we have to bring the gospel to bear on political issues. How we do both I'm not sure - it's a tension we just have to keep working through.
To my knowledge there are a few churches out there that are trying things like this. Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan comes to mind as one. Another one that comes to mind is Fellowship Bible Church of Little Rock, AK, where Pastor Robert Lewis is leading them to become a Church of Irresistible Influence.
Recent Comments