Future Faith: Challenge Nine: Belonging before Believing

Retail stores build buildings and pay staff to gather, organize, and display goods for consumers to inspect and buy. Encyclopedias collect, organize, and publish volumes of stored information. Libraries collect, organize, and loan books, also serving as centers for research. Taxicab companies organize fleets of cars and drivers from a central headquarters. Hotel chains build, organize, and offer rooms. All these commercial and public institutions, plus more, are being dramatically challenged by how the internet and the technological means to utilize it have radically transformed the individual’s relationship to acquiring information, purchasing goods, and accessing services.

A whole “sharing economy” is developing…

The power of individuals to have boundless, personalized access to information is transforming their relationships to established organizations and structures. Increasingly, people are becoming their own gatekeepers, consuming and working in the economy more and more on their own terms rather than trusting in established institutions to be the mediators of those choices.

The Effect on the Organized Church

Reflecting on Amazon, Uber, and Airbnb helps illuminate trends that go far beyond economic life. Organized religious structures are also being dramatically altered. The same forces driving Amazon’s growth, closing Sears stores, and spawning the gig economy will alter how the church and Christian organizations will function in the future.

Two such trends are reshaping tomorrow’s church and being seen already today.

First, believers have less trust in and loyalty toward established religious institutions to serve as the intermediaries for how they understand, practice, and grow their faith. They’d rather access information and select resources themselves to support their pilgrimage. They want to choose to join the networks or groups that seem compatible with their beliefs.

Second, dogma is less important than community, and relationships often transcend doctrine as a guide when Christians make choices about participation in congregations, groups, and organizations. This feature becomes more pronounced among younger seekers and believers, who begin with the value of belonging.

Transforming such institutions is difficult but not impossible. The model for how they function requires fundamental change.

In many respects, denominational structures have taken on the roles of being intermediaries for their congregations and clergy while serving as regulatory bodies.

In this new environment, inherited structures of denominations and religious institutions no longer seem to empower their members.

Envisioning New Models

Denominational systems can be reconstructed to focus on empowering congregations, providing pathways for them to acquire needed information, networks of necessary relational support, and expanded opportunities for missional engagement.

Practical systems such as pension programs, insurance, and credentialing can be maintained, but if that is the only “glue” that holds a denominational system together, that system’s not worth preserving.

Creative denominational structures will capitalize on their ability to provide strong relational connections throughout their membership.

Shift the energy of denominational gatherings away from a singular focus on systems of governance and toward experiencing the denomination as a place for relational connection, enrichment, and empowerment.

The trend, however, is clear. Whether within denominational structures or beyond, networks of relational connections that empower and equip courageous pastoral and lay leaders serving in environments of continual change will drive the future vitality of congregations.

For churches and wider organizational structures, a foundational theological question is raised. Do they exist simply to maintain themselves at all costs, or is their identity defined by uncompromised participation in God’s mission? The rationale for reinventing older structures or initiating entirely new networks of relational connections must be rooted in courageous missional faithfulness rather than mere entrepreneurial success.

Denominations and religious institutions must reinvent the models of how they function or gradually constrict into enclaves of survival with decreasing tribes.

The Gift of belonging

a woman I’ll call Alysha shared her story.

Alysha was raised in a typical Lutheran Church in the rural Midwest, being baptized there and attending its worship services, Sunday School, and youth activities. Her memories were clear and compelling. First, she found the church services “boring.” They held little engaging interest. Second, she found that her questions were not welcomed. She remembered raising issues that she didn’t understand and was typically met with responses like “just believe.” So, when she became a young adult she left the church, staying away for decades.

Later in life, after undergoing a number of personal crises, she decided to try returning to the church. At Christ Lutheran, she experienced a congregation that welcomed her and her questions. There wasn’t the expectation that she, and others, had all the issues of faith figured out. Rather, she was invited to be part of a community where folks accompanied one another in their journeys of faith. This is what drew her in and kept her now as a faithful member of Christ Lutheran Church.

That gift of belonging is what connected her to the congregation.

Belonging is what connects her and millions of others to local Christian congregations rather than rigid adherence to doctrinal beliefs. Often, the question is which comes first, belonging or belief? The past decade has seen a robust discussion about this, with many asserting that, especially in a postmodern culture, belonging is a step preceding belief in the Christian journey. The traditional view is that a person outside the church undergoes a dramatic conversion experience—he or she reads a tract, or attends an evangelism rally, or has some other personal encounter with God—and then joins a church community. But the more likely pattern in today’s culture is that one becomes part of a congregation or fellowship first, working out their journey and defining their beliefs through that process.

Those prone to reverse the order of belonging and believing are often impacted by the organizational theory of “bounded sets” and “centered sets.” The terms are mathematical ones, but their application comes this way. A bounded set is a group or organization with clearly defined boundaries determining who is in and who is out. Members can be easily classified as being part of this “set” or not. A centered set is a group defined by a clear center that gives it identity, but those belonging may be closer or further from that center. The definition of who belongs to this “set” and who does not is much more fluid and fuzzy. A centered set is more dynamic, and a bounded set is more static.

A metaphor often used to describe the difference between these two ways of understanding the church—and other organizations—comes from Australia. It’s said that there are two ways of forming and maintaining a herd of cattle in open land. One is to build a fence around the entire herd. The other way is to dig a well. Whether grazing close or far away, the cattle will always be drawn back toward the water, in a centered set.

Alysha was really looking for, and discovering, a Christian community that functioned as a centered set. That doesn’t mean there’s an absence of doctrine or theological conviction. Congregations like hers will regularly recite the Apostles’ Creed. But the animating force in such congregations is relational connection.

In summary, technological, economic, and social innovations sweeping the globe are producing two irreversible changes throughout world Christianity.

First, adherents of faith have less trust and loyalty toward established religious institutions.

Second, participation in local Christian congregations and groups is being driven more by the experience of belonging to a welcoming, nurturing community than by doctrinal agreement and dogmatic belief.

Participation in communities nurturing future faith will be driven by relational connections rather than defined by doctrinal divides. The church that will learn to survive and thrive in this future will be one that includes rather than excludes, that welcomes rather than warns, and that relates rather than regulates.

discussion guide

 

  • What do you think of the idea that in our modern culture people are working and consuming on their own terms more and more? What examples of this does the author give? How have you experienced this?
  • In what ways does this widening of individual choice have an effect on the organized church? In what ways is the church responding?
  • How has the explosion of groups, initiatives, and organizations in the global faith community led to a kind of chaos? What changes are needed to bring some order to the chaos?
  • What is your reaction to the story the author tells about Alysha? Does it ring true for you? Do you think it is a common experience for many in faith communities?
  • What is more important—belonging or believing? Why? In your experience does one usually precede the other? If so, in what way? Name some examples.
  • What do you think of the author’s statement that nurturing faith in the future will be driven more by relational connections (how one belongs) than by doctrinal understandings (what one believes)?
  • What more do you want to learn or do based on reading this chapter of the book?

 

 

Previous posts can be found here:

Challenge One: Revitalizing Withering Congregations

Challenge Two: Embracing the Color of the Future

Challenge Three: Seeing through Non-Western Eyes

Challenge Four: Perceiving the World as Sacred

Challenge Five: Affirming Spirit-Filled Communities

Challenge Six: Rejecting the Heresy of Individualism

Challenge Seven: De-Americanizing the Gospel

Challenge Eight: Defeating Divisive Culture Wars

For more on this, please support the author and buy his book at Amazon or Fortress Press. I do not receive any compensation for this summary.

Future Faith: Challenge Eight: Defeating Divisive Culture Wars

Bonds of relationship, though tested and at times painfully frayed, proved strong enough in the end to endure. Would that be so in the church as it deals with the tensions of same-sex relationships…

A Divisive Issue

In our present time, no issue has become more divisive than same-sex relationships and the role of gay and lesbian persons in the life of the church.

The Reformed Churches in the canton tried to address the challenge of same-sex relationships, which had arisen in some more urban congregations as a pastoral issue. After much study and reflection, they decided that covenanted relationships of a same-sex couple (not a marriage) could receive a blessing if the couple, the pastor, and the congregation were willing and desiring to do so. If, on the other hand, a pastor and their congregation were opposed to such a practice, they could abide by those convictions. Nothing was imposed—only an option was provided.

Congregations today no longer look primarily to denominational offices for information, direction, and ministry resources.

Because of growing congregational autonomy, there’s increased resentment and even resistance to funds that are required or expected to flow from local churches to “headquarters.”

In a word, the trend today is that congregations, rather than denominations, know best.

Suddenly, denominational ties, which seem to be of such questionable merit, are made so paramount that an act of blessing by one jeopardizes the loyalty of another a hundred or a thousand miles away.

Global Complexity

During one presentation, the famous German theologian Jürgen Moltmann, now ninety-one, gave a moving presentation on the General Council’s theme, “Living God, Renew and Transform Us.” Three younger women theologians from the Global South were then invited to make responses. And while Moltmann didn’t directly address the question of same-sex relationships, Nadia Marais from South Africa did. A brilliant young theologian now teaching theology at Stellenbosch University near Cape Town, Marais is also ordained in the Dutch Reformed Church. Describing “a church in the spirit of Mary Magdalene,” she spoke passionately about how our Reformed understanding of God’s saving and liberating grace compels us to accept the gift of those whose sexual orientation differs from the majority:

It is . . . unthinkable for a church in the spirit of Mary Magdalene to withhold grace from our gay brothers and lesbian sisters, our bisexual friends and transsexual family, our intersex sons and transgender daughters—those who belong with us to the body of Christ . . . not only because it is an injustice, but also because it is a betrayal of the very grace that calls the church together. – This is from the text of Nadia Marais’s unpublished remarks at the WCRC General Council in Leipzig, Germany, on June 30, 2017.

Later she told me that many in the church keep wanting to say that faith depends on grace plus something else, like a specific understanding of marriage. Or in the acceptance of apartheid, it was grace plus a specific understanding of race. But it’s only grace.

Moreover, when this lifestyle is “exported” to the Global South, it is often described by church leaders as another form of Western colonialism trying to impose a foreign way of life on their cultures. Thus, the controversy over same-sex relationships gets subsumed in the ongoing narrative of the legacy of colonialism, in which the West attempts to impose social and cultural values that are foreign to the traditions of their societies.

Conquering the Divide

Defeating these divisive wars in the life of the church is imperative for world Christianity’s future vitality.

What is it that makes this difference so threatening? And why should this question determine the boundaries of Christian fellowship?

Answering those questions requires (1) honesty about faith and culture, (2) honesty about the role of politics in the church’s discernment of moral issues, and (3) honesty about the diversity of faithful biblical interpretation.

It’s not coincidental that several African church leaders who affirm same-sex relationships, such as Desmond Tutu, are found in South Africa, which has constitutional protections for gay and lesbian persons and is the only country in the African continent that has legalized same-sex marriage. Again, this doesn’t diminish the courage and integrity of voices like Bishop Tutu’s, since the church in South Africa remains divided on this question, but it does point to the importance of one’s cultural and political context.

Evolving cultural attitudes and political movements continually raise questions requiring fresh biblical and ethical discernment on social issues.

The plea here is for honesty from all voices in the church about how culture inevitably shapes and influences the convictions that are brought to the controversy over same-sex relationships.

Overcoming the divisive, alienating conflict spawned by this difference requires reflective honesty about the constant dance between culture and faith in which we all are participants.

Defusing divisive culture wars in the church over same-sex relationships will likely require shedding the secular political models of debate that all bring to this controversy. Any church body taking up the discussion of same-sex relationships must seriously consider how to alter its internal organizational culture and methods of decision-making. Fortunately, models for doing so exist, with a history of exploration and practice.

Discerning Together

A growing body of literature and experience has been developing over the past twenty years exploring models for transforming the decision-making style and culture of church bodies.

Further, it takes such changes in the culture of decision-making and discernment to create safe spaces for the voices of gay and lesbian persons within those communities to speak and to be heard with open hearts rather than judgmental attitudes.

Defeating divisive culture wars in the church over same-sex relationships requires honestly recognizing a diversity of faithful biblical interpretations on these questions. Presently this controversy is often framed as between conservatives who take the Bible seriously and liberals who just ignore the parts of the Bible they don’t like, emphasizing instead human experience, science, or other factors. Such a framework is wrong, dishonest, and injurious on many counts.

discussion guide

 

  • What are some of the subjects that have been divisive, both in culture and in the church? What examples does the author give?
  • In what ways are the global church and some faith communities in the Global North and West not in agreement on certain cultural perspectives? How does that affect the way we interact in the church?
  • The author suggests that defeating divisive wars in the life of the church is imperative if world Christianity will have a vital future. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why?
  • In what ways does the author suggest we must be “honest” as we work on breaking down barriers to Christian fellowship?
  • How and where do we find common ground, even as we hold differing views? What is the most important thing or belief that holds us all together as Christians?
  • What more do you want to learn or do based on reading this chapter of the book?

 

 

Previous posts can be found here:

Challenge One: Revitalizing Withering Congregations

Challenge Two: Embracing the Color of the Future

Challenge Three: Seeing through Non-Western Eyes

Challenge Four: Perceiving the World as Sacred

Challenge Five: Affirming Spirit-Filled Communities

Challenge Six: Rejecting the Heresy of Individualism

Challenge Seven: De-Americanizing the Gospel

For more on this, please support the author and buy his book at Amazon or Fortress Press. I do not receive any compensation for this summary.

Future Faith: Challenge Seven: De-Americanizing the Gospel

“Lubaale underscored his worry about Trump; he had seen many times in Africa how authoritarian leaders manipulated people’s fears and came to power. The church had to be alert to those dangers, even in America, he warned.”

Liberating Christian Faith

How do we de-Americanize the gospel?

The election of Donald Trump has made it essential for Christian faith in the United States to recover a witness that is not captivated by the polarizing political dynamics of the country and that has the power to convey and model a message that is truly prophetic, biblically rooted, and capable of promoting social transformation.

Faith comes first, not America.

“We find that the American church is in captivity to the values and lifestyle of our culture. Institutional Christianity in America has allowed itself to become a conservative defender of the status quo, a church largely co-opted and conformed to the American system in direct disobedience to Biblical teaching (Romans 12:2). The American captivity of the church has resulted in the disastrous equation of the American way of life with the Christian way of life. This cultural captivity has caused the church to lose its prophetic voice by preaching and exporting a pro-American gospel and a materialistic faith which supports and sanctifies the values of American society, rather than calling them into question. By its implication in the American status quo, by participating in the anti-Christian mindset of our society (racism, materialism, nationalism), the church has lost its ethical authority and has become the chaplain of the American nation, preaching a harmless folk religion of comfort, convenience, and presidential prayer breakfasts.” – Jim Wallis, “Post-American Christianity,” The Post-American, Fall 1971, http://tinyurl.com/y933ptxa.

Those first pleas from nearly fifty years ago to de-Americanize the gospel remain timely and have a fresh resonance today.

Three Steps

Three steps can serve the Christian community in the United States well in this process, which will lead to an enduring and credible future witness.

First, we must learn how to listen to those voices speaking to us from the global Christian community and privilege them in our conversations.

Second, our priority must be placed on spiritual formation, developing the practices, tools, and communities that nurture faith with roots deep enough to resist the temptations of nationalistic idolatry.

Third, our commitment should be to engage society with a compelling public witness, exemplified by actions of solidarity with the most vulnerable, rather than to retreat from society in communities of pious and self-righteous isolation.

Deepening Faith Formation

The second strategy for de-Americanizing the gospel is to nurture spiritual practices and build communities that shape and form a deeply rooted, biblically informed faith.

Bonhoeffer understood that the task was to build a fellowship nurtured by a spirituality deep enough to stand the test of that time.

Gordon Cosby, as founder of Church of the Saviour, was also impacted by the events of World War II. As a chaplain in Europe, Gordon came to realize that so many of the men he accompanied lacked a religious faith that was deep and formative enough to prepare them either for how to live or how to die. His vision for Church of the Saviour was for a community grounded in practices of spiritual formation to equip its members for the missional call on their lives.

The public witness of so many who follow Christ lacks the spiritual depth and clarity to proclaim the true meaning of Christian faith for the life of society in this time. Discipleship falters without the strength to follow Jesus into the world. Courage is dissipated, bereft of spiritual power and biblical discernment.

Once again, we are in grave need of basic, enduring spiritual formation to acquire both the clarity and strength that equips us to follow Jesus and answer the question posed by Bonhoeffer: “Who is Jesus Christ for us today?” The habits of thinking, practices of living, disciplines of praying, celebrations of worship, and clarity of calling can only happen with one another. It takes a community of committed believers to de-Americanize the gospel. The lesson to be learned is that Christian communities committed to prophetic witness in society endure when they learn to nurture the spiritual depth of practices that equip them for the long run. Resistance alone does not sustain a community. It requires a shared life that is rooted in a depth of spirituality that forms and shapes who we discover ourselves to be and what we are called to do before God.

discussion guide

 

  • The author expresses some strong political perspectives in this chapter. What is your initial reaction to what is said?
  • How or why has the focus on social action in the church sometimes run into opposition? How has this struggle spilled over into American politics? Do you agree or disagree with the author’s perspective on this? Why?
  • When the author says that “the white religious bubble in America is about to burst,” to what circumstances does he point? Do you agree or disagree with this perspective? Why? How might or could this bursting bubble impact your community of faith?
  • What steps does the author suggest be taken in order to de-Americanize the gospel? Which of these steps might you say is most important? Why?
  • In this chapter, the line separating faith and politics is crossed and erased, challenged and pushed. What do you think about this? What key learning do you take away from this chapter?
  • What more do you want to learn or do based on reading this chapter of the book?

 

 

Previous posts can be found here:

Challenge One: Revitalizing Withering Congregations

Challenge Two: Embracing the Color of the Future

Challenge Three: Seeing through Non-Western Eyes

Challenge Four: Perceiving the World as Sacred

Challenge Five: Affirming Spirit-Filled Communities

Challenge Six: Rejecting the Heresy of Individualism

For more on this, please support the author and buy his book at Amazon or Fortress Press. I do not receive any compensation for this summary.