The Hsu’s Views

In Street Signs, Bakke makes a comment that helps put into words some thoughts I’ve been hearing come from my lips when talking about the various forms that might (or ought) to proliferate for the coming generation of church.

While I have a preference for the small and intimate environments of small faith communities, I think I sincerely believe that the form is really not the question we should be asking. It strikes me (today) that when we ask the question, “What is the form that will take us into the future?” we are looking for a somewhat formulaic answer. We are looking for the new magic pill.

If however, we ask who is Christ, and what is the mission that he calls his followers on, we are closer to asking the right question. The issue of church forms should be driven by the nature of the mission.

In exegeting our cities, Bakke writes,

There is no one city; but there are many sectors to a city. Here are some to think about: a commercial city, media city, ethnic city, political city, convention city… Huge diverse populations live in these sectors. Add the mix of languages, cultures, religions, and the 24-hour reality of modern economics, and you begin to understand that one size does not reach all. We need “Tall steeple” first churches and classic churches that speak to poor and organize on behalf of the powerless. We need churches to be family for the lonely and clinics for the wounded, abused, and broken. We need all the expertise emerging in the body of Christ, and we need professors in our schools who can organizes cities as laboratories where our newest pastors and missionaries can imbibe those kingdom specializations.

We need all the different forms, despite some the inherent weaknesses of each of the forms that exist. If we allow that all the forms exist, is that all we need to say? Do we just need more churches of every kind? Or, do we follow Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s lead in seeking to plant more “gospel preaching, Kingdom-minded” churches, regardless of denomination. My understanding of Tim Keller’s gospel let’s me say “yes” to Redeemers approach, but there seems to be more.

It seems that the many different forms of church in a city must also develop an appreciation for all the other forms: simple church, high church, networked organic movements. There needs to be a sense of being the church in the city which is neither an understanding of church that is local church or (universal) the Church, but church of the city (with a middle-case “c.”)

So, I don’t want to say, “all kinds of church forms” are necessary and by those comments communicate and all forms are justified and business as usual can continue. That is the last thing I want to say. I want to say all kinds of church forms are required because with a common Kingdom vision, missional outlook, and sense of being the church in the city, then we will be closer to being the transformative Kingdom agent that I hope the church can be.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 am and is filed under Books, Cities, Movements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.