(From Part: 1) ... So, what might be the cultural shifts we need to consider if we are to see renewal? Here are some to think about. What would you add? What would you subtract from the list?
Theology rather than Tradition: It is encouraging to note the shift in emphasis from traditions and rituals, to a focus on our beliefs and practices. Grappling with the core elements of the story of the faith seems to be becoming key. This is important because our beliefs and attitudes will shape our actions into the future. Rediscovering and retelling the 'Story' for this age is key to becoming a living movement of the Spirit
Renewal rather than Reminiscing: This emphasis is necessary because it recognises two elements: (1) The Church of the day can never return to the form of the first century church. The New Testament does not function as a template or Church Growth manual to imitate; rather it is a living narrative that inspires. (2) Our hope is in the reviving power of the living Spirit! Truly churches need to become a renewal movement more than a reminiscing or a resistance movement. Often we talk about going back to the good old days,'but the New Testament story is not a moment of truth frozen in time, but God’s quicksilver shaking the powers of this world! We are the people of Jesus who are sent proclaiming a radical message that challenges the trends and patterns of the current age! We should be the least conservative of all people.
Interdependence ahead of Independence: At one end of the continuum are independent Christians and congregations with little collaboration and shared ministry. At the other end are ‘dependent’ churches locked into hierarchical systems that can strip the church of its creativity and spontaneity. We need to learn interdependence. Different shapes and emphases collaborating at a growing level of relationship to learn what God is up to. If the idea of 'covenant' expresses this idea of mutuality. There’s something about the messy dialogical, synergy that comes from discovering new ways forward together.
Says Ori Brafman (Spider and the Starfish): “Cut off a spider’s leg, and you’ll have a seven-legged cripple[sic]. Cut off its head, and you’ll kill the spider. But cut off the starfish’s arm, and not only will it regenerate, but the severed arm will actually grow an entirely new body. Starfish can achieve this remarkable feat because, unlike spiders, they lack central control—their organs are replicated across each arm. Starfish are decentralized. Starfish forces don’t have a leader, clear structure, or defined hierarchy. These seemingly chaotic qualities make Starfish unexpectedly resilient.”
Unity rather than Uniqueness: I recall sometime ago, hearing a group discussing whether a new attendee to their church shared the “DNA of their tribe.” It got me thinking about both of those words in regards to churches we are familiar with. What is the non-negotiable DNA? The temptation for any faith movement or Church that has gone through many decades of evolution is to collect heroes, pioneers, traditions and practices that are of themselves admirable – but that append to the core DNA. A group that was once inclusive, bit by bit becomes exclusive, as fewer and fewer outsiders quite share “our DNA.” Subconsciously, as mores and shibboleths increase, the conservation of all this extra DNA brings inertia.
For followers of Jesus – the DNA is the person and body of Jesus Christ! Time and again the Holy Spirit needs to renew us, and the New Testament needs to align us with what Jesus is doing in such a time us this. We gather humbly around the table in surrender, unity and love with all and any believers and to go out into the whole world extending the compassion and hope of the gospel.
It means we serve and labour across creedal and cultural boundaries, we celebrate that: “in non-essentials there is liberty”. The aim is not for ‘them’ to become like 'us', but for the DNA of Jesus to bring all the tribes together in: “... complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23).
What would it look like to reframe our faith-tribes as an incubators or a mission agencies of this DNA for the whole Church, rather than one tribe amongst the many? Similarly, descriptors like ‘tribe’ may need reconsideration.
Our language defines us. A ‘tribe’ is at the opposite end of the social continuum to a ‘movement’. Tribes are highly conservative. They live to their tightly defined rights of passage and rituals – they are creedal. Gatekeepers ensure that foreigners to the tribe do not enter and bring their DNA. How can we ensure that we do not fall into the trap of celebrating our own perceived ‘uniqueness’ rather than the overwhelming imperative to ‘unity’ and renewal in Christ for all God’s people?
Multiplication rather than Management: Church multiplication has been declining. Over the last few decades the emphasis seems to have been more on strengthening existing congregations rather than multiplying new communities. The Australian population is growing. New and creative church initiatives have the added effect of inspiring Christians to be creative; evangelise courageously; and create fresh ways of understanding faith. Denominations have been closing down more churches than they have planted. We need a culture that gives permission to new and diverse mission projects, even if some of them fail.
Formation ahead of Function: Where there is an emphasis on equipping and supporting and releasing people, the ministry take care of itself. As we develop mature Christians and leaders, they will discover for themselves the ways of Christ. Deep discipleship based on solid pedagogy and a living spirituality are vital. We have not done discipleship and leadership formation very well over the last two generations. Our emphasis must be on the culture and attitude-shapers not the behaviour or program-shapers.
- As a wise old friend of mine used to say: “The role of a leader is not to change people or their behaviours, but to change attitudes. People with changed attitudes will change themselves and their courses of conduct.”
