we did not see you
One of the driving forces behind the emerging church is mission. For the record I even prefer the term the ‘missional church’. Yet, despite this being one of the driving forces and despite it being the articulated (and much discussed) purpose, I wonder if we are achieving what we set out to do.
As I look around at the many emerging church expressions in Melbourne, I see them filled with predominately people who have moved from a more established church. Some of them may have not made the jump directly but have perhaps left a few years prior and re-engaged with the church through a more emerging expression.
At our nexus congregation initially these were the people we connected with. We used to say that our nexus congregation was pitched at the ‘post-church’. It is true that our tangent congregation which was given birth from nexus has now connected with people who did not have a Christian background, but they are still the minority.
Is this a problem? Is the emerging church simply reaching those who are turned off the established church? Possibly!
However, I think there is a segment of our society who are finding the emerging church a place that they can express their spirituality, community and compassion in Jesus, that would not have done so if the established church was the only option. So, kudos to the emerging church – it is filling a need.
Yet, I think we can do better. I think we need to move out of our emerging church holy huddles and expose ourselves to more connection with people who have not grown up in the church. This will be a challenge as just like the established church most of our relationships are either within the church or with people who we used to know from church circles.
I also think that the emerging church needs to focus more on the mission as outlined by Jesus in Luke 4: “to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”.
As I look around at the emerging church scene I see little of this. Perhaps I am not looking in the right direction, so correct me if I am wrong. But I do think we need to hear again the challenge by Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25).
Let us not reply: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? For when we were sipping our lattes, watching video clips, engaging in discussion and reading blogs – we did not see you’
April 19th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Yeah i’ve often wondered about whether or not simply attracting the ‘over-churched’ is what we should be on about?
I think it shouldn’t be our main aim, but I don’t have a problem with intentionally connecting with those people.
If they’re a part of a community that is helping them to better follow Jesus (not just sit around and bitch about established church) then I can’t see why that is a bad thing.
I think if the only thing the emerging church offers us is less church programs so we’ve got more time to do mission, then its a movement I’m happy to be a part of!
April 20th, 2005 at 4:45 am
[…] ight and flexible and will fit around what God is doing. link Amen and amen. Update: From Signposts: Is the emerging church simply reaching those who are tur […]
April 20th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
We’re three months into Myriad and I’m already worried that it’s becoming a little Christian club, precisely the reason I left a church to start something to reach those who didn’t like church.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
[…] and hating the bible. Leighton’s post-charismatic reflections. Phil on whether the emerging church may be missing its mark. Several reviews on Brian […]
April 20th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Interesting that emerging Church is struggling with the same idea of the ‘established Church.’
I am sure when the first Church started ‘emerging’ (Acts there was amovement based onm chaging lives, addressing people’s needs.
I think ideally the established church still seeks to achive this but lose their purpose more in conducting programs than the motives that may have initially driven them.
I often feel torn between loving the established church, the encouragement it has been in my own life, and the hope I believe it can be a part of. But then…
…I have a sense we coudl do it better. Is there amore creative way? Is there anything that we can really do differently without it taking on ‘images ‘ of where we have come from?
I don’t know! Perhaps.
I put in terms of our Friday Night Youth Group. Traditional; maybe. yet, we are trying to build as a place to be that is comfortable, where Youth can ask questions, & where they can disocver a living God. We can compete with the entertainnment market, so we seek to offer them stories, illusrations and challenges that will encourage them to think about their life & how Giod might already be involved while calling them to something new.
We do some of the stupisd game, relaxing stuff that I think kids need at the end of the week - but ultimately we are buidling somerthing into them - I hope!
Coudl this be the established & the emerging taking shape? I hope so.
April 21st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Is not one of the difficulties in being part of the emerging church simply that gathering together in another setting so that those who struggle with the ‘established’, ‘traditional’ or ‘institutionalised’ church only continues the circle. As I think Phil indicates, the bottom-line for ‘church’ is to ’see’ others as part of the kingdom of God because they align themselves with the activity of Christ - proclaiming hope and justice to, for and with those whom GOd is with.
April 21st, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Phil, your message could be intrepreted as applying to the economic poor etc whereasI doubt if this is what you are saying.
Also inportant is that ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you is applicable to the saints not to all people in this episode.
April 21st, 2005 at 4:05 pm
So Homer are you saying when Jesus uses that parable he’s only talking about helping the ’saints’(Christians?)?
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Yes
April 22nd, 2005 at 9:16 pm
That’s convenient Homer.
Means you don’t have to mix with the ‘riff-raff’.
But come to think of it….I don’t see many of you or your fellow Pharisees hungry and naked and in prison Homer.
Or do you regard your middle class Sydney establishment lifestyle as prison.
And just why does the thought of Homer naked conjure up this mental picture?
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/desktops/simpsons13-1024.jpg
April 23rd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
no Lance that isn’t what ir means at all but when Jesus says this he is onlly talking about Christians
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Homer, you can not be serious. I’ve never been overly bothered by your thoughts on a lot of things, I’ve disagreed, but been happy to move on. But that is absolute bullshit.
I have never heard any theologian/minister/Christian try and say that before. How does your understanding of this story fit at all with the parable of the Good Samaritan?
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:02 pm
digger you are mixing up two themes.
The one here is assisting Jesus’s brethren who are in need because they are being persecuted ( because of Jesus.)
The other is assisting anybody because they are born in the image of God.
I have to admit I have not heard of your intepretation previously and it would be in conflict with justification by faith.
your theological reading is obviously very different to mine although this is how I originally read before any commentary etal.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Homer, perhaps you could clarify why you think Jesus is talking about Christians or the Saints. In other words, why do you think the hungry, naked, thirsty that Jesus talks about are *only* Christians?
April 23rd, 2005 at 9:23 pm
A warning ….
I remember Peter Adam at St. Jude’s Anglican Church in Carlton arguing the same view as Homer….so basically Homer’s not going to move from the conservative evangelical position…..no matter what biblical evidence is shown to the contrary.
April 24th, 2005 at 11:58 am
What makes you say that the first story is about those who are being persecuted because of Jesus? I still don’t understand where you’re coming from?
How is ‘my theory’-that Jesus wants us to love and care for all people-in contrast with justification by faith?
April 24th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
the words brethren, brothers makes it pretty simple.
What does Jesus say to Saul when he is persecuting the church?
As I said this is what I thought the first time I read the passage and consequently I have seen no reason to change my mind.
I have to say I am amazed to see it being given a generalised specification.
If Peter Adam says it then I am in esteemed company.
April 24th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Homer,
I would have thought that interpretting the word ‘brethren’ to refer to Christians would have been anachronistic in this case? Surely, given that at this point Jesus hasn’t thrown the doors of the kingdom open to the Gentiles yet (though it has been foreshadowed), and given that he has at this point yet to be crucified as King of the Jews, that if you were going to push the specific intent of the word brethren in this context you would be forced to understand it as referring only to Jews?
Unless, of course, you understood the 12 disciples as being the reconstituted nation of Israel around their messiah. But then, if you were making a case for the reconstituted Israel including the church, you would have understood that the passage in question falls in a long sequence of passages talking about God’s judgement of Israel for rejecting God’s kingdom vision and message, a theme which starts back at the end of chapter 23 of Matthew and carries all the way through. And if you took that angle, then you wouldn’t be arguing that this was an isolated piece of moralistic teaching, you’d be arguing that this is part of a pattern discussing the basis on which God is defining, or redefining, who is and who isn’t the people of God, then, in the present as it were.
Which part of this did you say was simple?
April 24th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Yes he was referring to his disciples ( there were more than 12) but I thought it was a natural corallary this was applies to the church.
You might want to review that to gentiles too.
April 24th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
So what you’re suggesting is that Jesus point is this: that people are going to be comdemned for failing to looking after poor, sick, homeless Christians? That is who Jesus is refering to as his brethren? His disciples et al.
Who then, is he condemning? Is he condemning Christians? That would be interesting, wouldn’t you say?
Or if he’s not condemning Christians, then who exactly is he condemning, and why is he condemning them for not looking after these poor homeless Christians? Are you suggesting that Jesus is saying that neglecting to care for Christians is some sort of greater sin than neglecting non-Christians? *That* is Jesus idea of justice? That a non-Christian who doesn’t care for the Christian poor is going to cop it worse for neglecting Jesus’ brethren?
I’m tempted to say that you’re seriously misreading this passage, though that would probably be presumptuous. (I did write a big long post arguing what I saw the context as being, but I used a different email address so it is stuck in a moderation queue somewhere.) But perhaps you could explain to me your take on it then, addressing the following questions:
1. Who are the sheep?
2. Who are the goats?
3. What is the fate of the goats?
4. Upon what basis do they reach that fate?
5. What is the point that Jesus is trying to make?
6. How does this fit into the broader context of where we are in the gospel?
Thanks,
the_blacke
April 24th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Homer,
I found the big long post (so Phil, just ignore or delete those ones awaiting moderation! I’ll just repost it now! Thanks), and I’ll pop it in here for people’s reference / discussion.
Picking the story up in Matthew’s gospel, you are right that he is most likely teaching his disciples, presumably but not necessarily only the twelve. But that doesn’t necessarily follow that he is talking about only serving Christians.
Let’s pick up the story around the start of Matthew 24. Jesus is lamenting over Jerusalem, wishing that she had known the things that would make for peace. The image Jesus uses, that of the hen gathering her chickens, is that of a barn yard fire, where the mother hen protects her children from the fire: the hen is of course killed in the blaze, but the chicks are saved. But the chicks will not come to him, and so the judgement will fall upon them. Which judgement? Rome, sacking Jerusalem. All this will happen, Jesus says at the end of chapter 23, to this generation. The generation which has rejected his call to follow, which has rejected YHWH’s vision for the kingdom of God. They will reject their calling to be the people of God, as all but Jesus’ disciples have done for his whole ministry. And so Jesus, as the last great prophet, declares that God’s judgement will fall upon this generation. A new temple is being built, a new Israel being created in their messiah. Judgement will fall upon the old, who have rejected the Kingdom of God.
“When will all this happen?” the disciples ask in verse 3. This is not, I contest (but in the footsteps of, and leaning heavily upon, NT Wright), a discussion of future judgement from our perspective. This is a discussion of these things which Jesus has said will fall upon this present, evil and disbelieving generation. And so he starts to teach his disciples many things. There will be false Messiahs who come, proclaiming their own agendas for establishing God’s kingdom. But they should not be deceived. Rather they should hold on to what he has taught them, about himself and about the kingdom of God.
Who, then, is part of the reconstituted Israel? And who is one who is deceiving, who would be leading them astray? In short, by their fruit shall they be known. But Jesus illustrates with many examples. Faithful slaves who do not doubt but continue to work, versus unfaithful slaves (24:45). The wise bridesmaids who took oil, versus those who did not (25:1). These, he says, is what God’s kingdom’s coming will be like. Like servants who have been entrusted with their master’s money while he is away (25:14). Don’t confuse the eschatological weighting of these passages. This is not Jesus talking about what he expects the church to do between then and his second coming. No no, this is Jesus talking abot God’s judgement upon Jerusalem. This is Jesus talking about the privilege of being God’s chosen people being taken away from those to whom it had been entrusted but who had proven themselves unworthy (unfaithful slaves, foolish bridesmaids, servants who buried the money), and being given to the new, reconstituted Israel (faithful salves, wise bridesmaids, those who put the money to work). This is talking about God’s judgement upon those who have rejected his kingdom vision and who are attempting their own implementation of his kingdom.
Now, at last, to our passage. And what do we find? Instructions to the church on how Jesus wants them to behave between now and his second coming? No. No here we find the last of Jesus’ illustrations about what the Kingdom is truly like, and who will be judged as in, and who will be judged as out. Who is ‘old Israel’, for want of a better term, and who is new. There is no ‘church’ yet, that has yet to come to pass. This is not about Christians looking after Christians. This is exactly how it looks: God’s Kingdom is about Good News to the poor, the needy, the hungry, the dispossessed, the imprisoned, the destitute. This generation should know this by now. Not only do they have Moses, the law and the prophets, but now one greater than Moses is in their midst. But those who fail to see will be separated from those who have seen and believe, and upon their heads the judgement of God will fall, in the form of Roman armies who come to crush this rebellious little nation who think that the kingdom of God is one of swords and battle. Jesus has rejected that vision of God’s kingdom and rejected it publicly: you do not fight with swords for God’s kingdom. Rather, if someone asks for your coat, give him your shirt as well. If he asks you to carry his bag one mile, you carry it two. Jesus’ kingdom vision was never one inaugorated by violence - except, perhaps, violence which he bore himself. Who are those who are inside his kingdom? Those who love and practice mercy, compassion, kindness. Those others, those false messiahs who would lead people astray, are those who do not.
This is a story of impending judgement, the sacking of Jerusalem, and the handing over of the kingdom to a new Israel, like new tenants invited into the vineyard after the wicked tenants have been expelled. It makes no sense apart from this context. It would be as though Jesus, in preparation for his imminent death and aware of the horrible judgement that will soon engulf the city, decides on a brief moment of timeless moral teaching. Understand the context of what is happening: he is weeping for this city. And they are rejecting the last great prophet - more than that, the landlord’s own son. They have sealed their own fate, and judgement will follow.
So what’s the point for us - what is Jesus saying that the kingdom is like? Is it like us, only looking after ourselves? Is that good news? Is it, really?
April 25th, 2005 at 9:19 am
I think you are missing the point.
Jesus isn’t saying don’t halp the poor , he is saying help those who are being persecuted atal in my name.
As I said previously what does he say to Saul.
What does Paul and Barnabus do when Jerusalem is hit by famime.
They collect money for the Saints there not for everyone.
You should also remember the bible is god talking to us now as well as then.
Jesus ultimate act is because of a miscarriage of justice.
some of your previous questions only Jesus can answer however I believe we can say that not all people who believe they are christians will gain entrance to the Kingdom of God.
April 25th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Homer,
I’m afraid you haven’t dealt with the context of the passage in your answer.
If you look at the passage again - in its broader context - you will see this progression:
i) Jesus is talking about judgement that will fall on Jerusalem / ‘this generation’.
ii) The disciples enquire when this judgement is going to start, when God will put these injustices to right
iii) Jesus starts by warning them not to be led astray or to lose sight of what God is doing
iv) Jesus describes in apocolyptic language the destruction and judgement to come
v) Again there is warning not to follow after false messiahs who are trying to bring about the kingdom on their own. Because of this God’s judgement is coming.
vi) Jesus then moves into a series of parables about those who are ‘in the right’, and those who are not. This is contrasting those who understand his kingdom against those who do not; those who are living it out versus those who are not. He characterises those who are the true disciples, the true Israel, as faithful slaves, watchful bridesmaids, trustworthy slaves, and those who live out compassion, kindness and mercy.
vii) He concludes by now, finally, answering their question of when all this is going to start, in 26:2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
The whole passage, the whole 3 chapters from 23 to the start of 26, are Jesus teaching his disciples about the judgement coming upon ‘this generation’, for their rejection of the prophets and now their rejection of the Son. It is a 1st century 2nd temple who’s who of those who have understood the message of the kingdom, and those who are fighting against it.
So I reject assertion that Jesus is saying help (only) those who are being persecuted in his name. That makes no sense in the context in which the passage falls. It is also a screwy and distorted picture of his idea of justice.
So if you are going to persist in stating that “the bible is god talking to us now as well as then” (which, by the way, ought to be a highly nuanced and sophisticated concept of how god works in and through people, not some slap it on the table and here endeth the argument kind of bumper sticker theology), then please, for the love of god, try and treat the scriptures with enough respect to ascertain what was being said in the original setting in a way that makes sense in the overall structure of the document. The gospel writers were all, obviously very deliberate with the laying out and structuring of their works - don’t undermine their authorial purposes by taking one tiny chunk and reading it in isolation because it is “god talking to us now as well as then.”
If you can present an alternative picture which supports your interpretation, and makes sense of the context of the woe to the pharisees, the questions about God’s judgement ending their present age of injustice, the persections, the false messiahs, the collection of parables, and the declaration that in two days Jesus will be handed over, then I’ll be more than happy to read it. However leaping over to Acts is I think short circuiting your thinking, because you are making an interpretive leap which I don’t think is backed up in the current passage. So be wary about bringing your own assumptions to the bible when you come to interpret it - especially if you do so in a public forum saying “this is what god is saying to us today.”
Grace and peace,
the_blacke
April 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
If you can’t see the consistency between what Paul & Barnabus do and this saying by Jesus then I am afraid I cannot help you.
Why would the Sheep and goats be surprised if all Jesus is talking about is compassion of a generic sort?
brethren in this context is cetainly made of his disciples
( See 18:5,6,10,14. The reference in 10:42 is also striking.
See also 12:48-50 28:10)
It is applied to those serving Jesus as these people did.
April 25th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Firstly, there is no inconsistency between the passage in Matthew and Paul and Barnabas’ actions: I would simply put it to you that their collection for the church is a subset, one example, of the fulness of the picture of the kingdom painted in the Matthew parable. I would argue that Corrie ten Boom’s “The Hiding Place” is an equally apt example of this principle being put into action, whereby Christians were protecting Jews under the Nazi regime. Ditto Mother Teresa’s life work. I see all these as being fulfilments of the vision of the Kingdom painted by Matthew - the later two examples are no less than the first.
Secondly, if by appealing to the similarities between the parable and the story in Acts you are suggesting that interpretations based on similarity negate the need to interpret based upon proximal context, then just come out and say so. I will of course disagree with you, but that is neither here nor there. At least then we will understand precisely how each of us approaches interpreting Scripture, and I will cease trying to get you to understand what Jesus was trying to say to his disciples, and what Matthew was trying to communicate to his readers by recording it.
April 25th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Well it isn’t.
This is not to say I wouldn’t have done the same but Jesus is saying look out for those disciples in need.
Think Paul in the basket as an example.
Why would sheep and goats be surprised by your answer?
They wouldn’t.
April 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
And you see the relationship between this isolated piece of advice and its surrounding context as being…?
April 25th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
While this conversation regarding the context of Matthew 25 is interesting (?), and realising I am sticking my neck on the chopping block, would not the passage from Luke 4 used by Phil as the focus for this conversation, be directed towards both those inside and outside the ‘church’ in whatever form? If this is the case, how then do we respond?
April 25th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
TB,
it isn’t isolated as the other verses I quoted show.
Anthony by preaching the word of god and helping those who run into trouble because of it.
April 26th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Homer, how do you understand Luke 4:16 - 21 serving such a purpose?