Disassembling vs. Definition

The most obvious question to ask at this point is whether it is really necessary to have a ‘Kiwi approach’ to mission, to church, to being Christian? A number of authors would suggest a definite yes to this question. Stetzer uses a very ‘Star Trek’ kind of image when he talks about the missional church, “disassembling itself and seeping into the cracks and crevices of a society.”[1] The implication here is that the role of the church is less that of attempting to maintain a defence against the cultural enemy without and more of carrying the Gospel into society, finding every way possible to deliver the message of hope to as many as possible.

The other side of the coin here is that the church is called to be different to the society into which it moves.[2] A church that becomes indefinable from its surroundings is no longer able to offer a message of hope different to any other message because it has ceased to set itself apart to follow Christ. As a result it becomes merely another club or sports team, practicing on a Sunday morning for a game that will never eventuate.

Wright suggests a balance that may be found in the ability to hear new meanings of the Lordship of Christ arise when the Gospel message is brought into a new context.[3] The insights brought by people reading the biblical texts from within their own context both enable those people to find their own voice within the church and help the church to hear God speaking fresh insight into their understanding of God’s word.[4] This becomes possible when the church is sure of who it is in Christ and learns to listen to the surrounding community. The ability to differentiate as the people of God while retaining a two way relationship of trust will enable the church to develop a learning attitude toward its community.[5]

[1] Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Pub. Group, 2006), 162. The Replicators were foes of the Star Trek crew and able to assemble and disassemble to suit the situation. Fearsome adversaries partly due to the speed with which they could respond to changes in their environment. Not an entirely unsuitable image for the strength of a flexible church.
[2] Lois Y. Barrett, ed. Treasures in Clay Jars: Patterns in Missional Faithfulness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,2004), 165. The church understands that it is in part defined by its conformity to Christ and that this necessarily requires difference, even challenge to the culture of the society in which it exists.
[3] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 46.
[4] Ibid., 39. The challenge Wright brings here is to be continually growing and moving on in our understanding of the Biblical texts and in how we allow those texts to shape our action.
[5] Virginian Todd Holeman and Stephen L. Martyn, Inside the Leader's Head: Unraveling Personal Obstacles to Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008), 108. Holeman and Martyn are speaking at an individual level here but it seems that the basic principle of maintaining a clear sense of self while engaging in a trust relationship is equally applicable to a church. The challenges remain similar in both cases and the benefits are equally similar.