Church - Is it in part about image too?

“Ought I iron my shirts for tomorrow, or meet with a friend in the hope that an evangelistic opportunity might result?” “How do I decide whether to pursue paid gospel ministry, or to continue in my so-called “secular” job?”   As a church how can we most appropriately be a blessing to the community are part of?  Should Bibles and Barbells

The risk can be that we often set up a false-polarity between different types of work - evangelism and ministries of mercy, “spiritual” activities and “stewardship” activities... However, these false extremes are unhelpful. Few people would advocate evangelism to the exclusion of mercy ministries, or that all Christians ought to enter paid gospel ministry to the exclusion of “secular employ”. The question then becomes how to identify a scriptural balance. I wonder whether that balance is found by reference to God’s revealed character.

Evangelism is a right expression of the character of God, as the LORD who exercises his mighty arm to seek and save the lost. But His character also extends to caring deeply for the Fatherless and the widow, to the point of judging people on the basis of their treatment of the marginalised (Sheep & Goats - Matt 25v31-46).  He also displays spectacular creativity in creation... Wonderful order and predictability (and I would argue elegant beauty) in scientific laws... Abundant goodness in his generosity, right down to the rain failing on the wicked and the good... Ought we not to be imaging that as well?   Surely our Christian communities in the light of the gospel ought to be doing no less than Israel in drawing the nations through attractive and wise community life (Deut 4v6-7).

I wonder whether in failing to image God’s character and concerns in all its balanced richness, we inadvertently risk caricaturing God for the watching world...

What is a caricature if not taking particular true aspects of an image and over-emphasising to the exclusion/distraction of other aspects. A caricature of Mick Jagger follows a well-trodden pattern: The head is exaggerated to the exclusion of the body. Within the head, his lips are taken as the most prominent feature. The result - a tiny little body supporting a massive head with a huge mouth.

Now I know that no individual or even local church can do everything. Resources are limited. God doesn't gift his church is identical ways in every community.  But what do we talk about? What do we prize? What do we aspire to be, to influence and to change? What do we speak out for and against? Whose cause are we defending or prosecuting?

As the world looks on at the collective body of Christ, what distortions might it see of God’s image in the church?  Are we inadvertently caricaturing Him?  And isn't that a really serious thing?...

(I know there risks a slight mixing of metaphors here between individuals made "in God's image", and the church as "the body of Christ".  However, given it is mankind in community you are made in God's image and likeness, I'm not too worried about the gentle slight of hand!).

Work - Its all about image...

I’ve been struck recently by the connection that the Bible repeatedly makes between the purpose/role of human work and our identity as image bearers. 

A few disconnected thoughts...

1) Creation - The human “job description” is rooted in who we are as image bearers

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  (Genesis 1v26)

As men and women, we have the awesome privilege of being created to be vice-regents of the King of the universe! He is given delegated authority to rule over the earth in a manner consistent with the will of the King. And to do so in a way that reflects the character the King has already displayed in His creative works…  To order and develop creation so that it might remain “very good”, and bring glory to God.  Uniquely man can reflect God’s character and represent/enact His will because man is made in God’s likeness to be His image-bearing representatives.

It is as God’s image bearers that humans are called to rule over the created order (a connection reiterated in the next two verses). 

So working and taking care of creation (2v15), filling and subduing it (1v28) is not a punishment for sin, but a right expression of man’s identity as image-bearing vice-regent. That role is worked out in a way that is consistent with the working, creator God whose character man images and whose will he is to represent.

 

2) Fall - Human sin twists the purpose of work and ruins our ability to carry it out.

When man seeks to exchange his vice-regency for autonomous rule, his identity as image bearer is forever distorted. His relationship with God broken, the controlling parameters for his work of filling and subduing become twisted. He proceeds ever eastward, bent on his own autonomy and glory (Cain, Lamech, Babel,...).

The mandate is preserved, but the context is distorted. After the flood, the cultural mandate is repeated (Gen 9v1-2), but the context for its outworking is now distorted. Whereas previously mankind was to “rule over” the other creatures1, now man inspires “fear and dread”. The picture is one of conflict inspired by claims to autonomy.

3) Redemption - Christ restores us as image-bearers to work

In Christ, we are renewed in the image of God: ...you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator  (Col 3v9-10, also 2Cor 3v17-18)

Work is to be done for the Lord (as vice regents): And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3v17).

Work is to be characterised by service (in the image of the servant King): It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4v11) (also Matt 20v26-28, Eph 6v7-8, 1Pet2v16...).

4) Consummation - work is glorified

God’s image is perfectly recreated in God’s people: “...we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (Phil 3v21).

The cultural mandate will be perfectly enacted through Christ & His people: “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth”. (Rev 5v10)

You can change (link)

Tim Chester (Total Church, Busy Christians Guide to Business, Good News for the Poor, The Message of Prayer,...) has written a new book for IVP due out on 20th June.  

You can find a sample chapter on his blog here entitled "What truths do you need to turn to?" exploring the idea that behind every sin is belief in a lie...

Pre-fab church or cosy coffee table chat? - Walking the line in church planting…

Let me lay my cards on the table.

I am persuaded that the local Christian community (church) is God’s strategy for mission… That Christians are called to be as a city on a hill shining before men… That we are to live in communities which declare the wisdom of God to the watching world (Deut 4v6-8)… That we are to be communities of light shining like stars as we hold out the word of truth (Phil 2v15-16)… That corporately we are to declare God’s marvellous deeds to the wider community (Psalm 96v3). Church is the appropriate expression of the Christian identity as those made to be a kingdom by Christ’s blood (Rev 1v5-6).

I’m 100% persuaded that church planting is a good thing...  Multiplying communities of light… Filling and subduing the world & culture with groups of image-bearers… I’m all for that. 

But here’s the thing...

There are ways and ways of church planting.  Let me paint two grotesque caricatures to make the point:

Caricature #1: Pre-fab church:

With an undergirding of prayer, this church plant’s priority is to establish a church meeting (which then gives the scope of the church community). Their model is the sending church’s meetings, but they lack the economies of scale that their larger sending church enjoyed. The time and energies of the small planting team are consumed with the practicalities of the main meetings. They set up, take down, mount programmes, do admin, and produce a meeting which mirrors their parent church’s in form, language, right down to the type-face. 

The “bringers” within the team struggle to bring because they are pulled into the church rotas at the expense of spending time with non-Christians in the wider community. The meetings and Bible teaching prove inaccessible for a wider community whose cultural defeaters, use of language and forms of worship are very different to the sending church whose model the plant follows. 

Caricature #2: Coffee table church:

The church planting team place huge importance on relationship and community formation within the team (Jn 13v33-35). They are concerned to get to know one another well in order to commend the depth and quality of Christian relationships to the watching world. They are anxious not to run before they can walk - taking plenty of time to get a feel for the area they are planting into, in order that they might contextualise the gospel when they go on to meet publicly. For the time being however, their “meetings” are preparatory - focussing on prayer and equipping, and largely invisible to the world around them.  Meantime, they work hard to build relationships with members of the local community through which they can share the gospel, and over time introduce people to Christian community.  

The team fails to recognise that for many people they encounter, the intensity of their community is a turn-off, whereas a more conventional church service would provide a culturally acceptable pathway into the church community.

Harsh & not fair... but helpful

These are obvious and harsh caricatures. I have never encountered plants that are this extreme or ill-fitting to their context. But polar opposites highlight the issues… They reveal some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two extremes.

More helpful terms would be Community-led Plants and Meeting-led Plants to imply a gentle emphasis or bias in a plant rather than an overwhelming preoccupation.  This seems right as both will always be present to a greater or lesser extent.  Christian community will inevitably meet… meetings will create community.  Ideally a plant will create a wonderful feedback loop between community and meeting with the each being shaped and being challenged by the other.  e.g. 

• The community will critique/challenge the church’s practices where they are cultural imports (or not functionally gospel). 
  
• The gospel word proclaimed and applied will critique/challenge both the church subculture and wider culture.  
  

Meetings and community will both provide pathways into Christian community of varying appropriateness...  They are both necessary and inevitable.  

The question is where to focus energies in the early stages.

As the caricatures highlight, I think it is possible for church planting to be a less good thing than it can be.  It is not clear to me that church planting is always a good thing where this tension between meeting and community is not rightly held.  However, I think for every situation there is a church planting model (walking the line between the extremes) that is good. 

Here are some brief thoughts as to when each might be more appropriate. 

For me, the question to ask boils down to:

How wide is the cultural gap between the planting team and each of: 

(i) the local churched culture, and 

(ii) the local unchurched culture.

a) Community-led plants

The cultural gap is significant. The watching world is largely unchurched and requires time to have their misunderstandings and stereotypes addressed through the sharing of lives (1 Thess 2v8-9). In this context, church meetings ("services") are not a fruitful point of contact or a suitable pathway into church community and the proclamation of the gospel.  People will not walk in off the street. Time is required to contextualise the communication of the gospel and the church’s practices, which will then shape the public meetings as they emerge. 

b) Meeting-led plants

The cultural gap to either the local churched or unchurched cultures is not great. Church is an appropriate pathway for some in the community, allowing the planted community to expand quickly and rapidly spread through the wider culture (initially through transfer). 

• Where the wider cultural gap is significant the church will need to listen to the local joiners and be critiqued by them. The perennial question will be: “Which differences are "gospel" and which are not?”  (i.e. people don't have to become like me in every way to become like Christ.  Then certainly don't have to become middle class!).
  
• Where the cultural gap between the planted community and the wider community is not great, it may be appropriate to more closely mirror the practices of the planting church. Some risk of cultural inertia may exist (never questioning forms, language or style) through being blind to the differences which will exist however small.
  

Under God, a right balance between these two foci will mean a plant can always be a good thing!  But it seems to me we only make life harder for ourselves if we are inappropriately wedded to one or the other.