Tim Chester spoke at college yesterday. He's from the Crowded House church network (And apparently they named themselves as such with complete knowledge of the band which shares their moniker). Tim had lots of great stuff to say about the way God uses community to draw people to himself. He encouraged us to love the people in our fellowship. He spoke against the over-formalised nature of our gatherings, and that as people walk past our homes and peer in at what's going on, it is our homes that should stand out amongst the culture as places of lightness in a dark world.
The best question to come during question time was from one of my fellow first year students who asked, "You've spoken a lot about sharing our lives, opening our homes, doing life together. But in Sydney Anglican churches the roster is king. How do we achieve this organically, without it just becoming another roster?"
Some reflections;
1. This house-church-ish movement are not a cult. Nor are they insular. This would be to caricature the western house church movement. That said, in my experience, many people drawn to this type of fellowship are significantly more likely to be cult-ish, insular and dare I say it, home school their children. But this is a sociological deficiency, not a structural one. We have much to be rebuked by those holding to this more organic way of sharing our lives. It is against boundaries.
2. Tim spoke about how the church family is his place of rest, not the people he needs to take a holiday from. This is not to say he doesn't need time alone, but he doesn't set up too many barriers to keep these people away. I have a friend who in seeking to revitalise a church said to me, 'There are enemies to the gospel here that are working against me and others.' He is one of the most gracious pastors I know, and yet the fellowship are not his place of rest. But thanks to history and tradition they are part of this group in which he serves. I'm not saying you have to be best friends with everyone in the gathering to be able to rest with them. But the application of these principles with the hangovers of nominalism and history are infinitely magnified.
3. Through the interwebs and at college, I've come into contact with some Christian brothers and sisters in Sydney who highlight many of the same emphases as Crowded House. They call themselves The Joshua Tree. The house-chruch-ish movement (and I know this is the wrong language) can appear to be 'some gadfly on the rump of institutionalism', as it was suggested in the past I was portraying them. And I hate to say it, but I really think they are the aforementioned gadflies. Not by design of course, but because they provide a timely rebuke and encouragement for us all to reassess our priorities and view of ministry and church.
4. These groups appear anti-organisation, though they are not. If God blesses these movements, and there is every indication that he has and will, then eventually, the organsational structures to train leaders, share resources and care for one another will eventually be created. Thus, when we hear the critique, we mustn't drag out the sledgehammer and start destroying our structures. Instead we ask again how the structures are best serving our goals. It's one thing to slag off the Bible College method of training leaders. But we've got to be prepared to build it again if we destroy it and then discover it actually was beneficial. And to rebuild it to where it was, will take the same amount of time as it did in the first place, if not longer.
5. It seems to me the differences with Crowded House and more institutional churches are not always that great. In many ways, if they're both working well, they can look very similar. I go back to Sean's question, about not making community just another roster. What this movement seems to be emphasising is unintentional ministry - just doing life together to proclaim the gospel. It is being deliberately deliberate hoping that what comes out the other end is a kind of unintentional ministry. It's trying to get the roster to happen without the roster. And that, in the end, has to be a good thing.
Well said dear Zachery.
ReplyDelete