|
Form
and Function
by
john o'keefe
A
while ago I wrote an article titled “image or
imagery.”
It was about an experience we had visiting
a “postmodern community of faith” in a new
town.
The experience was anything but postmodern;
in fact it was more a hyper-evangelical experience
– a standard “saddlecreek” church with
louder music and cool haircuts.
Over time I have received many emails from
people who have asked me what I think a postmodern
community of faith would look like?
Many seemed very defensive, because they
saw their community of faith in the one described.
Still, many seemed to want to know what I
thought the form of a postmodern community of
faith would be like.
It seems that they needed answers – and
the article was designed to simply get people
thinking about what they were doing under the
pretense of a emerging church; it was designed for
people to develop questions, not for me to give my
answers.
Yet, it was because of all the emails –
some 1,800 and growing with the article being
republished – that I now write a follow-up to
the original article; a “part-two-and-a-half”
if you will.
This time around I will explain what I
think are the essentials and non-essentials of a
postmodern community of faith.
Before I begin, let me say that this is my
opinion, and even thought I firmly believe them
they are not set in stone – they can, and most
likely will, change over time.
My understanding, as all things, is based
on two very important idea form and function.
The
Assumptions of Form:
Form
is the visible, the seen structure and the
tangible.
It is what we can touch, and touch can be
defined as something felt and seen.
If your form is identical to the general
form of all others you are saying you are no
different, or at least show no creativity, from
any other.
When the church made the move from the
traditional to the contemporary, form was changed.
So, it goes, a move from the contemporary
to the postmodern demands a form change
In
the postmodern community of faith I believe form
takes on two different, and very important,
“forms.”
The first of these forms is general
structure and the second is governance.
Let me start with the idea of general
structure.
I see general structure of a community of
faith falling at two ends of a spectrum.
On one end the “stand-alone” and on the
other end, what I call, the “corded.”
The
form of structure
The
stand-alone, is a community of faith that may, or
may, not be connected to a denomination; they may,
or may, not be receiving funds from other church. For
all intents and purposes they are on their own.
Their staffs are not being paid by another
church, nor are they part of another churches
staff, and they are not under the control of
another ministry.
The key to a stand-alone is that it can
express the theology it finds central to scripture
and the way they see the scripture in the life of
the people they desire to minister too.
On the other end of the spectrum is the
corded community of faith.
These communities of faith are ones that
are directly tied to a “mother church.”
The pastor is one of the pastors of the
larger church and is usually under the direct
control of the senior pastor, and the board of the
“mother church.”
They count on the mother church for money,
man power, meeting place and equipment – they
are connected via an “umbilical-cord” to the
mother church – hence the idea that they are a
“corded” church.
Now, on the surface, there is nothing wrong
with this structure, to truly be birthed a process
of maturation needs to take place where the mother
feeds the child for a period of time – but then
a birth needs to take place, for it to truly be
able to express itself as a postmodern community
of faith
While
these may be the two extremes of a spectrum I do
recognize that many churches fall somewhere
between the two ends.
The church in my original article was a
“stand alone with major cord tendencies” to a
controlling denomination.
While they were their own church, they
received a great amount of funding from a
denomination that made sure they were not “too
far out” out a mainstream evangelical
contemporary reality.
Generally speaking, corded communities of
faith (corded at any level) can never be “fully
postmodern” because of their relationship with,
and to, the modern mother church.
Over the past few years I have spoken with
many “associate pastors” who serve in a
hyper-modern corded communities of faith and they
have expressed their concern about not being able
to fully express what they believe needs to be
expressed.
With few exceptions, these corded
communities of faith seem to be designed to keep
the “college age” members of the church happy
and to let their parents think they are doing
something cool for their kids.
In short, the modern mother church sees a
“postmodern outreach” as simply another
program.
Another
aspect of the form of a postmodern community of
faith is that it tends to be far less program
driven and more people driven.
Postmodern communities of faith are not
program driven.
In fact, they are not programming anything.
Programs are a modern design and work well
with modern people, but no so with a postmodern
community of faith.
For example, the idea of a youth group is
not something central to a postmodern community of
faith.
Youth are an active part of the life of the
community and centralized programs are not needed
to have and maintain a group.
If a group of people gathers for “home
churches” and they have children and youth – a
youth group is naturally formed.
If, a youth gathering is needed for the
larger community of faith it can grow out of that
gathering, it is naturally organic and develops
from the heart of God’s call.
On
a personal level, I tend to the stand-alone
community of faith; because a true postmodern
structure needs to be creative and less central
then in modern church.
Postmodern structure allows for people to
get involved and not sit on the sidelines.
If the structure is not designed to allow
for creative expressions, then a postmodern
structure is not in place.
Which brings me to the second point of
form, governance.
The
form of governance
Governance,
in general terms, is control.
In a modern church this control is rigid,
central, controlling and very unidirectional.
While this structure may vary in its
intensity all these parts are present in a modern
community of faith.
For example, some modern churches may be
less rigid, but that does not change the fact that
they are a modern church.
While governance in a postmodern community
of faith is divested, empowering, encouraging and
interactive.
Governance
in the any church in USAmerica is not based on
scripture – sorry, but that is just fact.
I know, as you are reading this you are
saying, “not my church.”
But it’s true.
All churches in USAmerica have governance
based in either state laws or IRS code; all
churches.
Generally speaking, this is not “wrong”
its just fact. Look around; every modern church
that claims to have a “biblical model of
leadership” is actually governed based on the
cultural laws of the individual state they are in.
In fact, most modern churches I know of
have simply taken the “constitution” (which is
not a biblical concept) of other “larger,
successful” churches.
What I find interesting is the fact that
while state law tells you want you need in the way
of “corporate offices” most do not define the
way those offices are defined in a church.
The modern church has taken the historical
corporate and military view of leadership and
defined the roles of leaders in the modern church
on those models.
In
a postmodern community of faith “leadership”
is truly discipleship, a teaching relationship
between people where Christ is the center.
People in a postmodern community of faith
that govern are seen in terms of a mentor, one who
helps people along a path.
A postmodern “leader” is less leader
and more artist, less CEO and more friend – this
idea of a system that is freeing and trusting is
hard for a controlling modern mind to grasp.
They, modern Christians, believe for a true
church to form, someone must be in control – and
a postmodern Christian sees God as in control and
trusts that the person is following God’s call
on their lives.
Trust is an essential part of a postmodern
structure of governance.
True postmodern “leadership” is seen as
a team, where the roles interact and change as
needed; again, trust is central to a postmodern
structure.
Trust is an “unseen” quality – if you
trust me, I will know even though I cannot touch
it, and that leads us to the second part of this
article “function.”
The
Assumptions of Function:
Function
is the unseen, the unspoken, that which is felt
and not physically touched.
While form may show a certain quality,
function can be seen as an expression of that
quality.
So, the question begs to be asked – what
is a “postmodern community of faith function?”
What are the “unseen” qualities of a
postmodern community of faith?
I
find that function falls into two qualities,
theology and attitude.
Let me start by saying that I do not
believe a postmodern community of faith is defined
by music or age.
While these may be part of a postmodern
community of faith, they do not define the
community.
While
it may seem silly to say that a postmodern
community of faith needs to have a postmodern
theology function, I am surprised how many just
don’t.
Rewrapped evangelism, or fundamentalism,
will not work.
Before I go further I need to explain that
there is a difference between a postmodern
theology and a modern theology.
But “liberal” is not necessarily a
postmodern theology.
Postmodern theology is not conservative nor
is it liberal.
Both those concepts are modern and linear.
Modern theology is centered on evangelistic
systematic theology, and in the great formation of
the cosmos a postmodern theology can never be
systemized – there can be no such nothing as a
“postmodern systematic theology.”
While a debate can be made for what is and
what is not part of a postmodern theology, and we
debate that regularly on the egroup “postmodern
theology,” I think certain parts of a postmodern
theology are, a willingness to be open and allow
for an honest exchange of ideas, a willingness to
examine all aspects of theology and see what has a
direct tie to scripture, a desire to not be
“hard lined” in a particular theological
tradition, a desire not to be tied to tradition at
all, a knowledge that skeptics are welcomed and
healthy and a desires to go beyond what others say
we must.
If all that is happening in a church is a
rewrapping of evangelical theology, then no matter
the form the function defines it as a contemporary
modern church.
The
next function is that of attitude or
“environment.”
This is the ultimate of the unseen, yet it
is so very important.
When I walk into a modern contemporary
church I “just know” because of the way I am
treated.
Usually, the only people to even
acknowledge I am alive are those handing out
bulletins.
People walk by without even the simplest of
exchanges, and if I make the first move I am
ignored.
Yet, when I enter a postmodern community of
faith I am made to feel welcomed, because people
want to know me – they want to make a new friend
and experience a new way of seeing things.
Recently I had the opportunity to speak at
the Upstairs Leadership Conference in Phoenix
Arizona.
While I was there I was invited to attend
The Bridge, a postmodern community of faith.
When I walked in, I knew it – it was not
the music (though that was great) but it was the
people, people came to me and talked with me (and
they had no idea who I was).
People actually sat by me and opened
conversation with me – something that would
never happen in a modern contemporary church.
I knew that I was in a place where people
wanted to know me, and no for any other reason but
for myself.
This
is very important to a postmodern community of
faith’s function – why do you want to know the
people who attend the community of faith?
Is it to share Christ?
Is it to make sure I return?
What is the reason?
If you want to know me because you want me
to join your church, then you want to know me for
false reasons – and not for me.
Your motives are not pure.
If the reason you want to know me is
because you want to share with me Jesus Christ,
then you do not want to get to know me – you
have an altered-motive, no matter how altruistic
that move is, it is not because you want to know
me.
Closing
I
usually try to end an article by trying to tie all
together, but not today.
What I desire to do is close with a
question; one that I believe is very important and
needs to have an honest answer.
If the form and function of a community of
faith shows no real difference from a modern
contemporary church how can that community of
faith claim to be postmodern?
|
