A Christ-Centered (or Radically Decentralized) Community Network, part III
This is the last of three posts: the first post centers on local house (and para) churches, the second post describe.the economic benefits of local para church cooperation, the third set will offer some thoughts on local rules of faith. This post will describe local rules of faith by contrast with not-so-local rules of faith, like creeds. Later, I will describe some ideas for setting up organic seminaries via local para churches that would assist local churches in cultivating their local rules of faith.
The first post basically outlines the idea of a Community Network of Local House and Para Churches that would consistently apply the idea of radical decentralization. It was and still is my way to try to have my cake and eat it, ie. to have both the sort of radical decentralization and a small church folksyness common in the free church heritage, while helping out for there to be the sorts of cooperation more commonly found among state churchy churches. The idea affirms para churches as part of Church, but maintains that they should be in the image of local house churches, and derive all of their power from such. It also affirms the right of local house and para churches to work out in dialogue with each other local rules of faith.
The second post gets into some economic advantages of such an ecclesial model if it were able to become big enough and to hold together well. This builds off of the implications of the low over head required for local house or para churches. I argue that local house churches of thirty or less members would be able to support one or two part-time ministers with good jobs. Ie., they could provide them with insurance benefits, thru a para church co-op (although, to do this well, initially, it might require some extra funds.). I then proceed to describe how the desire for insurance benefits for ministers tends to make churches have full-time "staff". The difficulties of supporting full-time staff can set off a vicious cycle. It creates a desire to grow the congregations, get buildings and so on... All of which tends to foster the Economics-Driven-Church-Politics that gets in the way of building up community and deepening and broadening people's understandings of their faith and our collective creativity in how that faith gets manifested. So if local house churches can cooperate via a community network to provide decent benefits to those of its members they financially free up for special ministry work, then we might be able to nip the problem of rivalry in the bud.
Often times, in the past, local house churches have been absorbed by more traditional churches and if such churches are hurting financially then it's not hard understand why local house churches could be portrayed as shirking their responsibility. But if a strong empirical case can be made that a community network can support more ministry in a more effective manner then it should be easier to sustain the radical decentralization of local house churches.
Now, in the third part, I wanted to focus on the concept of local rules of faith. This is a necessary concept for a community network of local house and para churches. My thoughts on it come from my time as a seminarian with an emphasis on church history and my perusings over "what went wrong?"
In my opinion, when we try to elevate or establish universal (or somewhat less local) rules of faith, like creeds, it usually mandates the need to establish offices to ensure that local churches hold themselves to the not-so-local rules of faith. These offices then become self-perpetuating and a source of division among believers, as there can only be so many such positions and if there ever were (heaven-forbid) corruption by wrong thought or practices, it could in self-perpetuating not-so-local offices seriously affect our witness.
This dilemma of "the problem of order" seems to underly the general tendency to increase the concentration of authority among Christians in the centuries after the first century of its existence. In the first century of Christianity, local house churches were prevalent and the growth rate was fantastic. And so I don't see any easy way around the need for radical decentralization if power tends to corrupt. It seems our history got corruped and I don't believe that continuity with the original 11 (plus Matthias) apostles mitigate the problem. I don't believe this, inasmuch as embedded in "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Bible is an inherently more inclusive definition of an apostle. An apostle is an mover-and-shaker who disciples others and preaches the Good News in innovative ways consistent with the radical mandate of the Great Commission, as given by the ressurrected Christ. Another facet of the historical development of Christianity during its second and third centuries of existence that I take issue with is the tendency to exclude females from positions of authority.
And so, for me, I've come to believe that trying to work out universal (or effectively not-so-local) rules of faith causes more trouble than it's worth. In particular, I have issues with the development of the Nicene Creed in the 4th ctry. Now, while I personally believe that the Nicene Creed, when understood in light of it's time and place, got what it got right, its elevation in importance was a critical part of the Constantinization of Christianity, or the cooption of Christianity at the helm of empire as a religion of state. And for Christianity to become a state religion was and still would be an abomination: it was never meant to become the basis for citizenship or political solidarity. Yet, this is what happened and, in my opinion, it undergirded the wars of religion from 1618-1648 that wreaked terrible cultural havok in Europe, causing Christianity to decline chronically in Europe and for a twisted step-sister (seriously unfaithful in some ways) incarnation of Christianity to develop in the United States.
And so if I could go back, I'd say to Paul, let's get a Community Network idea a bit more enfleshed out in a letter or two. Why? 'cuz it's pretty darn clear that controversies are going to crop up, as we take the good news to all nations and need to use languages (Greek more so right now and soon others) that have some good points of contact and some flawed understandings that could easily pervert the Gospel, leading to endless ugly conflicts among believers. We're going to need to help resolve these conflicts through cooperation. But we need to make sure that our cooperation is consistent with being Christ-centered, or radically decentralized and it's gonna be easy to forget about that. It'll be easy for us to start concentrating decision-making in leaders, often (male) theologians not wholly unlike the philosophers of the Greco-Roman empire or the scribes of Judaism. And, while we no doubt need folks with those gifts, we might fall into the trap of over-prioritizing their gifts in the process of deciding who will be our leaders.
And so if I were to transport myself back to Paul's day and communicate such with the help of a somewhat-more-universal translator, I'm sure he'd say, "Duh..., it's all in there, just connect the dots. The Holy Spirit was never meant to become a concept that effectively swept ecclesial matters under the rug!" But he'd be far more gracious or less sarcastic or whatever.
Anyways, this is heady stuff and the sort of stuff that back in the good old days could get one rebaptized a final time or beheaded and what-not. Small wonder academic folks like to steer clear of applied ecclesiology and what-not.... But I hope it stirs some discussion amongst others who share with me a common root for our faith.
dlw
The first post basically outlines the idea of a Community Network of Local House and Para Churches that would consistently apply the idea of radical decentralization. It was and still is my way to try to have my cake and eat it, ie. to have both the sort of radical decentralization and a small church folksyness common in the free church heritage, while helping out for there to be the sorts of cooperation more commonly found among state churchy churches. The idea affirms para churches as part of Church, but maintains that they should be in the image of local house churches, and derive all of their power from such. It also affirms the right of local house and para churches to work out in dialogue with each other local rules of faith.
The second post gets into some economic advantages of such an ecclesial model if it were able to become big enough and to hold together well. This builds off of the implications of the low over head required for local house or para churches. I argue that local house churches of thirty or less members would be able to support one or two part-time ministers with good jobs. Ie., they could provide them with insurance benefits, thru a para church co-op (although, to do this well, initially, it might require some extra funds.). I then proceed to describe how the desire for insurance benefits for ministers tends to make churches have full-time "staff". The difficulties of supporting full-time staff can set off a vicious cycle. It creates a desire to grow the congregations, get buildings and so on... All of which tends to foster the Economics-Driven-Church-Politics that gets in the way of building up community and deepening and broadening people's understandings of their faith and our collective creativity in how that faith gets manifested. So if local house churches can cooperate via a community network to provide decent benefits to those of its members they financially free up for special ministry work, then we might be able to nip the problem of rivalry in the bud.
Often times, in the past, local house churches have been absorbed by more traditional churches and if such churches are hurting financially then it's not hard understand why local house churches could be portrayed as shirking their responsibility. But if a strong empirical case can be made that a community network can support more ministry in a more effective manner then it should be easier to sustain the radical decentralization of local house churches.
Now, in the third part, I wanted to focus on the concept of local rules of faith. This is a necessary concept for a community network of local house and para churches. My thoughts on it come from my time as a seminarian with an emphasis on church history and my perusings over "what went wrong?"
In my opinion, when we try to elevate or establish universal (or somewhat less local) rules of faith, like creeds, it usually mandates the need to establish offices to ensure that local churches hold themselves to the not-so-local rules of faith. These offices then become self-perpetuating and a source of division among believers, as there can only be so many such positions and if there ever were (heaven-forbid) corruption by wrong thought or practices, it could in self-perpetuating not-so-local offices seriously affect our witness.
This dilemma of "the problem of order" seems to underly the general tendency to increase the concentration of authority among Christians in the centuries after the first century of its existence. In the first century of Christianity, local house churches were prevalent and the growth rate was fantastic. And so I don't see any easy way around the need for radical decentralization if power tends to corrupt. It seems our history got corruped and I don't believe that continuity with the original 11 (plus Matthias) apostles mitigate the problem. I don't believe this, inasmuch as embedded in "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Bible is an inherently more inclusive definition of an apostle. An apostle is an mover-and-shaker who disciples others and preaches the Good News in innovative ways consistent with the radical mandate of the Great Commission, as given by the ressurrected Christ. Another facet of the historical development of Christianity during its second and third centuries of existence that I take issue with is the tendency to exclude females from positions of authority.
And so, for me, I've come to believe that trying to work out universal (or effectively not-so-local) rules of faith causes more trouble than it's worth. In particular, I have issues with the development of the Nicene Creed in the 4th ctry. Now, while I personally believe that the Nicene Creed, when understood in light of it's time and place, got what it got right, its elevation in importance was a critical part of the Constantinization of Christianity, or the cooption of Christianity at the helm of empire as a religion of state. And for Christianity to become a state religion was and still would be an abomination: it was never meant to become the basis for citizenship or political solidarity. Yet, this is what happened and, in my opinion, it undergirded the wars of religion from 1618-1648 that wreaked terrible cultural havok in Europe, causing Christianity to decline chronically in Europe and for a twisted step-sister (seriously unfaithful in some ways) incarnation of Christianity to develop in the United States.
And so if I could go back, I'd say to Paul, let's get a Community Network idea a bit more enfleshed out in a letter or two. Why? 'cuz it's pretty darn clear that controversies are going to crop up, as we take the good news to all nations and need to use languages (Greek more so right now and soon others) that have some good points of contact and some flawed understandings that could easily pervert the Gospel, leading to endless ugly conflicts among believers. We're going to need to help resolve these conflicts through cooperation. But we need to make sure that our cooperation is consistent with being Christ-centered, or radically decentralized and it's gonna be easy to forget about that. It'll be easy for us to start concentrating decision-making in leaders, often (male) theologians not wholly unlike the philosophers of the Greco-Roman empire or the scribes of Judaism. And, while we no doubt need folks with those gifts, we might fall into the trap of over-prioritizing their gifts in the process of deciding who will be our leaders.
And so if I were to transport myself back to Paul's day and communicate such with the help of a somewhat-more-universal translator, I'm sure he'd say, "Duh..., it's all in there, just connect the dots. The Holy Spirit was never meant to become a concept that effectively swept ecclesial matters under the rug!" But he'd be far more gracious or less sarcastic or whatever.
Anyways, this is heady stuff and the sort of stuff that back in the good old days could get one rebaptized a final time or beheaded and what-not. Small wonder academic folks like to steer clear of applied ecclesiology and what-not.... But I hope it stirs some discussion amongst others who share with me a common root for our faith.
dlw
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Barr on
-
Hey man, I really like this series of posts. It's actually got a lot in common with some thoughts I've been having. One thing that's worth thinking about, though, is that often our conception of "house churches" in the early church isn't historically accurate. At least by the second century, if not earlier, it is likely that Greek-background Christians, particularly those of higher social and economic standing, followed the common cultural practice of dedicating a room in their house as a shrine to one more gods. These shrine rooms (I can't remember the Greek term off the top of my head) were often quite elaborate, though it's not clear whether or not early Christians would have followed suit on that count. Nevertheless, by the third century we have archaeological evidence of rooms in wealthy church patrons' houses that were quite ornate and dedicated to Christian worship. For all intents and purposes, at least by the third century (but most likely considerably earlier) these "house churches" were more like chapels attached to homes. It's not like they met in one another's living room. Our concept of "house church" is a more modern development.
With that said, there is no reason why house churches today cannot be faithful to the spirit of the earliest churches, and I think the substance of your three posts on this topic successfully accomplish that goal.
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
I'm not sure that the specifics of the sort of meeting place matter so much as the import of radical decentralization. It cd be that the bigger houses / meeting-places set off a rivalry and increasing hierarchy and what-not, with not-so-great results eventually.
dlw
Jason Barr said:Hey man, I really like this series of posts. It's actually got a lot in common with some thoughts I've been having. One thing that's worth thinking about, though, is that often our conception of "house churches" in the early church isn't historically accurate. At least by the second century, if not earlier, it is likely that Greek-background Christians, particularly those of higher social and economic standing, followed the common cultural practice of dedicating a room in their house as a shrine to one more gods. These shrine rooms (I can't remember the Greek term off the top of my head) were often quite elaborate, though it's not clear whether or not early Christians would have followed suit on that count. Nevertheless, by the third century we have archaeological evidence of rooms in wealthy church patrons' houses that were quite ornate and dedicated to Christian worship. For all intents and purposes, at least by the third century (but most likely considerably earlier) these "house churches" were more like chapels attached to homes. It's not like they met in one another's living room. Our concept of "house church" is a more modern development.
With that said, there is no reason why house churches today cannot be faithful to the spirit of the earliest churches, and I think the substance of your three posts on this topic successfully accomplish that goal.
-
-
Well yeah, and meeting in homes makes sense with that for a lot of reasons, as does simply being intentional about not procuring and having to maintain church-specific properties. That's an intriguing possibility you mention, I wonder if any historical studies have been done investigating whether there is a connection between shifting conceptions of worship spaces in the 3rd and 4th centuries and the process that led to the Constantinian shift.
Peace be with you.
dlw said:I'm not sure that the specifics of the sort of meeting place matter so much as the import of radical decentralization. It cd be that the bigger houses / meeting-places set off a rivalry and increasing hierarchy and what-not, with not-so-great results eventually.
dlw
-
-
Roger Olson at Baylor U, formerly of my alma mater Bethel U, in his historical theology textbook "The Story of Xty" argues that the 2nd and 3rd ctry paved the way for the changes that took place in the 4th ctry of Xty. He also argues that the changes beginning in the 2nd ctry were inevitable, but I believe that changes in para church cooperation cd have overcome inevitable heresies/misunderstandings with self-sacrificial acts of love without hypocripsy (Romans 12), far better than increased church hierarchy.
I developed the above after taking a History of Church Thought class at Bethel Seminary where we read Olson's book, among others. I was very anxious about my employment future and so I put my oomph into trying to figure out what went wrong and what could have been done differently. My answer is to cooperate via local rather than not-so-local para church orgs that were in the image of local house churches and derived all their power from such.
dlw
Jason Barr said:Well yeah, and meeting in homes makes sense with that for a lot of reasons, as does simply being intentional about not procuring and having to maintain church-specific properties. That's an intriguing possibility you mention, I wonder if any historical studies have been done investigating whether there is a connection between shifting conceptions of worship spaces in the 3rd and 4th centuries and the process that led to the Constantinian shift.
Peace be with you.
dlw said:I'm not sure that the specifics of the sort of meeting place matter so much as the import of radical decentralization. It cd be that the bigger houses / meeting-places set off a rivalry and increasing hierarchy and what-not, with not-so-great results eventually.
dlw
© 2009 Created by Mark Van Steenwyk
