I am really enjoying the ideas that are being put forth as part of the Big Tent synchroblog. I think that one of the things I am noticing is that there continues to be one thing lacking in all of our posts, a center. It seems that each of us would say "Jesus" is the center. But, which Jesus? Alan and Deb Hirsch in their text Untamed do a great job of pointing out that our understanding of who Jesus is determines what we believe about God. It is here that I think we find either our center or the point at which the Big Tent falls.
For us to truly be a Big Tent we must find the good and the redemptive in each of the positions that are being voiced. There are too many voices that make it feel as though to enter the tent you must set aside your tradition and set aside your understanding of the faith. Yet, this not the way that the first Big Tent worked itself out. We must realize that we are blazing new ground. We are simply rehashing the same issues that have faced the church since the beginning: What do we make of the stranger? For the first century church this had everything to do with what to do with the Gentile convert.
The answer was: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 ESV)" Paul was simply admonished to "remember the poor", which was the very thing he sought to do. The table was opened. There was freedom to approach God as male and female, Jew and Gentile, and so forth. Today we are still free to approach our God as fundamentalist, neo-reformed, reformed, orthodox, liberal, neo-liberal, emergent, etc... The question is will we embrace a consistent picture of Jesus?
I would suggest that this is the pen-ultimate question. Who is Jesus? Can we agree on an answer? Is it possible to listen to one another's perspectives and find the baby in the bath water in each?
I appreciate the motto of the tradition that I belong to, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
Of course this requires a definition of what is essential. The bigger the tent the larger the stakes required to secure that tent and keep it up. Here's my minimal effort at a "Big Tent" list of essentials:
Jesus is the real representation of God and in him alone we find the clearest expression of who God is.
The atonement in all its facets is central to our understanding of identity and mission for the follower of Jesus.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the essential grounds for our knowledge of Jesus and his way.
The mission of the Church is to follow Jesus as king in his kingdom building movement in all of its ramifications.
Personally, I ascribe to the Westminster Confession with a couple of exceptions. I also prefer the slightly more robust essentials statement of the EPC. However, I think those four statements might allow for a symphony of harmonious voices to engage together.
What say you? What are the essentials for a Big Tent Christianity?
This my third post for the Big Tent Synchroblog dealing with these questions: What are your hopes and dreams for the Church? More specifically, what does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? And what does it look like in your context?
I want to deal with the first question: What are your hopes and dreams for the Church? In my first post I dealt with a definition of the church ( group of people who communing together in the midst of being on mission with Jesus). So, here's how I see that playing out in my hopes and dreams.
I dream about a church that is scattered all over a city, town, or suburb in small, intimate groups that are keenly aware of the needs, heart cry, and passion of their surroundings. These small gatherings would each have an embedded DNA of mission, compassion, and kingdom. These gatherings would be outward looking always seeking to broaden their definition of family by inviting the stranger into their midst. They would gather around a common table fellowshipping together and worshiping through prayer and the word.
These who are scattered would come together each week and celebrate all that God is doing in their midst. Stories would be shared and the DNA of mission and kingdom reinforced through the preaching of the authoritative Scriptures. The church would be diverse in as much as the communities which are represented in it are diverse.
I dream about there being a revolutionary effect because the mission grows the kingdom and the pursuit of the King is relentless. Care and concern for the local would drive a vision for the global. The creation would be cared for through a reconnection to local food sources that would require the local culture to be sustainable for its own sake.
The Church would grow in scope as it scatters further and further birthing new celebratory gatherings and so on and so on. The very nature of DNA requires multiplication and diversity. When it becomes static and loses its diversity then mutations and problems occur.
For the church to be the beautiful bride of Christ it necessarily must be scattered, gathered, and multiplying.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am on a study leave this week and a big part of that is preparing for the year that is to come. I am enjoying the time to think and plan. The Big Tent Synchroblog has been stimulating some of my thinking and has been a welcome distraction to punctuate my work chunks.
My initial response to the blogs is that there seems to be a couple of main issues surfacing in the conversation. What are these issues you ask? It's the issue of human sexuality. Chad Holtz, and Rachel Held Evans are good examples.The other issue is that of what do we do with those who disagree with us. David Adams, Greg Bolt, Julie Clawson are good representatives of this side of the coin.
As I think about these two sides of the same coin I begin to wonder if we are missing the key issues that are potentially at stake in this conversation. While we talk about enlarging our tent, I think we are missing the key issue, as Scott Frederickson helpfully points out, taking our tables out of the tent.
I am growing more and more convinced that as we authentically engage in the lives of people we will change our understanding of the way we understand "who" can belong. People with real relationships with the homeless easily include them in the community. People with real relationships with homosexuals easily include them in the community. People with real relationships with heterosexually broken people easily include them in the community. The list could go on...
The issue that continues to rise to the forefront of my mind is this: Who we know determines who we love. The unknown creates fear. To broaden the "tent" we must broaden our relationships. As we broaden our relationships we will constantly have to return to the question of grace and what it means to embrace those who "live in a broken world with broken relationships and bad records".
Check out the blogs and let me know what you think...
I hope that as the week continues we will see conversations move from our personal "hot button issues" to grand visions of a unified body of Jesus.
So, I am a day late to the Big Tent Christiaity Synchroblog. Here is the theme that we will be discussing this week: What are your hopes and dreams for the Church? More specifically, what does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? And what does it look like in your context? Oddly enough I am in the midst of a study leave this week and one of the questions my counter part in ministry asked me to wrestle with was, "What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?" Brilliant!
What are your hopes and dreams for the church?
I think that before I can answer that question I need to ask a more fundamental question. What is the church? There are so many definitions running around that it's hard to keep up. It used to be (back in the 50s in America) that the "church" was simply those folks who showed up and sat in their pew on a Sunday morning. Now we have "communities" and "networks" and "friends" and "who knows what else". So, I don't think I can express my dreams for the church until I can have some working definition of what the "church" really is.
I want to follow most of those before me and say that the church is broken up into two large parts, the church visible and the church invisible or universal. I hold to a robust sovereignty of God and so I leave the latter to mystery, I am more concerned with the former. The definition that I want to posit for the "church" is a group of people who communing together in the midst of being on mission with Jesus.
So, let's break that down. "A group of people": this is necessary because following Jesus does not call people to be alone on mission. He calls them to be a part of his body, family, and bride. I think you can get a good sense of this from this clip:
The body of Christ ought be a collection of people of who speak with one voice because they are centered on one man and pursuing the same mission.
"Communing together". Alan Hirsch calls this "Communitas". Whatever you want to call it, I think that the church must go beyond community to communing. This is the active lived life of a group of people together. They are engaged with one another sharing the mission, life, and life of Jesus. They are practicing the sacraments together (communion and baptism). This is a group of people who worship around a common table and as they commune with Jesus through the Spirit they find themselves drawn to one another.
" In the midst of being on mission with Jesus". A group of people doing "community" does not the church make. They must be on mission with Jesus. There is no other mission that they are to be on. They are to be on Jesus' mission. This means that they are glocally concerned with living revolutionary lives calling those around them into this mission. It is interesting that Jesus' invitation was always to follow him. This following was at its core an invitation to join him in his mission.
So, that's my definition. What do you think? Later, I will post some comments on the other blogs in the discussion. Tomorrow, I will write about my dream for the church.
