Where are we going? The Ecumenical Paradigm. Today the Church is undergoing another paradigm shift in a succession of culturally-dominated shifts that have dated its life on earth. The shift itself is a reaction from the Enlightenment which proclaimed that 'man could do it', that 'man was constantly getting better', and that 'religion was a hangover from man's rational infancy.' Today these thoughts have an increasingly hollow ring: Science and technology have taken away our time, devalued our currency, and reduced our self-esteem into something that is intensely shallow and meaningless. Structure is being seen as a product of the Enlightenment while ironically it has been the Enlightenment that has set the individual free of structure.
The emphasis now is extremely self-motivated and self-oriented. Without the church, there is an intergenerational movement to be attached to something meaningful, a phenomenon which may be highly significant to today's expression of pluralism. We are seeing children of the faithful reject the beliefs of their fathers to embrace literally anything that is well-marketed. Within the church, we are seeing a self-acknowledgement that 'it is not the pastor, but the individual', or rather a network of individuals, that represents the Church. The structural dimension of Church is being reduced [1] in importance to the message of the Kingdom and individuals serving Christ in God's Mission, whether this is cross-cultural, in essence, or not.[2]
Whereas organization and planning have traditionally been taken by the clergy, as in the World Council of Churches for instance - now there is teaching and desire for laity to rise up as the body of Christ and respond to God's call independent of the clergy. It is, in a sense, 'the people's movement' within the faith. In Bosch's cryptic heading, it is the "Church-with-others".
Bosch sees the church in the new Ecumenical paradigm as being church-in-mission, or the Local Church everywhere in the world. This, along with the supposition that no local church is seen as superior to another (the converse of which is the key outworking of 'Denominationalism') is held to be fundamental to the teaching of our New Testament. Bosch cross-references Acts 13:1-3, and the Pauline letters in general, to make this point.[3]
Strangely, it is as though we are arriving back at the beginning, only now more aware because of our past. The idea of the church-with-others is growing as Christians - rather than their denominations - reach out to other Christians in the spirit of mutual cooperation, love and coexistence, and this directly within the recognized context of God's love for us (the church / believer).
There is no wish here to imply that there exists an "us-them" scenario between clergy and laity (although this did exist on more than one occasion in the past). In reality, much of the encouragement that has come for laity to stand has come from the clergy, and it is very difficult to fairly assess who, within this relationship, is the initiator. Standing well apart from such a perspective, this encouragement is more importantly recognized as the outworking of our God in history over His beloved Bride. In God's perspective clergy and laity are merged as one entity, and the supposed dichotomy is artificial.
One example of this new laity is cited by Thomas [4] in the 1981 Catholic Korean campaign whose "approach was direct person-to-person, family-to-family contact in a small community." I would suggest manifestations along this line are being seen all over the world, although only as laity awakens to its calling to serve rather than to be served. This model may appear new to us but it is not new to the early life of the church. Roland Allen calls us to a return "to the Pauline model of mission.. with the full authority of local churches empowered by the Holy Spirit and shared leadership among clergy and laity (emphasis mine)."[5]
If we identify the coming paradigm as an equivalent to the Apostolic then we have not arrived in it yet. There is still a significant adjustment needed, at least in North American thought, before we match the Apostle Paul's church-planting methods - which were direct and temporary in nature. In Paul's day, a church was created after five or six months of preaching and though still in need of guidance was nevertheless free to grow and expand on its own. Allen suggests this practice in his day (and I believe our own) would bring accusations of madness down upon the practitioners.[6] But, would it be madness?
Allen claims that spontaneous expansion within the church is hindered by our very patterns of worship. New church plants have been tied to mission centers, by missionaries fearing lapses into heresy by untrained laity. This same control intended to protect the new church instead suffocates it. The tendency of missionaries to send paid agents in their stead is interpreted by new groups of Christians to mean that evangelism is the job of trained professionals. It also teaches them to be dependent on clergy rather than working for God's Kingdom themselves.
In contrast, Allen points to Paul's ordaining of mature lay-workers (elders) in the churches he planted. Paul set several elders over each church - in this way he was able to foster quicker growth and encourage mutual responsibility.[7]
Masao Takenaka calls for the church to move away from "a static, building-centered religion" to "a people's movement, a company of new humanity making a joyful pilgrimage on earth." In Japan, the most Western nation in the far-east, the church has maintained its rigid structure to the point where it appears to be saying "that unless you have a church building and a full-time professional minister you will not have the Church of Jesus Christ." Meanwhile, the Buddhist sect of Soka Gakkai [A1] is rapidly advancing through "nonprofessional leaders and the establishment of a nucleus fellowship in the milieu of ordinary people."[8]
Denominational ties
In large measure our hesitancy to step forward and complete the circle comes from our denominational bonds. Now, there are good and bad aspects to having denominations, and it would be wrong to target them for disposal on the premise that they will continue to be shackles to a full expression of brotherly love. Denominations have allowed the Local Church to proliferate in style, and therefore in human points of contact, far more quickly than would have been the case had there been only one denomination. The truth is that no two human beings see the world through exactly the same lens. So as an activating agent, multiple denominations are to be encouraged. Never can the social emphasis exist in the same way with each denomination, so never can there be true competition.
What has remained negative has been the myopic interests of each group. Determined to have self-meaning, the denomination in the local church context has focused inward and not sought to work with other denominations for the sake of the Kingdom. Structurally this may be a difficult thing to do.[9] Pastors are being challenged to make their churches relevant with the times, to reverse the declines in membership, to increase givings. These are important issues but they deviate from the Church's true purpose (speaking structurally) of being a point of corporal contact between Man and God.
The song says it well: Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His Righteousness. And, all these things shall be added unto you. Allelu - Allelujah! Indeed, allelujah. These words are truth, spoken from the lips of the Saviour (Mat 6: 33). The structural church is to be in the business of training up believers into active service. Only out of the service of the laity will we reap the fruits in brotherly love and effectual worship, and this will flow like blood out of the hearts of the people. It will be impossible to contain. This is the pastor's true goal. In biological terms: giving, church growth, and relevancy are all 'masking factors.' They are the result, not the goal.
Today, there is a growing awareness within laity that the job is their's.[10] However, in many cases, the denomination to which they belong hasn't caught up. And, neither can it. Some are forming interdenominational organizations to realize what God is calling them to do - breaking the bonds so to speak.
Clerical support.
Clergy are uneasy about this phenomenon, but they shouldn't be for two reasons: by aiding in the growth of "their" laity, they will be spawning increases in membership, by allowing God to lead the individual the mission of the church will be enhanced.
To see this, we need to understand 1 Corinthians 1 in light of shattered holographic images. Our body is made up of many members, each serving different ordained and vital purposes. The local church, as a body, has many members of whom serve different ordained and vital purposes. The Local Church in a community, as a body, has many members (churches), each serving different ordained and vital purposes. And this could go on, with each a microcosm of the other - complete in tasks God has given it to do yet vitally different. In each view, the members are necessarily components of the body.
The Ecumenical paradigm is not a call for denominational lines to work together - this bespeaks of hierarchy and top-down leadership - no, it is a bottom-up movement of interdenominational laity merging together in the common purpose of outreach into the world. It is not merely the intellectual co operation of theologians but it is men, women and children, families and singles, professionals and laymen, working independently and collectively together in order to fulfill their purpose in God's Kingdom. It is a paradigm which transcends boundaries within our faith since in this view there is no longer orthodox, catholic, protestant, evangelical, charismatic. The common goal is bringing Man to God in reconciliation - and it is guaranteed that there will be people to fill all the empty churches and need for more structures yet. I personally enjoy worship in an Anglican liturgical context - but that is me - others will seek and enjoy the communal aspects of the orthodox faith, others still the teaching of another, or the singing of another or the giving of another. So let there be no division among laity and/or clergy, God will bless us as we step out in service to Him.
In all of this the clergy plays a vital role, not in leading but in feeding.[11] Today's individuals are straining to find meaning in service but do not know their gifts and are not being trained to serve God with abilities in the world. This is the clergy's pre eminent job.[12]
The Individual.
Because I see the coming Ecumenical paradigm as a people's movement rather than an ecclesiastical one I would like to turn our attention away from the organization towards the individual and ask 'what is the fundamental need of everyone engaged in God's work?' Watchman Nee answers this question as "to know the Cross experimentally." He continues in the context of being a good listener, but the question and answer apply to all aspects of doing our Father's will. "To be effective workers we need spiritual clarity; we need discernment concerning the condition of all who seek us out; we need quietness of mind to hear them state their cases... We ourselves must abide in a clear relationship with the Lord."[13]
There are a lot of ideas presented to us in these words. What does it mean for laity to know the Cross experimentally? Exactly what does the Cross represent? The Cross factually represents our death in this world; if we are Christian we need to recognize that we have given up our lives to Christ. We need to put our past behind us and take up a new life - a life that is represented by Christ's resurrection. This is pure New Testament teaching. And, this is not spiritualized teaching - it refers to what we are to do from the point of this recognition onwards. To know the Cross experimentally is to live in faith listening to God as He speaks to you through people, through your experiences and through your devotion to Him, rather than listening to your past knowledge. This process is painfully awkward[14] but it is necessary for us to be effective in God's service. In this context, each individual is the Church.
What is spiritual clarity? It is knowing God's boundaries for us within His Kingdom. How are we to know this? We learn only by prayerfully stepping out in faith that God will do a work through us, and by reviewing our lessons in the light of God's word. An odd thing happens as we depend upon God, God opens our point of contact with others as our trust in Him translates into our trustworthiness to others. However, in all of this, we must abide in a clear relationship with God.
"Ministry does not occur in isolation. It happens when we, as members of the Body of Christ.. join our brothers and sisters in a mission into the world. We do not minister as individuals; we minister as members of something much greater than ourselves - the eternal Church of Jesus, the living Lord."[15]
These are salient words that bring our focus back again to the greater whole - created and ordained by God. Sadly, before an understanding of the Ecumenical paradigm is grasped, few would interpret these words in light of God's Kingdom. Rather, the tendency would be to substitute one's denomination for that of the eternal church. Yet, be we 'this, that or the other thing' we are all the Church. The full weight of this implication might only hit us when we find that one we have led to the Lord can only attend churches outside of our own denominational ties. And, if the believer gains purpose in Christ outside of our own folds is he or she any less saved?
On the other hand, as members of the Body of Christ are we only ministered to by members of our own denomination? It is God who ministers to us and His people are our people. In His eyes there exist no divisions. Today as we seek to serve Him this is becoming plainer to more and more of us. Note how Paul was converted on the road, sent by the church in Antioch, yet worked with the church in Jerusalem. This is not an ecclesiastical issue, it is a Kingdom issue.
The laity.
According to James L. Garlow, lay ministry will be successful to the extent that support groups are built around each lay minister. The object of the 'sending group' is not only to 'send', but .. to encourage.[16] In this statement we begin to see the weakness of the individual. The Enlightenment paradigm has brought us to a view of being emancipated but we are not as capable as we have been led to believe. The Ecumenical paradigm is not about emancipation, nor is it about dependence. Instead, it is about interdependence.
It is almost too easy to talk about being in the world and not of the world. But for the lay person what does this mean? Often the lay person feels inadequate to the task,[17] insufficiently trained.[18] Richard J. Mouw claims that there is a significant gap between the world we occupy in worship and when we work, which is a gap of kind rather than place. He argues that an educational process is needed to bridge this gap which has three features: 1) it raises the consciousness of the laity by bringing forward issues of social, political, and economic concern. "Much Christian consciousness-raising should consist in becoming aware of that to which we have already committed ourselves"[19], 2) the laity needs theological education that identifies in what ways Jesus is the answer to the world's needs, and 3) principles and doctrines must be brought to bear on concrete applications. Truly with such a mandate lay people will be enabled to serve Christ as the laos or people of God.
Thomas W. Gillespie, using Exodus 19: 4-7 as his source, notes that "the laos as a whole is God's 'possession,' chosen not for privilege alone but for the privilege of service." This service, he says "is spelled out in direct connection with God's claim upon 'all the earth.' .. This people, the laos of God, is called, constituted, and commissioned to fulfill a mediating ministry." In addition, "so far as this ministry to the peoples of the earth is concerned, there is not the slightest justification in the terms of the covenant for that 'split-level' distinction between the 'ordinary believer' and 'clergy,' between 'novice' and 'professional,' which characterizes our contemporary use off the term 'laity.'"[20]
According to Guido A. Merkens "the unique priestliness of every believer is clearly seen in the names our Lord has given to His people."[21] We have been called Stewards (1 Pe. 4: 10), Labourers (Mt. 20: 1-16), Salt of the earth (Mt. 5: 13), Lights of the world (Mt. 5: 14), Witnesses (Ac. 1: 8), Soldiers of Jesus Christ (2 Ti. 2: 3), Disciples (Jn. 8: 31), the Body of Christ (1 Co. 12: 27), Ambassadors (2 Co. 5: 20), and Christians (Ac. 11: 26). "In the very naming itself (God) has charged us with responsibilities and equipped us for service."
How far can we go?
The world is getting smaller both in its limited resources and also in its interconnectedness through technology. These too are the natural effects of the Enlightenment paradigm we are leaving behind us. An optimist would say there has never been as much potential for church growth as there is now. Indeed, with accessible fast air travel, and with the advent of the 'internet', people can almost reach anyone they want to. If only things were that simple. Like the ecology of our biosphere, we are learning that there are always more unseen, unanticipated factors at play than we can measure. As sentient beings we are still very limited in our attempts to see into the future. But we do have two thousand years of history, carefully assessed and debated. And, as Christians we also have a sure faith in God's ability to provide for His Church and Creation.
The mission field is altering with long-term missionaries being replaced by transient missionaries in the West, which is a direct result of a stifled cash-flow as many countries battle with debt and push the tolerance of the people in taxes. In addition, there are missionaries being sent by the Two-thirds World,[22] so-called because it was traditionally the place Western missionaries were sent to.
More importantly perhaps are the impatient people worldwide now looking for hope. Their hope we know can only be found in Jesus. However, the message needs to be related to them in their own communities - if anyone is going to be able to reach out it will be the laity. High costs now inherent in study are reducing the hope of trained professionals. But, perhaps this is a good thing.
We are so hopelessly passionate about our habits that only God can lodge us free to act responsively in this world.[23] We already have before us the proven techniques of small groups ministry, of multiple lay-leaders, and an increasing desire to serve. These need to be balanced against our priorities as the laos of God.
We need to embrace God as Francis of Assisi did, perhaps not in poverty but certainly in a willingness to serve Him. But, before we can do this we need to honestly confront God with our lives. He is the giver. We have done nothing more than receive. We can place His will first in our lives, or we can ignore His will. The Kingdom is not so much a social reality as it is a mental one. Our battle is in our minds, but He has given us the right to take captive all thoughts for Jesus Christ, and if God be for us, who can be against us?
The brotherhood and sisterhood of Jesus Christ is all around us. Our family is bigger and better and more wonderful than we can ever fully experience now. It includes the clergy and the laity, the rich and the poor, men and women, adults and children, all races. It is universal. The Ecumenical paradigm fulfilled will be its mental realization. It is waiting for us.[24]
Appendum; April 2001.
[A1] 'the Buddhist sect of Soka Gakkai' is now recognized by Buddhism in Japan to be a cult, not representative of the Buddhist religion, hence the wording 'sect' is no longer valid. The text has not been changed in order to preserve the original form submitted. For more on Soka Gakkai - see my notes, taken from an OMF seminar presentation by Dr. Chris Naylor on Nichiren Buddhism and Souka Gakkai; dated Sept.8th http://members.tripod.com/~Shido/ASCRP066.html
Bibliography.
Bosch, David J., Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
Braun, Neil, Laity Mobilized: Reflections on Church Growth in Japan and Other Lands, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub., 1971.
Bucy, Ralph D., Ed., The New Laity: Between Church and World, Waco: Word, Inc., 1978.
Garlow, James L., Partners in Ministry: Laity and Pastors Working Together, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1981.
Kennedy, Gerald, For Laymen and Other Martyrs, New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Lyra, Synesio, A New Laity, Garden Grove: Lay Ministers Training Center, ~1975.
McKenna, David L., The Coming Great Awakening: New Hope for the Nineties, Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Merkens, Guido A., Organized for Action: How to build a successful Parish and its program, St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.
Nee, Watchman, The Normal Christian Worker, Kowloon: Hong Kong Church Book Room Ltd., 1965.
Segler, Franklin M., The Christian Layman, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1964.
Thomas, Norman E., Ed., Classic Texts in Mission & World Christianity, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995.
Mission and Mobilizing the Laity
submitted by
Sid Matheson
with the help of
Dr. Vern J. Middleton
Copyrighted March 1996, April 2001
Canadian Baptist Seminary
Trinity Western University
Langley, B.C.
Links to other sites on the Web
