backyardmissionary

You’re 2 weeks late for April Fools Day, Hamo.

Comment by Toddy — April 17, 2008 @ 9:13 am

Ain’t grand statements about the preservation of the parish so last decade!

Comment by Andrew — April 17, 2008 @ 9:18 am

A big part of what Mr Milbank is saying here is quite relevant. If churches plant themselves deeply inside a culture without pointing out and rebelling against the elements of that culture which run counter to the gospel of Jesus, then they are no longer funtioning as church.

The problem for Milbank is that he has been a part of the “parish church” system for so long that he is blind to this very problem being inherent in the culture in which that system has been embedded for so long.

Comment by Geoff Matheson — April 17, 2008 @ 9:37 am

In fact, it may be the 1st time I’ve read the word ‘parish’ when it’s not in the middle of an Irish joke for some years!

Ok, Ok - (thinking hats on now) she makes some valid observations about perceptions of who’s reaching who, and then who’s teaching who. Is it about maintaining status quo, or about encouraging people to embrace community beyond their own brand label?

Or, is a brand label enough of a community to justify mission ‘inreach’, recognising that these people (the brand-label ones) aren’t going anywhere, anyhow - so, you gotta just work with what’s there?

Oh… I didn’t use the word parish… I’ll come back to that one

Comment by Toddy — April 17, 2008 @ 9:37 am

aim for something, accomadate everything??

Comment by Mark E — April 17, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

“While acknowledging this is a posible danger…
Invariably, those church leaders who are most critical are leading churches that might be generationally heterogenous, but are made up of entirely white, middle-class families…. [these] leaders… are being hypocritical when they dismiss… the missional church because of its missional imperative to reach people groups.”

Frost and Hirsch (TSOTTC, p.52)

Comment by Ben — April 17, 2008 @ 8:02 pm

Ben: I found Frost and Hirsch in TSOTTC, make a number of very general statements like the one quoted above, in fact the missional church could have the same charge laid against it, it claims to be all inclusive, I do not think this is the case.

Comment by Mark R — April 17, 2008 @ 8:36 pm

Mark R - I don’ feel that the text I quoted argues that the missional church is more inclusive, just that it is not less inclusive than other churches.

the text quoted by Hamo says:
The church cannot be found amongst the merely like-minded

It makes this charge against the Missional church ethos but does this not describe the majority of all churches. That’s how I viewed the Frost Hirsch quote.

I agree we all (or most of us) have a long way to go in embracing heterogenous community, the fact is the whole Church has a history of difficulty and division when ever it encounters difference.

Thoughts?

Comment by Ben — April 17, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

To comment on most of these comments would take too long, but these are amazing thoughts. As I was reading it, my mind went to my current church, and how multi-generational it is, as well as being full of a number of different theologies (Calvinists and Armenians, charismatics and conservatives, dispensational and covenantal, etc.). My theology says that Mr. Milbank is right when he says, “[The Church] can only be found where many different peoples possessing many different gifts collaborate in order to produce a divine–human community in one specific location.” My problem is that this is extremely hard to live out, and so I end up arguing with God because it’s hard and painful, not because I think it’s wrong. Not a good place to be, wouldn’t you say? On the other hand, I also agree with Toddy when he seems to be saying that we need to reach out to people where they are, at least until we can teach them God’s truth about what it should look like. Great discussion.

Comment by Paul Loeffler — April 18, 2008 @ 1:26 am

Ben - sorry mate, I agree. No, it cannot be found merely among the like minded, that would be called a club.

Comment by Mark R — April 18, 2008 @ 6:29 am

Ok…

Not surprisingly I don’t see it quite the same way as Milbank.

Phrases like “evangelical-liberal collusion”, “a clear conspiracy”, and “there lies no new expression of church, but rather its blasphemous denial”, are wonderful for picking a fight but they probably don’t tell the true story!

I think he has a kernel of truth in there where we do want to see the church (local) as a diverse community rather than a completely homogenous group. But this is much more an ideal than a ‘real’.

Most groups of people ‘clump’ together because they have something in common.

I wonder if Milbank’s church is truly heterogenous?

I wonder if it would be a welcoming and suitable place for the ‘gang of skateboarders’?…

I do like crazy outlandish statements, so this one is right up there with my favourites!

Comment by Hamo — April 18, 2008 @ 11:06 am

I thought Jesus challenged us to see past the “real” to the “ideal”.

Milbank uses bombastic language. This is unfortunate because he seems to have a point. The trend toward the church of the demographic is harmful whether it comes from the youth groups of traditional church or the model airplane church of the emerging church. This is because homogenous groups do not disciple people into loving our neighbour. Homogenous groups only strengthen the love for people who are just like them. There is precedence for this in the segregated churches of my home country. Churches made up of only white-skinned Southerners certainly didn’t purge their hatred, fear and suspicion of the dark-skinned and African-American churches certainly didn’t purge years of their hatred, fear and suspicion of the entire white-skinned population.

Hamo, you ask the legitimate question if Milbank’s church is truly heterogenous, if it would be a welcoming and legitimate place for the ‘gang of skateboarders’? I would also ask if the church of skateboarders would be a welcoming place for people like Milbank or would he have to come equipped with skateboard and cool slang in order to be a part of that church?

The parish system of church (or “neighbourhood church” for those in the 21st century) recognises that different kinds of people make up a neighbourhood. These different kinds of people can be brought together in the name of Jesus to be trained as Christ’s ambassadors in the ministry of reconciliation. Isn’t this what you are trying to do as a “backyard missionary”, Hamo? If we do not challenge each other toward the Kingdom reality of every tribe, tongue and nation coming together to worship the One True God, then all we are doing is fostering the dangerous worldly view of “us and them”.

Comment by Lance Mac — April 18, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

I share much of his critique but not his alternative. This is useful to get a sense of Milbank is coming from (no. 2) and I feel comfortable where the writer has placed our community (no.2) Rob Bell, submergent, and Shane Claiborne and others:

http://gatheringinlight.com/2008/01/13/the-four-models-of-emerging-churches/

where do you guys identify with?

Comment by Jarrod Saul McKenna — April 18, 2008 @ 3:41 pm

Lance - do we live in the ideal or the real?

Comment by Hamo — April 18, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

Jarrod - I think I may have said this before but I really don’t like being under the umbrella of emerging church, whatever catgeory it takes.

When asked to describe who we are I prefer to use the idea of being classical missionaries and allowing our church to flow from our mission.

I guess we do some decontructing and theologising but hopefully it is a response to context and always in the flow of the gospel.

As much as I have my own selfish desires, I really don’t care much what form it takes.

Having said that anything we create will inevitably be far from perfect and will have its biases.

Comment by Hamo — April 18, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

Milbank is pretty spot on (overstatements aside).

Perhaps that is why high church Anglicanism - for example - has a 500 year history in which it has humbled kings, and funny little home meetings last about 5 years ;-)??

And Toddy: John Milbank is a ‘he’- not a ’she’… and one whose article above reflects a fairly rigorous combining of practice and theology; of which both clearly emerge from serious engagement with Scripture.

But Milbank on a skateboard? I’d like to see that!

Comment by Chris.T — April 18, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

ment to say number 3.

Comment by Jarrod Saul McKenna — April 18, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

G’day Hamo,
I’m not interested in categories for categories sake but so we can say something because there are different things being said.

Milbank is a theologian who is a huge fan of St. Augustine and wants us to think about how we engage in public based upon writings like the “City of God”. I think it’s an amazing work which has real power to critique “emerging church” and “classical missionaries” but I think the lives of the early Church, the Scriptures and ultimately the life of our Lord is a much better critique and paradigm for how church and mission can look.

Comment by Jarrod Saul McKenna — April 18, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

I think this is where our community has been misunderstood. We are not an incarnational church to activists or the marginalised and ‘poor’, nor a missional outreach to greenies and their culture. Rather our community is seeking to be an alternative culture by incarnating the kingdom. I’m honestly not sure what to say when someone says “that’s great you’re doing mission with the poor I’m called to mission amongst those who play basketball”. Are we talking the same good news?

I think kingdom communities will be known for diverse people all living the way of the kingdom which ‘creates a culture’ different to those it’s in, in that it looks like those cultures redeemed.

Comment by Jarrod Saul McKenna — April 18, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

Jarrod - GREAT, thoughts - diverse is where we need to be. No more Ned Flanders cookie cutouts!!!

Comment by Mark R — April 18, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

Came across this at Kingdom Grace

Evil is a quintessential form of scapegoating, using power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of a sick self. M Scott Peck, Ain’t Too Proud To Beg.

I’m wondering …we protect ourselves from using this sort of power by joinning up with groups of like mind? We’re safe and secure - that goes for Emergent and Established, both groups certainly are not reflective of a cross section of society.

Comment by Mark R — April 18, 2008 @ 6:15 pm

Hey guys
The Homogeneous Unit Principle developed by McGavran (what Millibank’s attacking) is a starting point, not an ending point. Basically, the idea is to reach a group that is ALREADY homogeneous, using that homogeneity as an inroad (incarnating), and then through discipleship, showing them how they must grow beyond their homogeneity.

I mean, honestly, the idea of homogeneity is sort of funny, because what one person calls heterogeneous is really just a bunch of people who are ignoring their homogeneous traits; a church full of different ages forgets that they’re all white, a church that is full of different races forgets that they’re all twenty-somethings, and a church full of all ages and as many demographics as they can forgets that they’re all there because they happen to like contemporary music. It’s just a matter of which homogeneous trait you look at!

That’s not to say we shouldn’t be diverse - we should - but we need to be more realistic about what that looks like and what possibilities there are for such things.

Comment by Chris — April 19, 2008 @ 8:35 am

Jarrod - i really don’t know which category we would fit in!

- Theologically conservative, but able to think and willing to adapt our practices quickly and easily
- Preferring smaller church form because of its simplicity and reproducibility
- Emphasis on counter-culutral living and kingdom implications
- Focus on everyday life rather than Sunday gatherings
- Context - suburban and middle class
- Baptist…

What category would you put us in?

Comment by Hamo — April 19, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

Chris H - I agree - the HUP might be a good place to start, but it isn’t a finish line.

Your point about being blind to our own homogeneity is accurate!

Comment by Hamo — April 19, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

Chris T

Are you kidding!?…

“Perhaps that is why high church Anglicanism - for example - has a 500 year history in which it has humbled kings, and funny little home meetings last about 5 years ;-)??”

I think ‘funny little home meetings’ (ouch!) have a 2000 year history…

Comment by Hamo — April 19, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

Hamo,
I wonder if your in a transition from a Foundationalist Model (with a house church suburban missional twist) into something that is moving towards a Peace Church Model.

I’m basing this on your like of N.T. Wright’s work which is theologically conservative like I am (which is quite different from those who claim this title).

These fit with ‘Open Anabaptism’:
- Preferring smaller church form because of its simplicity and reproducibility
- Focus on everyday life rather than Sunday gatherings

And this reads just like anabaptist propaganda:
- Emphasis on counter-culutral living and kingdom implications

Comment by glenn bergsma — April 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

I agree totally. But, can the church be the Church when it attracts unbelievers to gather as the Church? What’s really wrong with this picture?

Comment by Bob Carder — April 23, 2008 @ 12:40 am

This is a great conversation which gets to the heart of my concerns about emerging church.

Similar to Chris’s comments about reaching a homogenous subculture and then helping them move out, last week Andrew Jones responded to my question about the HUP to say that he thought evangelism should use the HUP and then worship could move into diversity. I don’t yet see how though.

In Body Politics, John Howard Yoder talks about diversity in the body as being part of baptism into a new humanity where there is no longer Jew or Greek; in Politics of Jesus, he talks about justification being the breakdown of racial emnity as Jew and Greek are reconciled in the same body. I’m convinced by both of these things, but I only wish Yoder had addressed the how of it.

I wonder if we could show the world a multi-racial, multi-aged, multi-class christian community if they would regard its existence as good news and want to join? I’d like to think so. It would rely on not being captive to any of the original cultures that people joining it came out of.

Comment by Nathan — April 23, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

Hmmm…

I agree with TSK re the Hup being a starting point, but hopefully as people move into greater discipleship, become less selfish etc they are more welcoming and appreciative of others from diverse backgrounds.

I think Yoder probably presents an ideal - a great ideal too - but as always we need to live in the tension of the ‘real’ and accept that while ideals may inspire us and motivate us they are almost universally unachieveable otherwise they wouldn’t be called ‘ideals’ )

Bergs - I reckon who we would like to be (upstream) and who we really are might be 2 diffeent things unfortunately!

Who we think we are and describe ourselves as is more the counter cultural type of community, but sometimes we are just as plain as everyone else. I’m learning to be ok with that.

Comment by Hamo — April 23, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

Hey Hamo, that comment came from Jarrod Mc who happened to write it from my computer and forgot to change the posting settings!!! Ha, makes me sound good though.

I hear what you’re saying though about having knowledge of what you would like to be or hope to be and embracing the journey toward that, rather than only struggling with the gaps and growing frustrated.

Glenn

Comment by Glenn Bergsma — April 28, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

Amen Lads.

Hamo, the think is that Jesus never preached ideals! (This is a greek way of thinking that is most unhelpful). Jesus preached the grace-filled practices that witness to God’s future (the kingdom) now. So the question for us becomes what are the practices that would help us become the body of Christ in fuller ways. That way we put our Hopes in practice.

Comment by Jarrod Saul McKenna — April 28, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

I haven’t stopped thinking about Milbank’s words over the last couple of weeks, and I’ve finally written my response to them http://perthanabaptists.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/why-the-church-must-be-attractional-an-anabaptist-critique-of-the-emerging-missional-church-via-milbank/. I’ve come down on the other side of this to most of you! Sorry Hamo.

Comment by Nathan — May 6, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

[…] of the emerging missional church via Milbank Jump to Comments A few weeks ago, Hamo wrote an interesting post called ‘Why the missional incarnational church is screwed’.  He quoted at length from […]

Pingback by Why the church must be attractional: an Anabaptist critique of the emerging missional church via Milbank « An Anabaptist in Perth — May 6, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

Ah… Nathan…

Wait just a minute

I realise it may sound like playing with words (but then that’s what blogs are for) however I would distinguish between an ‘attractive’ church and an ‘attractional’ one.

I think church should always be ‘attractive’ - a beautiful community of people who woo others to Jesus by their lives.

But when I/we use ‘attractional’ it refers more to the things we do specifically to get people to come to our services. Attractional has a marketing flavour.

I am wondering what you mean by calling people out of the world, because I am guessing you don’t mean for the church and world to be separate?

I believe our challenge is to live deeply embedded in the world, but to humbly live an alternative life. Our own community ‘Upstream’ is named after that dream - to live in the flow of society, but to swim against its (negative) currents and show a better way.

I don’t think you do justice to the incarnational expression of church by suggesting it is incompatible with anabaptist thinking. No doubt we would diverge on points, but I reckon we’re pretty close!

Comment by Hamo — May 7, 2008 @ 7:52 am