In an earlier post I briefly shared the importance of spiritual formation in laying a foundation for a church to transition in a missional direction. A second topic that is absolutely vital when attempting to create an environment for such a transition involves the recognition that we no longer live in a Christian setting, or what many call Christendom.
Since the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in AD 313 until approximately the midpoint of the twentieth century, the church occupied a central location in the fabric of society. The church was the dominant culture. However, today the church has lost its privileged position and increasingly occupies a place on the margins of society.
Without recognizing this shift—from Christendom to Post-Christendom in America—I believe the church is incapable of making the necessary changes in order to connect with surrounding neighborhoods and communities. But all is not lost. In some ways the shift in the cultural landscape can be a good thing for the life of the church.
In an excellent book titled Confident Witness—Changing World, Craig Van Gelder shares a hopeful assessment:
If the church takes seriously the fact that North America is now a mission field, this has tremendous implications for congregations. One of the most important implications is that many of the assumptions that have guided the development of the church over the past several centuries are now in need of critique and redefinition (e.g., denominations, individualism, and success).
Another implication is that the church will increasingly need to recognize that its own location in the present culture is no longer at the center, but at the margins. Being on the margins, however, can provide fresh opportunities for thinking about offering confident witness as the church.
Photo: Swainboat
I have really been trying to understand the perspective of the author of this quote. “Another implication is that the church will increasingly need to recognize that its own location in the present culture is no longer at the center, but at the margins. Being on the margins, however, can provide fresh opportunities for thinking about offering confident witness as the church.” Two things come to me. First, I am not sure if most of the “North American” “Missional” churches, or the author for that matter, will ever truly feel “marginalization.” I say this due to my understanding of marginalization, which combines discrimination (racism, classism, sexism, etc…) and social exclusion. My thinking about marginalization compared to what I have experienced with Ekklesia in the U.S. context does not connect. My experiences in different churches, Christian conferences (yes, even at the Sentralized conf ), and so forth are that many of the “leaders” of these churches/movements only have an academic thought/experience about marginalization. Even the ones who have churches in the heart of the urban area or those who have “Hispanic” or any other people group ministry. Majority of them still appear to be monochromatic, mono socio-economical, and mono experiential if you know what I mean. Second, I find myself pondering why is this stratification of the church still occurring even though we have people willing to move to areas (like the inner city) where there is marginalization. My conclusion is that there is only an academic understanding of being sent thus creating a lack of intentionality. In this I am alluding to Allen Hirsh’s comments of the difference of reaching out versus going out (http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/fall/17.20.html). I think that the church needs to realize that its location should have been located in the margins in the first place. You know the whole 1 Corinthians 9:22-23. Therefore, it is more than reaching out and even more than going out or in other words its more than trying to take a square peg and putting it into a circular hole. It is about being/becoming in the marginalized community. Meaning that there is no “us and them” when it comes to the church and the surrounding community, it’s “all of us.” With this mindset and experience then the academic understanding becomes the practical for the church. Then the church can truly understand marginalization and therefore truly witness to the present culture. I’ll end my two cents here since it is getting way too long.
Jose, thanks for commenting!
First, I would say that the author (Van Gelder) is defining “marginalization” as the displacement of the church from a place of influence or dominance in society. The church under a time of “Christendom” held a place of societal influence. Almost everyone looked to the church for answers or direction in most facets of life. However, we no longer live in that context. Today, at least in the US we live in a “post-Christendom” culture. I think that is a different way of understanding “marginalization” than the way you are describing it. I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment about how different people groups have been, or are marginalized, but that is not the way Van Gelder is using the term.
Also I agree with you that the church must/should start at/in the margins, unfortunately that is not usually the case. But that is what makes me encouraged with the missional movement. I believe the conversation is challenging the church to rethink their place. We will write on this more in the future, but there has to be a missional-incarnational movement that is not only about being “sent” but is also about “embedding” into a local setting. I like what Alan Hirsch says about what it means to be incarnational in this post: https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-hirsch/what-do-i-mean-by-incarnational/10150189514096009
Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
thanks for share!
Adoro me mostrar peladinha na web cam