Over the past few weeks I've been interacting with a number of friends and fellow pioneers in the Netherlands about this question: should we take the structural reality of church as it is for granted and (within or out of that context) aim for maximum renewal and innovative missional experiments, or should we aim for a reformation that will shake the foundations of today's church, and re-defines and re-imagines church based on a deeper revelation of Christ and how He intended his Body to function?
Let me start to point out that I believe we need both, and both are valid aims to pursue. I believe it's unfruitful to polarize these two approaches. Innovators and reformers should stand side-by-side when it comes to pulling the church out of her comatic state of unfruitfulness. However, I decided (already a number of years ago) to bless the various expressions of much needed renewal, but aim for a deeper reformation of church. Yesterday, when sharing a meal with Matthijs and Martijn, I drew a picture to visualize the process we are in (click to enlarge).
Over the past few years we've seen quite a number of 'fresh expressions' emerge, that we label 'emerging church', 'missional projects', 'house church' or whatever name we prefer. Partly this was a reaction to traditionalism in the existing church, partly it was a genuine desire for the church to regain a missionary focus, partly it was a realisation that society is changing and therefore the church needs to change. All good and necessary. However, I believe that what we see so far is only the beginnings (the first 20 percent if you like) of a deeper reformation God wants to bring to the church.
Some people get nervous with that idea, because it means that some of the holy cows mentioned in my earlier post may have to die. Others, who are by nature more practically oriented (e.g. planting churches in real-life) look at reformation as highly idealistic, not really reachable, so why bother aiming at it, let's rather start where the opportunities are. As a practically oriented person I understand that hands-on approach, but as a prophet I'm also quite aware that God has a higher standard of maturity and fullness for the church than what the church (even the emerging church) functions in today.
Because of this higher standard I simply cannot aim lower. God wants us to come up to His level of seeing, understanding and acting, instead of expecting Him to descend to our level of 'doing church'. This is where I differ from my emerging comrades - I aim for a reformation (which is basically bridging the gap between where the church is now, and where God wants the church to be), while at the same time working in real-life with real people, real problems and - let's not forget that - a real God. It's quite well possible to be principled in what you aim for (and not lower that standard) and pragmatic in how to go about it (which should not be interpreted as combining the new with the old). Of course it's a tension, but it's a healthy tension, a tension we need to keep us holy dissatisfied, so that we continue to seek God for an Acts-type movement in our time.
Now practically, it looks like two initiatives are developing in the Netherlands. My friend Matthijs is forming a network for emerging/missional church planters, and I'm starting a webzine for reformation and innovation that pushes for 'more than meets the eye'. Also a relational 'Shift Network' is forming that connects the emerging reformers.