Gathered & Dispersed
NOVEMBER 4, 2011
There is today and frequently has been through church history, heated debate on the merits of ‘attractional’ vs ‘missional’ models of church. Missional advocates might point out that ‘attractional’ models are more often about ‘in-grab’ rather than ‘outreach’. They are commenting on the fact that ‘attractional’ churches seek to run excellent programs that often foster a ‘consumer’ mindset. This in turn leads to centralized building costs and a growing Christian ‘subculture’ that is severely limited in its missional capacity. This is not something easily reproduced, is less flexible for mission and requires higher maintenance. Missional advocates will declare that smaller flexible models of church are more wieldy and informal and more able to do mission, being embedded in their target communities. They are low maintenance and more easy to reproduce.
‘Attractional’ advocates will argue that without large gatherings people often become too easily isolated or discouraged. That they need the inspiration and encouragement of larger gatherings and that they have skill sets of excellence in teaching, worship, children’s work and counsel that are not available in smaller groups. They will argue their capacity for mission is greater because of their resources and that they can be a prayer force to be reckoned with! So the debate goes.
But what if both are right? What if each is a part of the answer and both are needed to fully express the DNA of who we are in Gods design; the rhythm of celebration and mission, of transcendence and incarnation, of gathered and dispersed. What if the two models were to work in harmony within the season and culture they find themselves? – Not trying to do what the other is strong at, but doing what they each do best and developing a healthy rhythm of gathered and dispersed, both accountable to the other and without seeking to control.
The OT people of God had a pattern of temple and synagogue, woven with festivals, special times of prayer, and large celebrations. This reflected their calling as a holy nation of God, and as tribes on a journey in the earth, formed by him to prepare the world for messiah.The synagogue was a low maintenance extended family and community where relationship and learning took place ‘on the ground’. There was a weekly rhythm of Sabbath and family rites of passage, of community prayers and apprenticeship in all manner of skills. It was capable of being a genuine community with flexible gatherings and relevant learning styles.The temple on the other hand was a gathering point for these many dozens of synagogues, uniting them in the bigger mission and call of God to be a holy people and a light to nations. Its role was to remind the people of God of their final destination; to express the hope of Isaiah 6 and Rev 21. The temple served to overcome isolation and tempered individualism, it trained and fostered mission and acted as a centre of prayer for the nations and an expression of the transcendent.
When Jesus declared his body to be the new temple, he was linking all the seasons and rhythms of faith to himself. He was linking both temple and synagogue functions forever to himself, challenging the assumption that buildings (whether temples, homes, synagogues, or in fact any holy ‘places’) were an end in themselves. Jesus didn’t only overturn moneychangers tables in the temple; he exposed hypocrisy in the heart of one whose home he attended, and wicked unbelief in the hearts of a synagogues’ leaders. Jesus was not challenging the rhythms of temple and synagogue, or the use of buildings for various forms of gathering; he was challenging the hypocrisy that had usurped their meaning. He redeemed the parable of the Jerusalem Temple and redirecting attention back to where it should have been in the first place.
For as long as they were welcome, the early church continued to use the temple courts, they continued to use the synagogue and their own homes, but the meaning of all of these spaces had forever changed for them. Neither Jesus nor Paul preached that synagogue or temple were the right or wrong way to gather. What is clear is that whenever the church has the freedom to do so, it benefits from a healthy rhythm of gathered and dispersed. Gathering in season to a large celebration in order to be inspired, encouraged and commissioned, then dispersing in ‘missional’ communities that are embedded in their context, having genuine relationships with those around them and expressing the resurrection love of Christ to a dying hopeless world.
There is today and frequently has been through church history, heated debate on the merits of ‘attractional’ vs ‘missional’ models of church. Missional advocates might point out that ‘attractional’ models are more often about ‘in-grab’ rather than ‘outreach’. They are commenting on the fact that ‘attractional’ churches seek to run excellent programs that often foster a ‘consumer’ mindset. This in turn leads to centralized building costs and a growing Christian ‘subculture’ that is severely limited in its missional capacity. This is not something easily reproduced, is less flexible for mission and requires higher maintenance. Missional advocates will declare that smaller flexible models of church are more wieldy and informal and more able to do mission, being embedded in their target communities. They are low maintenance and more easy to reproduce.
‘Attractional’ advocates will argue that without large gatherings people often become too easily isolated or discouraged. That they need the inspiration and encouragement of larger gatherings and that they have skill sets of excellence in teaching, worship, children’s work and counsel that are not available in smaller groups. They will argue their capacity for mission is greater because of their resources and that they can be a prayer force to be reckoned with! So the debate goes.
But what if both are right? What if each is a part of the answer and both are needed to fully express the DNA of who we are in Gods design; the rhythm of celebration and mission, of transcendence and incarnation, of gathered and dispersed. What if the two models were to work in harmony within the season and culture they find themselves? – Not trying to do what the other is strong at, but doing what they each do best and developing a healthy rhythm of gathered and dispersed, both accountable to the other and without seeking to control.
The OT people of God had a pattern of temple and synagogue, woven with festivals, special times of prayer, and large celebrations. This reflected their calling as a holy nation of God, and as tribes on a journey in the earth, formed by him to prepare the world for messiah.The synagogue was a low maintenance extended family and community where relationship and learning took place ‘on the ground’. There was a weekly rhythm of Sabbath and family rites of passage, of community prayers and apprenticeship in all manner of skills. It was capable of being a genuine community with flexible gatherings and relevant learning styles.The temple on the other hand was a gathering point for these many dozens of synagogues, uniting them in the bigger mission and call of God to be a holy people and a light to nations. Its role was to remind the people of God of their final destination; to express the hope of Isaiah 6 and Rev 21. The temple served to overcome isolation and tempered individualism, it trained and fostered mission and acted as a centre of prayer for the nations and an expression of the transcendent.
When Jesus declared his body to be the new temple, he was linking all the seasons and rhythms of faith to himself. He was linking both temple and synagogue functions forever to himself, challenging the assumption that buildings (whether temples, homes, synagogues, or in fact any holy ‘places’) were an end in themselves. Jesus didn’t only overturn moneychangers tables in the temple; he exposed hypocrisy in the heart of one whose home he attended, and wicked unbelief in the hearts of a synagogues’ leaders. Jesus was not challenging the rhythms of temple and synagogue, or the use of buildings for various forms of gathering; he was challenging the hypocrisy that had usurped their meaning. He redeemed the parable of the Jerusalem Temple and redirecting attention back to where it should have been in the first place.
For as long as they were welcome, the early church continued to use the temple courts, they continued to use the synagogue and their own homes, but the meaning of all of these spaces had forever changed for them. Neither Jesus nor Paul preached that synagogue or temple were the right or wrong way to gather. What is clear is that whenever the church has the freedom to do so, it benefits from a healthy rhythm of gathered and dispersed. Gathering in season to a large celebration in order to be inspired, encouraged and commissioned, then dispersing in ‘missional’ communities that are embedded in their context, having genuine relationships with those around them and expressing the resurrection love of Christ to a dying hopeless world.
Comments
Is "Gathered" synonymous with "Attractional"? My understanding is that Attractional church models are those where evangelism is mainly the domain of the centralized gathered church, and the aim of most dispersal is to reach people to come in to the centralized evangelism events, rather than to equip people in missional living. I like the idea of the gathered being the place for training in and fostering mission, but feel that often our gathered expressions fall way short of this.
How does the OT synagogue/temple model translate in the modern-day context, where it is no longer possible to talk about "the church in Corinth (or London, or Bangkok!) ? In other words, is the "Gathered" aspect of church meant to be limited to the local church, or is there a better way that we should be striving for?
How do you see the mutual accountability working in practice? In other words, with the gathered being the focus for the training in mission, is it not a natural thing for the gathered to be the driving force behind the dispersed, and not vice versa, and therefore for the leaders of the gathered to begin to control the whole? How do you see a true "stakeholder" mentality being fostered in the mutual accountability you talk about?
Thanks Phil for your thinking through this, these questions are only because I think you are onto something that needs to be teased out further!