Radical Church Renewal
Going to the Root - 9 Proposals for Radical Church Renewal
by Christian Smith
Herald Press © 1992
In the Introduction on page 14 we read:
The problem with many approaches to church renewal is not that they come up with the wrong answer–but that they don’t ask the right questions. Most begin by asking, “What strategy or program will work best to revitalize this church?” Wrong question. We need to dig deeper.
The right question is often not how to revitalize the churches we have. The right questions is “Do we even have the correct vision for what our church ought to be in the first place?” In other words, the first and most important issue, when it comes to thinking about church renewal, ought not to be pragmatic (”How can we do it?”) but normative (”What really ought we to do?).
When I read that, I said “Wow!” out loud. Christian Smith has hit the nail on the head in my opinion.
As I have been reading through the book of Acts again in recent weeks, I have found myself imagining what a church (ecclesia) like Acts 2 would look like today. What made them act so differently than the culture around them? What gave them the boldness and the joy they experienced? Isn’t that what the church should look like today?
I am coming to the conclusion that to rediscover and experience this kind of Acts 2 phenomenon, will involve radical changes, both in our thinking and in our structures. “You can take some people out of the old stale church, but you can’t take the old stale church out of some people.” We must change how we think about the church as much as how we practice it. I believe we must also alter or eliminate many institutional church practices, traditions, roles, rules and programs.
My spirit wants to be a part of that growing grass-roots worldwide movement that has a dynamic vision of what the church could be. It’s a vision that weaves together community, service, participation, spiritual transformation, functioning through giftedness, celebration, mutual accountability and social transformation into a fresh experience of church (ecclesia).
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Randy have you seen this site: Deep Church? It’s a thoughtful careful exploration of what church could be and should be by people who respect Christian theological orthodoxy. It’s also a conversation (i.e. a blog with regular posts and active ongoing discussion).
May 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
So you are saying that you want the church to evolve into something the better suits your spiritual needs. That the churches who adapt to better fulfill the need will be more successful and get a larger congregation. And those who do not change will have people drift away and will die out.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The blog Pharyngula has a post from you:
“Mr. Myers,
I respectfully ask you to share with me on what grounds you object to this man’s treatment of is daughter? You seem to be appealing to me to agree with you about how vile this man is based upon some shared sense of fairness or decency that he has supposedly violated. What is the source of that shared standard you are appealing to me to agree with you based on?
Or, have I misunderstood you?
Randy”
If you intend to be respectful, *do* get his title right.
Calling him “Mr. Myers” displays ignorance or disrespect (or both?).
May 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Mr. Buhler,
Since when is addressing someone as a “Mr.” a sign of ignorance or disrespect? Where I come from, people are addressing one another as “Hey!” Encouraging signs of respect such as “Mr.” and Mrs.” are what we need more of. If Mr. Meyers wants to be addressed as something else, he should probably let us know by referring to himself that way. On his blog, he is simply PZ Meyers. I gave him more “respect” than he gives himself.
I am not sure why you and “ddr” left your comments on this particular post. It seems out of place and has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Helen seems to get it… why not you?
It also seems to me that you are both objecting in some way to a question I asked PZ Meyers on his blog Pharyngula, since you quoted it above. Can you clarify exactly what your problem is with that question? It seems like a very fair and logical question to me.
In the movie “Expelled,” Ben Stein raises the issue that you seem to be exemplifying. Why such a negative response to a simple question? Is there a problem with wanting to find and understand truth? Can we have an open, rational, civil debate?