The advantage of looking at anything “inside out” is that you leave behind static forms, dogmatic assertions, stylized behaviors (i.e. what most people think of when they say “church”), and you see clearly dynamic flows, faithful intentions, and authentic behaviors (i.e. what most people think of when they say “spirituality”). My paired reading this month has been Church Turned Inside Out by Bergquist and Karr (2009 Jossey-Bass) and Leadership from the Inside Out by Kevin Harney (2007 Zondervan).
Church Turned Inside Out is a challenging read, but worthwhile to those who proceed slowly and persist to the end. The first hundred pages or so are quite abstract and conceptual, and many references could have been placed in footnotes so that the reader could more directly follow the main argument. But again, it’s worth it for two reasons. First, Bergquist and Karr (like Alan Hirsch who writes the foreword) are like artists struggling to put creativity into language. They force us to reshape our own theological terminology and rediscover the original intuitions of “being church”. Second, without all that theory it would be easy to re-dogmatize the inside-out design process that is finally described for practitioners in figure 11.1 on page 166. Indeed, you might be well advised to ponder that image first, and then read the theory.
Once you get a feel for the theory and practice, many readers will react in two ways. First, they will appreciate the fluidity, focus, and functions of authentic Christian community more powerfully. Second, they will suspect that there is something missing from the final analysis. This intuition emerged for me in the chapter “Embracing Culture” (chapter 8, page 120). The contrast of “bounded sets” and “centered sets” to describe group dynamics is too simplistic. “Bounded Groups” (like Christendom churches) are supposedly defined by theological dogmatisms and political correctness, while “Centered Groups” (like authentic Christian communities) are supposedly aimed at a central theme, principle, or idea which for the church is “Jesus”. Group unity in the first instance comes from conformity, while group unity in the second instance comes from intentionality.
It is not just that readers intuit this distinction to be impractical. The earliest Christian communities rapidly shaped doctrines, liturgical practices, and behavior expectations long before Christendom was a reality. It was, and is, inevitable. More importantly, this inevitability is not wrong. Bergquist and Karr seem to imply that there is a fundamental purity to “centered groups” that must be protected as the church embraces culture. The “centered group” is simply another form of conformity, only this time it is conformity around an intentionality, urgency, or emotional intensity rather than conformity around doctrines, practices, and behaviors. Yet it is conformity no less. Even today we see that only those who share an emotional intensity and urgency about “Kingdom” cannot really belong to the in-group.
This is an old theological debate. Is the church primarily an eschatological community formed around an intention not yet realized? Or is the church primarily an incarnational community formed around a presence not fully comprehended? The former tends to be protestant and the latter catholic, but Bergquist and Karr help us temporarily to set aside merely ecclesiastical differences that would capitalize the “P” and the “C”. I suspect they would want to say the church is shaped around both principles. But if this is the case, then the simplistic contrast between bounded and centered sets must be abandoned.
I suggest that the way out of this dilemma is to consider that not only is God in Christian community reaching out to embrace culture, but also that God in culture is reaching out to embrace Christian community. We Christians still think so one-sidedly, as if the church is doing all the “embracing” and culture is doing all the “resisting”. I think that attitude persists in this book. Instead, God is simultaneously using and shattering all cultural forms to express the immediacy of the Holy. The church, no matter what model, and however “Protean” and pure it might be, is still an aspect of culture. And it is the immediacy of the Holy, and neither the conformity of insider behavior nor the conformity of insider intentionality that seekers seek.
This changes the inside-out design process (figure 11.1 on page 166). Note that in this diagram two lines converge as values and pragmatisms come together. Yes, the lines converge on “Kingdom Intent” … but where do the lines actually intersect? That point of intersection is only described as “essential, non-negotiable, and abstract”. Where one would expect to find incarnation and heartfelt intimacy with the divine, one finds instead the Protean Model of church. Are these really the same? More importantly, if all norms of doctrine, practice, and behavior are ruled out as cultural relativisms, how can we tell?
Such questions bring me back to the other book I have been reading: Leadership from the Inside Out by Kevin Harney. Harney does something similar to what Bergquist and Karr do. He tries to get beyond the intellectualism, professionalism, and ego of church leadership to expose the inner nature and discipline of spiritual leadership. He encourages the life-giving power of self-examination that is “forged in the furnace of real ministry”. In my experience, self-transformation always precedes church transformation, so this is a helpful balance to the other book. The experience and model of Jesus the Christ is the beginning for all New Testament mission. Yet once again something is missing. The healthy church leader that emerges seems to be leading a church that still looks remarkably churchy in unchurchy times. I can imagine Bergquist and Karr asking some urgent questions. It would be interesting to hear them reflect on leadership in a church turned inside out. If there is a Protean Model of church, then what does the Protean leader look like?
Tom Bandy
www.ThrivingChurch.com
