Alexandre Gonalves

Prof. Matthew E. McKimmy

M214T Emerging Ministries for a Changing Church

January 6, 2014

Pre-reading Context Paper

The Gospel, the church, and the ministry in changing times

In certain periods of history, with more or less regularity, the humankind has passed for
deep transformations. Generally, these changings are characterized by affecting all forms of
social organization, including the religions, and more specifically the religious experience.
Undoubtedly the 20th century and the outset of the 21st have been the periods in which such
transformations take place with more intensity and rapidity, configuring an environment, called
by the Polish sociologist Zigmunt Bauman of liquid modernity, whose main characteristics are
transitoriness, emancipation, and individualism. The liquidity to which Bauman talks came from
the fact that liquids do not have a form, that is, they are fluids that are shaped according the
container in which they are inserted, differently the solids are rigid and need to suffer a tension of
forces to shape them to the new forms.

Similarly, the Christianity has been going through meaningful changes, in which the very
religious experience has gone from being concrete and absolute to become volatile and relative.
This state of affairs generates a dilemma: on one hand, it remains a strong desire for identity and
sense of religious belonging, and on the other hand, there is the distrust that institutional bonds to
place limits to the freedom of movement taken as unnegotiable nowadays. At the same time in
which an increasing number of people is looking for a community of faith that offers them some
communion, reassurance, and a certain amount of comfort and welfare, they also are looking for
to get away from its institutionality, traditionalisms, and dogmatisms, viewed as synonyms of
inflexibility or rigidness.
 Another important characteristic in the present time is that we are living in an age in
which questioning is much more than an option; it is necessary and even an imperative. And,
believing (in a religion or specifically in a body of doctrine) is just one more option among
thousands of possibilities. Thus, those who chose to believe must adapt themselves to the
exercise of rethinking constantly their faith, taking into account the new paradigms and
challenges they are facing daily.

However, the constant and fast changes in the present days can give us the false
impression that the Gospel, the church, as well its ministries have always been founded under
solid and immutable basis throughout history. Jesus announced the Gospel of reconciliation as a
contextualized proposal of transformation. The very content of his statements such as "You have
heard that it was said" and "But I say to you" demonstrates that Jesus contextualized the message
of salvation to a reality in transition: the rereading of the Gods revelations for a new time.

Contrary to what it may seem, the first Christian communities always were institutions in
transition. Came from the Judaic context the movement of Jesus needed to justify and
contextualize its beliefs inside of a previously established religion. The best expression that
attests its transitoriness is the fact that the movement was also known as those "who belonged to
the Way" (Acts 9:2). In this sense, it seems that there was an understanding that some truths,
such as justice, solidarity and mercy of God, are perennial. However, their historical
manifestations required a cultural adaptation by means of the reinterpretation of traditions.

But what is the core of the Gospel? What does church actually mean? How the ministries
can fulfill its mission and purpose? The traditional theology has developed the idea that the
church is the mystical body of Christ, endowed with the Holy Spirit in order to evangelize the
world. The prophetic activity while announcement of the Gods Alliance with the people and
denunciation of all type of oppression that maculates and distorts such relation is one of the
fundamental aspects of the church. Therefore, when the church put itself on the way, in order to
accomplish the purpose of its existence, it will face opposition of the antagonistic systems to the
Gospel, since they present conflicting values.

When we refer to the historical manifestation of the mystical body of Christ we are
obliged to recognize that church is not an alien entity. In spite of its calling and its endowment
with the Spirit, the church is not exempt to the limitations and weakness of any other institution.
The revelation of God always occurs into the genuine human realization.
27
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;
God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God
chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to
reduce to nothing things that are, 29 so that no one might boast in the
presence of God.
(1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
Given its prophetic and evangelizing vocation, it is acceptable that the church assumes a
certain distinction related to the other institutions. However, making this distinction an excuse to
assign itself as lifeline for the world would be practically the same as assigning itself a divine
power, which it does not hold. Acting in the power of the Spirit is not the same thing that take
possession of an ordering attribute of the world. This is precisely the project of Christendom: the
adequacy of the world to its order, under the pretense of God's authorization. The project of the
Christendom is, indeed, a copy of the Roman imperial organization and later, of the medieval
society. Both the Constantinian imperialism and medieval feudalism shaped the infrastructure in
which the ideal of a fully Christian society was widely spread. Already long before, the very
notion of the kingdom of God had already been confused with the Jewish monarchy. The model
of Christendom, in turn, also represents a project of a uniform society, and therefore totalitarian.

As a historical record (certainly not from the point of view of modern historiography), the
Evangelists and other New Testament writers portrayed the mission of the church as the effort by
preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. While the Gentiles were converted to Christianity they also
incorporated the mission of the proclamation of the Gospel to their peers. Hence one can no
longer to face the situation as if they were the "insiders" (Jews) preaching to the "outsiders"
(Gentiles), but these each other, i.e., Gentiles doing mission among themselves. As the
conversion of the Gentiles transported them to another world of significance (in the ideological
sense), many conflicts have arisen with the paganism at that time, and consequently, with the
modus vivendi of the Roman Empire. From the point of view of these external conflicts the early
church also reproduced in its mission project the dichotomy of "us and them". But the internal
point of view, against the background of the emergence of various groups within Christianity,
such as Gnosticism, Montanism, and the other so-called heretical movements, we observe that,
from the beginning Christians have had to deal with the diversity of expressions of faith. And
historically the Christian orthodoxy was born of the need of fixing the "distortions" of emerging
Christianities, so that it could unify the faith, purging what it considered as "errors", and exercise
authority over all Christians.

So, albeit harshly repressed by the dominant orthodoxies of its time there have always
been contesting movements in the history of the church. They are the most important proof that,
to greater or lesser degree, the church always experienced the diversity in its eclesiality. The
difference is that to talk about such perspective in our days sounds a little less absurd than
centuries and even decades ago. In other words, from the beginning it can be stated that our
conception of the church was deeply influenced by an exclusivist and exclusionary point of view
on others. Therefore, a dichotomous analysis is still useful as it was in the past.

The Gospel, the church, and its ministries were born in a context of plurality, expressing
the very plurality of the world. It is exactly because it is no longer possible to make use of a
dichotomous analysis to explain the relationship between church-world, that we should strive to
avoid repeating the old Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is
no salvation). It is no longer a matter of "us and them". It always been just "us", fighting against
each other, either by differentiation, as well as for equality.

It means that church not only was called by God to be an historical alternative to the
world. The church is, or should be, the internal crisis of the world. The finality of any crisis (that
etymologically means 'judgment') is to promote the critical thinking, as well as the hatching of
necessary changes to overcome the world contradictions. The role of the church, through its
ministries and ministers, is to promote transformation to the world from inside out in a constant
process of conversion (metanoia) of any practice not compatible with the God's project to the
humanity, namely, the redemption of all life.

Again, it is not a matter of "us and them". There is only "us" in an internal process of
self-criticism and reworking of our contradictions. In this sense it would not be appropriate
theorize about "the church and the world", as they were two distinct realities, but rather from the
utterance "the church is the world in eruption". This is the way I interpret the words of Jesus:
 The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed;
nor will they say, Look, here it is! or There it is! For, in fact, the
kingdom of God is among you.
(Luke 17:20b-21)
Although the church is not the kingdom, it is called to irradiate the reality of the
kingdom. In the same way there is no cultureless gospel in its proclaiming, there is no also
cultureless gospel in its reception. The church have learned and lived the gospel within a specific
cultural context until the moment it become aware of the need of the redemption of our world
(culture). It is always a changing from inside out, as the term ekklesia indicates.

Etymologically, the Greek word ekklesia (the called-out ones) denotes much more an
action than a specific place, or the gathering itself. The ekklesia there was only at the time of its
mobilization, since the mobilizing force was what fundamentally constituted it. In other words,
the ekklesia was the mission in itself, independently of its format. The assembly and the format
of deliberations were the instruments to accomplish its mission.

When this term is applied in the New Testament, it does not suggest to the assembly of
Christians a separation from the world, nor a superiority when compared to it. When Jesus said,
"The kingdom of God is among you", he said it to the Pharisees. If the kingdom is among us,
then it is not the exclusive property of the church, and so it cannot be seized, translated, and
experienced only by church. Therefore I cannot believe the church (namely, the Christians) is the
only representative of the kingdom of God. "The kingdom is among you", so we need to learn to
recognize it, to seize it, and incorporate it into everyday life, so that the kingdom can hatch into
the world. So, the church is not obviously a building, a specific structure or even a place. These
are peripherals aspects that one congregation may assume. The church are not called out from the
world, but rather to the world to which all take part. Moreover, others can be called to express
the reality of the kingdom by other means, rather than to be part of one church.

Finally, the Gospel, the Church, and ministry can best relate to sociocultural context
recognizing their own essence of transitoriness, their potentialities, but also their limitations. In
fact, the world is in constant changing. However, the churchs approach requires an adjustment to
this new context, named emergent, without sacrificing the primordial, that is the message of
reconciliation between God and the humankind (2 Corinthians 5:18 -20). Such message includes
seeking for justice at all levels, living nonviolent relationships based on equality and not through
imposition, embracing, living a simple lifestyle, and working for peace. That is, proclaiming and
living the faith in the Spirit and in truth.

Notwithstanding, in face of its desire to be relevant to the world, there is no other way to
the church than trial and error. Unfortunately, the errors are usually considered as "heresies", or
at least "heterodoxies".