Hobby Chapin (Brighton, CO) asked some deeper questions about this issue of having a "name". I thought I would share with the rest of the MRT Community my answers to him.*What do you and the team think Luke 10 is and what you hope it will become.
I see The Luke Ten Community as a starfish-type community or organization. It's DNA is a set of practices (like the rhythms of CO2, MRT, etc.) which reflect values (all the things, Hobby, that you and I have talked about... listening on a heart level to you, me and God; church = family; leaders = parents, mission flows from listening, etc.).
Luke 10 is also a set of relationships defined by people who are engaged in the practices. The level of commitment ranges from slight (one of the 550 people who has joined LK10.com) to significant (those who are participating in the MRT Experiment on a regular basis... as you are). People self-define their level of engagement.
What do I hope it will become? Seems to me that many in these early days of the house church movement are still reacting against the abuses of structure in the traditional church (spider-type organization). I think we have the opportunity to see a prototype for organic, starfish-type regional leadership teams. Could we dream of the day when there are a multitude of MRT-type teams in cities and regions around the world?
Why have a name and tag, etc. in the type of movement we are sharing? Names seem to be in the nature of being a community or family. (Of course, "names" in Scripture were always very important. In fact, "naming" was something God expected Adam to do back in the garden. See Gen. 2:19-20.) So, we have the Chapin family, the tribe of Benjamin, the Christians (Acts 12:26), the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) etc. Examples from The Starfish and the Spider of names for starfish organizations: Alcoholics Anonymous, the abolitionist movement, Al-Qaeda, etc.
A name, in our case, becomes a short hand for our particular practices/values and our particular relationships. To say it another way, our name (and "tag line") should say something about our God-given uniqueness and calling. (For example, when I say "Hobby Chapin" a distinct and unique person comes to mind.)
Further thoughts about "naming"? And, about "The Luke Ten Community" as our name?
Hmmm... good thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFor the last few years I've been against names - not strongly, just generally - because they tend to be a line of division. At least they have been for me in the past.
In my experience names, buildings, and all-star pastors where the main things that separated churches in a town or city from functioning as the united body of Christ. People always ask "What church do you go to?" and you'd answer with a name - and that was the thing that differentiated you from them.
For the last while I've leaned toward regional names because the type of boundary they define is one that makes sense to me. For example we called our small gathering of people in Denver the "Cheesman Park House Church" (or Denver House Church at one point). It merely spoke of where we typically met and left the doors wide open for new-comers from our neighborhood.
HOWEVER - I've recently been looking at some of the necessary elements for creating "sense of community" and among the few essentials is what's known as a "common symbol" - ie. a name, logo, flag, colors, etc. Apparently having some sort of common symbol gives people the sense of being together (like how a family name 100% distinguishes those who are "IN" from those who aren't).
All this to say that - for me - the jury is still out in regards to the need for names... but I like your thoughts, John, and I'm much less disinclined toward them now than I was a few months ago...
Really curious what others are thinking...
My fear is always looking like a 'denomination' to those we speak with. I identify with the "House Church Movement", and some of my friends categorize even that identity into describe in a short paragraph. Within the HC movement we already have our set of rules, practices, and beliefs according to them. The less walls we have build up, the more fluidity we have. We as believers should be known by our relationships and be identified by our love for one another, according to Jesus' words. Without names we can be fluid with one another, and lines are drawn less frequently. Without names we don't have to resort to a "membership list". I like the identity we would have together, but I believe it defeats the purpose of being open to everyone without drawing lines in the sand. The more free we are with less restraint the more free reign the Holy Spirit has in our lives.
ReplyDeleteJust my thoughts. :-)
I come from a church heritage (Stone-Campbell Movement) that took the "no names" thing pretty seriously. One of the movement's monikers was "Christians only, but not the only Christians." -- Pretty cool!
ReplyDeleteThey took on names for their churches that were based on location (streets, cities) and called themselves the "Christian Church" or "Disciples of Christ" or just "the Church of Christ meets on 18th Street here".
Even with all these blatant stabs at simple-Christianity and non-denominational unity, the Stone-Campbell Movement calcified and became pretty sectarian. Even trying not to name the movement ended up getting categorized and defensive toward outsiders.
It reminds me of 1 Cor 1:12- Some followed Apollos, some Peter, "and some say, 'I follow only Christ.'" I usually find myself in the last camp. I want to follow only Christ. The problem is, my religious history tells me that having "no name" can be just as divisive as claiming a name. (I'm just a Christian, what are you? Oh - you're a LUTHERAN!?! A CATHOLIC??! A CRAZY PENTECOSTAL?! Or for us organic/simple types, An INSTITUTIONAL CHRISTIAN?!)
I'd say that the last division in the 1 Cor 1:12 passage is the most insidious because claiming "I only follow Christ," leaves you blind to your actual allegiances, and it gives you a prideful religious elitism among others holding to a denominational title.
Obviously, I'm not pointing fingers here - except at myself - I grew up in a heritage that "made this mistake" of refusing to name itself, and yet the spirit of "naming" and "dividing" was there anyway. Conversely, "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet..." so whatever we are called, let's live out the principles and the calling to which we are called, and remember -- we may be Christians only, but not the only Christians!
Well said, Mark!
ReplyDeleteAs individuals and as groups, we end up getting called something eventually. So, we might as well pick a name that seeks to communicate what we are about. As you say, the key to a "sweet smell" isn't in whether or not you have a name but in what is in your heart.