02-07-02 Consulta sobre la misin en un contexto secular y de postmodernidad

02 de Julio 2002

"Creer sin pertenecer? En bsqueda de nuevos paradigmas para la iglesia y la misin en contextos secularizados y postmodernos"
Consulta en Breklum, Alemania del Norte 26 de junio al 2 de julio de 2002
En el decenio de l990 el CMI emprendi un estudio importante sobre la relacin entre Evangelio y culturas, que dio lugar a la la Conferencia Mundial sobre Misin y Evangelizacin de Salvador en 1996. En la samblea del CMI en !arare, en l99", se pidi que se diera mayor importancia a la re#le$in sobre la misin en conte$tos seculari%ados. &espu's de (acer algunas consultas, el personal del CMI encargado de las cuestiones de misin y evangeli%acin decidi que la me)or manera de responder a esa peticin era o#recer un espacio para el di*logo entre personas que se en#rentan con los problemas de la misin en conte$tos seculares modernos y postmodernos. Con este #in, el CMI, )unto con algunos interlocutores en lemania +,ort(elbian Center #or -orld Mission and -orld .ervice/ Evangelisc(es Missions0er1 !amburg, EM-2 y en ,oruega + reopagos2 organi% una consulta sobre el tema3 45Creer sin pertenecer? En bsqueda de nuevos paradigmas para la iglesia y la misin en contextos secularizados y postmodernos4, que se llev a cabo en 6re1lum, en el ,orte de lemania, del 76 de )unio al 7 de )ulio de 7007. 8articiparon en esa consulta 90 personas de cinco continentes, en su mayor:a de Europa y m'rica del ,orte. 8articipantes de m'rica del ,orte, ;eino <nido, .uecia, lemania, ;usia, =etonia, !ungr:a, .ud*#rica, 6rasil, M'$ico, India y Corea presentaron in#ormes sobre la misin en los conte$tos seculari%ados de sus pa:ses. El CMI, la Con#erencia de Iglesias Europeas +CIE2, la >ederacin =uterana Mundial +>=M2, la Comunidad de =euenberg y otras organi%aciones presentaron estudio y programas de con#erencias>ederation +=->2, t(e =euenberg #ello0s(ip and ot(er organisations. ?tros participantes contribuyeron con aportaciones basadas en estudios cient:#icos que incluyeron temas tales como3

=a espiritualidad de quienes no van a la iglesia, por &avid !ay/ Misiolog:a en las culturas occidentales, -ilbert .(en1/ >e sin iglesia en otearoa ,ueva @elandia, por lan Aamieson/

estudios de casos de es#uer%os misioneros actuales como Iona, >ocolari, traba)o )uvenil en 6el#ast, e$periencias de #ormacin de comunidad en los Estados <nidos de m'rica, compartir el Evangelio en conte$tos postmodernos no relacionados con la iglesia en el ;eino <nido. El traba)o en grupos contribuy para que los participantes resumieran sus orientaciones y plantearan preguntas. .e vivi una maravillosa vida de celebracin inspirada por la tradicin de la comunidad de Iona.

=a consulta no intent #ormular una declaracin basada en un consenso, ni redact un mensa)e comBn. =os documentos de esta reunin #ueron publicados en los nBmeros de enero y abril de 700C de la IRM. .e puso de relieve la diversidad de situaciones en los as: llamados pa:ses seculari%ados. m'rica del ,orte no puede equipararse a lemania ?riental. pesar de algunas caracter:sticas comunes, la situacin de .uecia es di#erente a la del ;eino <nido. =as in#luencias culturales de la mundiali%acin dan lugar a di#erentes 4sincretismos4 en los diversos conte$tos culturales de ?ccidente, y aBn m*s en otros continentes y en otras culturas. =a postmodernidad y la religiosidad espec:#ica de las condiciones de seculari%acin ponen a prueba a las iglesias en misin en todo el mundo. Es cada ve% m*s urgente entender que esto requiere un cambio #undamental de paradigma en la vida espiritual e institucional de las iglesias y de las organi%aciones relacionadas con las iglesias, incluido el CMI.

The challenges and opportunities o secularisation and postmodernity or the mission o the churches
! "rocedure and initial explorations # obser$ations%
1 1 !ut o" t#e "ragments -e began by s(aring brie# accounts o# (o0 our o0n e$periences, studies and li#e stories (ad broug(t us to see t(e importance o# secularisation and postmodernity #or our engagement 0it( mission and our re#lection on t(e nature and purpose o# t(e c(urc(. Dey points and questions included3

E(e e$perience o# 4cultures in disarray4 Multiple locations and #orms #or spirituality E(e di##erences among C(ristians and t(e question o# 0(at sense it ma1es to say t(at 0e (ave been s(aped by a common metanarrative

Farying understandings o# sel#(ood, person(ood, values and identity G to 0(at e$tent are t(ey H)ustI social constructs, and (o0 #ar are t(ey rooted in a t(oroug(going individualismJ

>undamentalism+s2 as t(e #ear#ul pole+s2 o# postmodernity in di##erent traditions .ecularisation visGKGvis popular spiritual practices G 0(at is t(e ground o# HvalueI and HmeaningIJ

Con#licting vie0s on t(e role o# language in creating or ma1ing sense o# HrealityI, and t(e role o# HreasonI in t(is tas1.

8olitical disillusion3 is directed c(ange possible any moreJ -(at does it mean to 0ors(ip in t(e conte$t o# #ree mar1et domination, social #ragmentation and t(e cultural L religious supermar1etJ

1 $ %our &ey areas o" enquiry' a. The meaning and implications of religion' and spirituality' in contemporary society. -e e$plored t(e 0or1 o# &r &avid !ay in understanding t(e spirituality o# t(ose 0(o do not go to c(urc(. E(e e$tent o# spiritual e$perience in 6ritain +sync(ronicity, sense o# a divine or evil presence, a0areness o# t(e dead, being Hup(eldI by prayer, and e$perience o# t(e HonenessI o# li#eI2 contrasts 0it( t(e re)ection o# t(ose categories and #orms in, #or e$ample, East Mermany. Nuestions 0ere raised about a biological or innate basis #or (uman spirituality +suc( as t(ose o# listair !ardy2, but it 0as accepted t(at t(e aim o# naturalist interpretations G 0(atever 0e ma1e o# t(em G is to re#ute t(e idea t(at suc( e$periences are essentially alien or necessarily unusual to (uman being and becoming. !o0ever, spirituality in its HreligiousI #orms certainly seems to (ave been repressed by HsecularI social and cultural assumptions, more or less G depending on t(e society. b. Seeking clarity about terms and concepts in our use of words like secularisation' and postmodernity', particularly as they are used to construct theses about the disappearance, persistence and/or resurgence of religion . .ecularisation t(eses ta1e many #orms, H(ardI and Hso#tI. E(ey describe t(e #orces pus(ing against t(e predominance o# religious assumptions and structures, but do not necessarily mean t(e end o# religion or Mod. 8ro#essor 6ert !oedema1er proposed t(at 0e understand t(is debate in t(e conte$t o# modernisation +0(ic( is more t(an )ust H-esternisationI2. 8ostmodernity can be seen as modernity +t(e pro)ect o# rational organisation and control2 turning upon itsel#. ;eligion reGemerges to t(e e$tent t(at modernity (as tried to situate and de#ine it in an insu##icient 0ay. H;ationalityI +0isdom to order2 and HreligionI +0isdom to deal 0it( contingency2 need to #ind a balance in a searc( #or t(e unity o# (uman1ind t(at does )ustice to di##erence. E(is approac( 0as recognised as one 0ay to delineate and arrange our terms and concepts but produced varying responses. -e could all agree on t(e necessity to pay care#ul attention to t(e distinctions made by ourselves and ot(ers in t(is area. c. Economic and political forces shaping and interacting with postmodernity . Muided by &r =orna Mold, 0e began by de#ining postmodernity as a set o# tendencies to0ards di##erence, ot(erness, deconstruction, suspicion o# controlling stories +metanarratives2 and moral and cultural relativity. 6ut t(e negative metanarrative o# postmodern opposition to metanarratives and t(e positive metanarrative o# neoliberalism 0ere seen as important contradictory #eatures o# muc( postmodern t(in1ing. Communications tec(nology (as speeded up cultural transmission and re#ormation. 8ersonal c(oice is seen as a universal good. Economic HnecessitiesI determine political options. Movernance is based on #ree mar1et optimism, loss o# control to institutions li1e t(e IM> and -E? +#or ric( countries too2, and contractual instrumentalism. !o0ever t(ere is evidence t(at abundance is not al0ays creating (appiness among t(e a##luent, as communal and #amily solidarities are lost or 0ea1ened. H;elational consciousnessI +!ay2 is in danger o# being displaced by narro0 economism and managerialism. d. Church as a response can church' arise anew in con!ersation within' and without' the spaces constructed by the secular and the postmodern" >ollo0ing on #rom t(e previous discussion, 0e 0ere reminded o# 8ro#essor ;obert -ut(no0Is proposal t(at religions (ave t(e signi#icant capacity to provide a #rame0or1 #or limiting economic commitments. !uman community (as to be #ounded on somet(ing more t(an goods e$c(ange. E(e neoliberal driven version o# postmodernity +t(ere are ot(ers2 seems to (ave s(run1 our capacity to tal1 about social )ustice, and it (as restricted (uman movement and interaction by scapegoating re#ugees and asylum see1ers #or reminding t(e ric( 0orld o# t(e consequences o# t(e system #or t(e poor. E(e rene0al o# c(urc( is a vital part o# building ne0 possibilities. lliances 0it( ot(ers see1ing c(ange can go (andGinG(and 0it( t(e rediscovery o# t(e C(ristian message. .ocial t(eology must be recovered to res(ape economy. C(urc(es can become places o# resistance and t(e revaluation o# values

+HsanctuariesI2. .tories o# (ealing overcoming victim(ood are needed. ?ur #ocus s(ould include 0orldly alertness to mec(anisms o# control and a spiritually resourced reGbuilding o# Hrig(t relationsI.

2! &ey t'eolo(ical issues arisin( )rom secularisation and postmodernity%

E(e basic need is #or a c(ange o# posture3

re 0e 0illing to be an alternative rat(er t(an rus(ing in to arrogate ourselves as t(e alternativeJ .ome C(ristians #ear t(is language, but 0e see it as an opportunity not a deprivation. E(e biblical vocation is to say H0e testi#yI, H0e proposeI, H0e 0itnessI on t(e basis o# t(e Mod 0(o d0ells 0it( us in C(rist and as suc( is revealed as beyond our instrumental control.

It 0ould (elp to revisit t(e relation bet0een t(eology and economics, rooted in a reG reading o# t(ose biblical traditions t(at point to0ards t(e need #or community as t(e #undamental orientation o# li#e.

?ur #ounding documents are Hte$ts under negotiationI +8ro#essor -alter 6rueggemann2, part o# an ongoing argument 0it(in C(ristianity about t(e meaning o# ModIs 0ays 0it( us. It is argument not 0ar inso#ar as it is bounded by #ello0s(ip. -it(in t(at argument it is necessary to see1 biblical and traditionGderived resources #or a positive response to (uman diversity G receiving it in communion, rat(er t(an perceiving it as t(reat.

E(is negotiation o# our te$ts can also be part o# a dialogue 0it( t(ose o# ot(er #ait(s and convictions, 0(ereby 0e c(allenge one anot(er to revisit our o0n traditions in searc( #or t(e roots o# a #res( 1ind o# unity +one t(at ta1es seriously t(e destructive #orces in our midst2.

H,ot 1no0ingI can be (ope#ul G 4!e is not t(ere4 +because (e is risen, a #act t(at means (ope coming bac1 to us #rom Ho## t(e pageI2. 6ut sometimes not 1no0ing can also be an e$cuse #or resignation. It oug(t not to be.

ut(ority cannot be based on mere control and H1noc1Gdo0n trut(I3 in t(e gospel li#e it arises #rom tangible aut(enticity, integrity, encounter and daily lived e$perience among people. 4&onIt tell me, s(o0 me.4

Eradition can be reGevaluated as a call to conversion, as t(e story o# #ait(#ulness in ongoing c(ange, rat(er t(an a bloc1 on c(ange.

-e can question t(e contemporary concept o# relations(ip as HcompetitionI. -e need to as1 0(at t(e basis is o# being (uman G is t(ere some HbaselineIJ

-e need inner and outer dialogue because 0e are part o# t(e culture. +Comple$ interrelation bet0een Hc(urc(I, HcultureI etc.2

ctually secularisation gives spirituality anot(er c(ance G enabling us to lose our Hs(ameI about t(e gospel, but also c(allenging us to t(in1 0(at it means and (o0 it is received today, as in every age.

Construed in certain 0ays, postmodernism also seems to loosen t(e taboo on Mod. 6ut 0(ic( Mod and (o0J

E(ere is an important tas1 to 0or1 out (o0 to discern t(e 0ays people e$press spirituality in secular li#e and (o0 appropriately to respond to t(em.

-e need to be in a process o# c(ange but also to be able to address t(e question o# t(e (uman searc( #or trust and stability in li#e.

E(e need to be dialogical is rooted in our belie# t(at t(e !oly .pirit blo0s at 0ill and can spea1 to anyone any0(ere.

E(ere#ore C(ristians (ave to develop listening as a spiritual discipline.

*! +uestions )or )urt'er study%

ll o# t(e points raised above are, in our opinion, 0ort(y o# #urt(er attention and re#lection. %undamentally( )e as&'

-(at 1ind o# c(urc( could support t(e type o# posture +t(eologically construed, open, missional a0areness2 0e (ave been tal1ing aboutJ Eo put t(e matter personally, 40(at 1ind o# community do I need to enable me to c(angeJ -(at 1ind o# belonging is possibleJ42 E(is implies #urt(er questions3 0(ere are t(e points o# transition in in(erited and emerging c(urc(esJ !o0 practically do 0e recognise t(at t(e c(urc( is mystery be#ore it is structureJ !o0 do 0e (old toget(er our t0o starting points3 t(at 0(ic( resides in t(e space mar1ed by secularisation and postmodernity, and t(at arising #rom our vocation to be c(urc(J

Ecclesiology3 in all t(is t(ere is a #res( opportunity to reGt(in1 tradition, our notion and use o# it. +-CC >ait( and ?rder2

More 0or1 needs doing on discerning t(e spirituality o# people outside t(e c(urc(, 0it( ot(ers. + question #or institutes o# missiology, etc.2

-e need to re#lect more on t(e in#luence o# +and reaction to2 postmodernity outside Ht(e -estI. In a globalising 0orld it is a muc( 0ider c(allenge. -e do not see it as )ust Ha -estern problemI, but 0e are equally clear t(at t(ere is not(ing inevitable about -estern precepts or solutions.

Simon #arrow $moderator / reporter%

!e" orms o religiosity among people not going to church # "hat $inds o spirituality are "e called to in a postmodern setting?
E(is group 0as a merger o# t0o t(eme groups, 0(ic( 0ere to #ocus on complementary issues on ;eligiosity o# people not going to c(urc( and Dinds o# spirituality in a postmodern setting. E(e t0o t(emes are so closely related t(e group did not attempt to separate t(em, but rat(er treated t(em as one t(eme 0it( t0o #oci. E(e group 0or1 developed in a rat(er nonGlinear #as(ion. E(e process made it clear t(at t(e t(eme touc(es eac( o# us at a deep personal level. E(is is not a t(eme dealing 0it( somet(ing 4out t(ere4 in a distant e$otic subculture. 6ut in an e$istential manner t(e ne0 #orms o# religiosity and spirituality arising in postmodern settings c(allenges some #undamental assumptions about t(e #orms and structures o# c(urc( and mission and C(ristian 0itness today.

Ne, )orms o) reli(iosity

;eligiosity and spirituality can to some degree be used interc(angeably. !o0ever, it is #elt t(at in current -estern society t(e term 4spirituality4 is pre#erred to 4religiosity4 as only a #e0 religious see1ers are com#ortable 0it( t(e institutional connotations associated 0it( religiosity. ,e0 religiosity and spirituality are #ound in numerous #orms. E(e group did not give priority to 0or1ing out a typology o# t(ese #orms. -e reali%e t(at most o# 0(at is called spirituality does not carry t(e concept o# a god in t(e AudeoGC(ristian sense o# t(e 0ord. 6ut given t(e nature o# t(e ne0 spirituality, it is di##icult to assess to 0(at degree an individualIs spiritual involvement is an actual searc( #or Mod or not. Muc( spirituality is generated and conditioned by popular culture +see Eom 6eaudoin3 Firtual >ait(2, o#ten via mass media. quest #or t(e supernatural is mostly involved. &etailed studies 0ill reveal an unending list o# variations. 6ut as a point o# departure #or C(ristian 0itness to t(is ne0 spirituality, 0e s(ould be inspired by 8aulIs missionary approac( on reopagos + cts c(. 1O2 as t(e normal mode o# mission in todayIs multiGspiritual conte$t3 .ome 0ill respond G ot(ers 0ill not. In spite o# great variety in t(e ne0 spirituality, t(ere are a number o# common #eatures. In order to get a sense o# some general tenets in t(e s(i#t #rom traditional C(ristian #ait( to ne0 spiritualities, t(e #ollo0ing grid 0as presented +see #ig. 123

Shifts towards new forms of Spirituality Traditional Christian faith The Transcendent God - "God beyond" New spirituality The Immanent God - "God inside"

We are sinners and need mercy

We are wounded and need healing

Doing our plight

Aiming at self-realization

God as King and ather

God as friend and life

The preaching of the word

The !ystery of the "ucharist

#nderstanding$%nowledge

"&perience

aith as Truth

aith as Trust

"The small passage"

"The broad road"

!asculine 'ision

eminine recepti'ity

Going to (ea'en

)i'ing on "arth

*hilosophical Truth

*sychological Truth +I feel,,,-

(ierarchical Authority

Authority based on indi'idual e&perience

.(i#ts to0ards ne0 #orms o# .pirituality Eraditional C(ristian #ait( ,e0 spirituality E(e Eranscendent Mod G 4Mod beyond4 E(e Immanent Mod G 4Mod inside4 -e are sinners and need mercy -e are 0ounded and need (ealing &oing our plig(t iming at sel#Greali%ation Mod as Ding and >at(er Mod as #riend and li#e E(e preac(ing o# t(e 0ord E(e Mystery o# t(e

Euc(arist <nderstandingL1no0ledge E$perience >ait( as Erut( >ait( as Erust 4E(e small passage4 4E(e broad road4 Masculine vision >eminine receptivity Moing to !eaven =iving on Eart( 8(ilosop(ical Erut( 8syc(ological Erut( +I #eel...2 !ierarc(ical ut(ority ut(ority based on individual e$perience It 0as noted t(at t(ese general ne0 spirituality tenets are not )ust to be #ound 0it(in certain 4,e0 ge4 groups, but seem to be quite normal postmodern see1er cultures in general. .o to quite a (ig( degree 0e #ace t(is ne0 spirituality in our missionary encounter 0it( postmodern Meneration P and #ollo0ing generations in general. E(e s(i#ts (ave already ta1en place to a rat(er (ig( degreeQ E(ere#ore it is very urgent t(at t(e c(urc( learns to be better in relating to t(is ne0 spirituality.

-iable responses - kinds o) spirituality in postmodern settin(s

E(e radical s(i#ts #rom modernLtraditional to postmodern be(aviour and perceptions (ave #arGreac(ing consequences on c(urc( and mission. E(e c(urc( 0ill not be able to minister meaning#ully in t(e ne0 postmodern setting t(roug( adaptingLconte$tuali%ing e$isting 4mission4 programmes and met(ods, 0(ile itsel# remaining unc(anged. E(e #undamental c(allenges rig(t no0 seems to be t(e need #or t(e c(urc( +individual C(ristians, local groupsLcongregations, institutions2 itsel# to undergo c(anges t(at 0ill ma1e it more #it to missionally engage t(e ne0 postmodern spiritualities. E(is need #or c(ange is called #or bot( #rom ne0 spirituality see1ers and #rom c(urc( members t(emselves. ,e0 spirituality is a##ecting t(e population at large, including C(ristians L c(urc( members. E(ere is a strong call #or c(ange even #rom t(e people in t(e pe0. 4I love Mod, but I ! EE t(e c(urc(4 is (eard #rom many c(urc(Gactive adults, yout( and c(ildren, 0(o do not any longer #ind t(emselves at (ome in c(urc( environments t(at are out o# touc( 0it( t(e c(anges in t(e lives o# its members and its surroundings. I# t(eir cry is not (eard, t(ey 0ill silently leave t(e c(urc( and never come bac1, t(oug( t(ey 0ant to up(old t(eir C(ristian allegiance. ne0 spirituality in society needs to be met 0it( aut(entic c(urc( spirituality. -e #ind no need to 4invent4 ne0 spiritualities in t(e c(urc( G but 0e do need to dra0 on all t(e spiritual resources in t(e long and ric( C(ristian tradition. In meeting t(e longings and spiritual aspirations o# t(e ne0 spirituality, 0e s(ould ta1e #ort( elements o# C(ristian spirituality, 0(ic( 0ill genuinely respond to t(e quests o# see1ers 0(erever t(ey are. E.g. t(e classic seven stages o# #ait( #rom .t. Ao(n o# t(e Cross can provide a use#ul basis #or (elping see1ers see 0(ere t(e are on t(eir )ourney to0ards Mod +see #ig. 72. E(roug( suc( identi#ication t(ey can move on, dra0ing on t(e ric( (istorical (eritage o# C(ristian spirituality.

Stages of faith and search for meaning +from .wa Wi%str/m0s interpretation of 1ohn of the 2ross3, ).4GI4G - gentle opening of the senses "God is sensed" - "Ahnung" 5, "4T(#6IA6! - the wor% of God is seen e'erywhere "God is lo'ed" - "Innosence" 7, G8I"9I4G - the lo'e of God changes "I am a sinner" :, 8ATI.4A)IT; - God is reflected and understood in all comple&ity "Theology" - "!y mind wrestles with God"

<, A=A4D.4!"4T - God disappears "The Dar% 4ight of the 6oul" >, I))#!I4ATI.4 - "God shines" "Through the former crisis faith is reaching a new le'el and ?uality" @, I4T"G8ATI.4 - "God I6" "Drin% Tea when you drin% tea"
!istorical resources need to be complemented by contemporary C(ristian traditions. It seems t(at eac( c(urc( tradition (as received a unique contribution to t(e ecumenical 0(ole +see #ig. C2. !o0ever, no single tradition may meet all t(e aspirations o# see1ers. E(ere#ore t(ere is a critical demand #or a #unctional ecumenism, 0(ere eac( c(urc( learns to minister 0it( gi#ts and graces given to t(em G and 0(ole(eartedly re#er see1ers to ot(er traditions, i# t(ey #ind t(at t(is 0ill be more (elp#ul to t(em. ?rt(odo$, Cat(olic, 8rotestant, Evangelical, C(arismaticL8entecostal traditions all (ave t(eir s(are to contribute. .uc( a postGdenominational reality is already by and large a reality #or yout( and see1ers. !o0ever, ecclesial leaders and systems and interc(urc( doctrinal dialog still need to catc( up 0it( t(e ne0 realities.

!ost important of all seems to be the need for authentic relationships, 1ourneying towards God is not an indi'idual 'enture, 6ee%ers will always need companions along the way,In a postmodern settingA e&treme indi'iduality often leads to a search for fellowship, )o'ing relationships are the only "programme" that will suffice, 6uch relationships in and by themsel'es demonstrate the nature of the Trinitarian GodA which we want to point to,
E(us t(is relations(ip dimension is crucial in order to nurture and gro0 a C(ristian Erinitarian concept o# Mod in see1ers, 0(o are more li1ely to come to an understanding o# C(ristian dogma e$perientially t(an propositionally.

A time o) ne, opportunity

E(e ne0 spiritual quest is a great opportunity #or t(e c(urc( to engage postmodern settings missionally. nd it is already (appening in many e$iting G o#ten e$perimental G #orms and 0aysQ Eestimonies t(at people come to C(ristian #ait( in most une$pected 0ays are plenti#ul. E(ere is no reason to lament t(e c(anges #rom an o#ten godless modernism to a muc( more 4spiritual4 postmodern environment. !o0ever, 0e need to understand 0(at is (appening and c(ange and respond in appropriate 0ays. In many 0ays postmodern spirituality transcends t(e narro0 4religious4 con#inement, 0(ic( 0e 1no0 #rom modernity. In a re#res(ing ne0 0ay 0e see spirituality and religion un#old in arenas o# music, art, #ilm, t(eatre, etc. E(is development is 0elcome opportunity #or missional engagement 0it( see1ers in settings beyond t(e 0alls o# t(e c(urc(. E(e ne0 openness in secular society to tal1 about spiritual e$periences needs to be embraced 0(ole(eartedly by t(e c(urc(. E(roug( accompaniment 0it( see1ers in li1ely and unli1ely places and situations, C(ristians 0ill eventually learn (o0 to s(are t(e Mospel in aut(entic 0ays under t(ese ne0 circumstances.

E(e ne0 postmodern spirituality calls t(e c(urc( to conversion #rom (ypocrisy and 4acting4. 1ey 0ord is aut(enticity. ut(enticity calls all o# us to be in process to0ards Mod, being see1ers )ourneying toget(er 0it( ot(er see1ers in a still deepening yearning #or Mod. ?n t(at )ourney 0e s(ould allo0 #or vulnerability, intimacy and (onesty. C(allenges G Issues to be dealt 0it( in #uture researc(, e$perimenting, net0or1ing, consultationC(allenges to be dealt 0it( in embracing and encountering t(e ne0 spirituality are o##ered 0it(out any order o# priority. .ome o# t(em are o# a t(eological nature. .ome o# a more practical nature. Most o# t(em 0ill need to be considered in t(e #undamental systemic c(ange, 0(ic( c(urc(es need to go t(roug( in order to #ace t(e ne0 postmodern realities3

E(e need to s(i#t #rom ministering to a 4cro0d4 to ministering to individuals. &ue to t(e very (ig( degree o# individuali%ation, 0e must address individuals. ,ormal congregational c(urc( li#e is o#ten not geared to0ards t(is, t(us is o#ten #elt irrelevant.

!o0 to learn to ma1e muc( more e$plicit t(e ric(es and dept(s o# C(ristian spiritualityJ G call #or reGspirituali%ing o# t(e c(urc( in a spiritual 0orld.

t t(e same time dimensions o# relations(ips, community and commitment needs to be considered #or people, 0(o are more under t(e in#luence o# an elusive spirituality 0it(out speci#ic commitments.

!o0 to learn to teac( people t(roug( as1ing +t(e Aesus 0ay2 rat(er t(an o##ering #i$ed ans0ersJ

I# relations(ips are so li#eGgiving and allGimportant3 0(y t(en are so many o# t(em dys#unctionalJ

E(e general scepticism to0ards institutions ma1es it di##icult #or see1ers to attac( t(emselves to (eavy c(urc( institutions. E(ere#ore 0ays must be #ound in 0(ic( t(e rooting o# see1ers in C(ristian #ait( can ta1e place in 4sa#e %ones4, 0(ere see1ers are at ease in t(eir )ourney as t(ey 0or1 out t(eir #ait( allegiance.

>orms and structures and cultures 0it(in t(e c(urc( t(at are o##Gputting bot( to longGtime c(urc( members and to see1ers need to be critiqued 0it( s(attering (onesty3 .uc( critique 0ould include t(e institution, lac1 o# intimacy, )udgmental attitudes, lac1 o# acceptance o# people as t(ey are, inGgro0n c(urc( )argon and rules, lac1 o# involvement in real 0orld issues, lac1 o# individual sensitivity, lac1 o# c(urc( spirituality +sense o# t(e !oly2, lo0 priority o# contemplative li#estyle, inability to be -IE! people +0e are o#ten >?; t(e people2, uni#ormity, lac1 o# 4(oly 0omen and men4 #or accompaniment.

E(e notion o# normal 4c(urc( members(ip4 is o# little or no value to many see1ers. E(is is endangering t(e #uture o# present c(urc( institutions. !o0ever, ne0 0ays to live out C(ristian li#e ta1e ne0 #orms and s(ould be studied t(oroug(ly and critically in order to #ind

#orms o# C(ristian community t(at is meaning#ul to postmodern people 0(ile being t(eologically and ecclesiologically legitimate.

!o0 can eac( c(urc( tradition bene#it #rom t(e spiritualities vested in ot(er c(urc( traditions in order to meet t(e legitimate spiritual quest o# see1ersJ

4.pirituality4 as suc( is a neutral p(enomenon. .peci#ic spiritualities can be (ealt(y and un(ealt(y. E(ey can lead to Mod or lead any0(ere in t(e 0orld o# spirit and psyc(ology and cultic movements. -(ile maintaining openness to anyt(ing, any spirituality s(ould al0ays be critiqued biblically and t(eologically.

!e" orms o belonging # ho" to be church today? %n search o missional and healing communities
?ur group gre0 out o# t(e decision to )oin toget(er t0o o# t(e original t(eme areas3 4,e0 #orms o# belongingR(o0 to be c(urc( todayJ4 and 4In searc( o# missional and (ealing communities.4 s 0e s(ared 0(at particular areas o# concern broug(t eac( o# us to suc( a group, #ive some0(at discrete sets o# issues emerged3

t(e language o# mission, missional, and missionary and 0(at it indicates tensions involved in de#ining and practicing a distinctly C(ristian identity 0(ile at t(e same time being an open, inviting and 0elcoming community

an understanding o# mission and salvation t(at includes (ealt(, (ealing and medicine

varieties o# e$pressions o# religiosity, bot( 0it(in and outside t(e c(urc( institutionalisms t(at substitute #or t(e c(urc( as community, including a critique o# clericalism . In t(e end, 0e decided to begin 0it( t(e second matter o# (aving distinct identity and being a 0elcoming community. E(is implicated also issues o# members(ip and belonging. -e spent t(e ma)ority o# our time on t(is cluster o# issues. &ue in large measure to t(e ma1eup o# t(e group, our discussion #ocused on t(e Merman situation. >ive o# t(e ten o# us 0ere #rom Mermany. -(at 0as s(ared #rom t(e ot(er conte$ts 0e representedRMe$ico, !ungary, ;ussia, t(e C%ec( ;epublic, and t(e <nited .tatesRserved as angles o# re#lection #rom ot(er conte$ts to aid our investigation o# (o0 t(ese issues are to be understood in t(e Merman setting. .ociological t(eory regarding bounded sets and centered sets, especially as developed in c(apter seven o# t(e boo1 Missional C(urc(, o##ered an interpretive #rame0or1 #or understanding patterns o# c(urc( members(ip and activity t(at proved (elp#ul to some in t(e group. It at least (ig(lig(ted t(e di##erences bet0een group identity de#ined by boundaries and group li#e establis(ed by relating to a common center. E(e group (ad tendencies to stress bot( t(e c(urc(Is li#e as open and inclusive to all 0it(out boundaries t(at bar participation, and t(e c(urc(Is commitments to love and

receive people in t(at 0ay out o# #ait(#ulness to t(e call o# C(rist. It became evident t(at some #orm o# covenanting around common values and practices is necessary i# t(e open, 0elcoming style o# li#e is to be maintained. s 0e depicted t(e various 0ays people in Mermany bear some relations(ip to t(e c(urc( andLor C(ristian #ait( andLor religious li#e, a tentative ta$onomy emerged t(at served as a #rame0or1 #or our conversation. -e identi#ied3

6apti%ed C(ristians very involved in congregational activities 6apti%ed C(ristians seldom involved in congregational activities 6elieving but unbapti%ed 4C(ristians4 involving t(emselves in congregational activities

,onGbelieving, unbapti%ed people interested in C(ristian #ait( and see1ing 8ersons o# ot(er religious #ait(s 8eople 0it( religious indi##erence or religious illiteracy 8eople o# t(e soGcalled 4ne0 paganism4 -e never settled 0(et(er t(ese are all t(e possibilities or 0(et(er t(is is t(e #inal 0ay to describe eac( category, but t(e list 0as use#ul #or getting at several issues. ?ne 0as t(e matter o# t(e allocation o# resources and 0(at t(at reveals about t(e notions o# c(urc( t(at guide our actions and t(e c(urc(Is sense o# its mission. -e as1ed about 0(ere #inancial resources are spent, and on 0(ic( activities. -e as1ed 0(ic( types o# people are directly served by t(ose resources. Is t(is #ocused on t(e #ormal members(ip more t(an beyond t(emJ Is it #ocused more on members 0(o are distant or on members 0(o are actively participating in services and activitiesJ !o0 do t(e clergy allocate t(eir time and among 0(ic( 1inds o# peopleJ E(ere 0as a sense t(at a missionGoriented vie0 o# t(e c(urc( s(ould s(o0 up in a 4responsible and active use4 o# resources available. 6ut t(is raised more questions. 6y 0(at criteria is it to be determined t(at a use is responsible and active. -(at is t(e mission t(at guides allocation o# resources understood to beJ -e recogni%ed t(at t(ere are many implicit ans0ers in t(e 0ays c(urc(es act t(at seemed to us inadequate. .ome try to 4bring distant members bac1 to t(e club,4 i.e. to active participation. ?t(ers try to get outside people into t(e club, i.e. via #ormal members(ip +baptism, etc.2. ?t(ers seem content to simply maintain t(e present pattern o# t(ings. .till ot(ers see1 to 0in bac1 more in#luence in society. -(at e$actly is our aimJ -e noted many ingredients to0ards an ans0er to t(at question but came to no consensus3 openness to t(e stranger and t(e see1er, 0itness to t(e love o# Mod, living t(e gospel as a Hc(urc( #or ot(ersI, in#luencing t(e social environment, giving people (ope, providing education in t(e C(ristian #ait( #or t(ose in t(e c(urc( and t(ose 0(o are not, and deepening peopleIs belie#. Eo t(e mission question 0as added t(e c(urc( question. In our conversation about 0(at 40e4 are aiming at in t(e c(urc(Is mission, 0(o is t(at 40e4J &o 0e tend to de#ine t(e mission o# t(e c(urc( in terms o# t(e mission o# t(e o##icial people +clergy, bis(ops, councils, etc.2 o# t(e organi%ational structures 0(en 0e tal1 about a mission to0ard t(e c(urc( members, distant, active or potentialJ !o0 can 0e s(i#t to0ards presuming t(at 0(en 0e spea1 o# t(e 4c(urc(4 it is t(e people 0eIre tal1ing about, not t(e institutional structures t(at serve t(e people. I# t(e c(urc( is t(e people, t(en t(e question is about t(eir mission. -(at are t(ey called and sent by Mod to be, to do, or to sayJ -(at patterns o# relations(ip among t(emselves and 0it( ot(ers are t(ey called to embodyJ -e

discovered t(at 0(en t(is becomes t(e question, it begins to open up a ne0 0ay o# envisioning t(e aims t(at s(ould test our practices. -e didnIt get #ar in resolving t(e questions 0e raised. 6ut our conversation #ocused some o# t(e t(ings t(at need to be engaged, particularly in t(e Merman conte$t 0(ic( 0as in t(e #oreground o# our conversation. ?ur struggle illustrated t(at eac( o# our c(urc(es is called upon to engage 0(at 0e in(erit #rom our ecclesiological traditions o# t(e past and 0(at (ave come to be our social circumstances o# t(e present, and out o# t(at engagement to reG #ormulate our understanding o# 0(at it means to be t(e c(urc( and 0(at our mission is. -e 0ere (elped by t(e esc(atological perspective t(at t(e c(urc( is called to continuing conversion in regard to its identity and li#e and is al0ays called to be crossing ne0 boundaries. E(is (as to be done t(roug( #res( encounters 0it( t(e .criptures and by s(aring suc( a )ourney o# discovery toget(er 0it( c(urc(es else0(ere #or mutual stimulation, correction, imagination, and accountability. -e noticed to0ard t(e end t(at 0e (ad 0anted to ta1e up t(e matter o# (ealing but (ad not dealt 0it( it very muc(. -e s(ared t(e conviction t(at deepening t(e understanding o# t(e (ealing ministry o# t(e c(urc( (olds great potential #or providing a rene0ed paradigm o# mission #or t(e 71st century in t(e conte$t o# -estern cultures mar1ed by #ragmentation and bro1enness. E(is 0ill require ta1ing up t(e need #or t(e (ealing o# relations(ips, t(e inner 0(oleness o# individuals, and resolutions social con#lict and et(nic tensions. It calls #or a recovery o# t(e biblical vision o# s(alom and salvation, 0(olistically understood, and a #ully trinitarian t(eology o# t(e c(urc( and o# mission. >or t(is, t(e resources o# more 0(olistic visions (eld and practiced by many c(urc(es o# t(e nonG-estern 0orld and by c(urc(es o# 8entecostal and c(arismatic c(aracter 0ill be essential #or developing models o# 0ors(ip, community, disciples(ip, spirituality and mission t(at are #ully (ealing. In lig(t o# our e$perience, 0e add t(ese comments3

.'eolo(ical /uestions
;espond to t(e needs #or de#inition o# mission and c(urc( mentioned above by dra0ing upon a trinitarian missional and ecclesial vision.

0r(ent priorities
-e recogni%e t(at 0(at 0e raised about allocating resources is part o# a larger c(allenge 0e must attend to3 t(e 4missionary structures o# t(e congregation.4 E(is t(eme #rom ecumenical conversation in t(e 1960s must again be ta1en up 0it( rene0ed attention and commitment.

"ractical )ollo, up

-(at is t(e aim o# our missionJ -(at is t(e c(urc(J -(at is communityJ -(at is disciples(ipJ

?##ering (ealing #or t(e bro1enness o# our lives -e 0ere caug(t by our conte$t -e le#t out searc(es #or biblical resources

In places o# rene0al o# C(ristian #ait(, 0e observe t(ere are aspects o# (ealing ministries

-(at are congregations loo1ing li1e E(eological Education and missional vision. E$perience, laboratories, #ield 0or1 .(alom, relations(ips restored, 0orld (ealing, 4salvation.4

!e" orms o belonging&%n search o healing communities& Communicating and celebrating Christian aith
E(roug( t(e discussions o# t(e group t(ere 0as a gro0ing a0areness o# t(e diverse ecclesiological conte$ts and t(e di##erences t(at eac( person broug(t #rom t(eir speci#ic ecclesiological conte$t. >or e$ample t(e di##erences bet0een t(e ,ort( merican denominational system and t(e 0estern and central European #ol1 c(urc(es. longside t(e di##erences in ecclesiological conte$ts t(ere 0as also an a0areness o# t(e di##erent e$pressions HsecularisationI ta1es in t(e di##ering conte$ts. >or e$ample t(e secularisation 0it(in a country t(at leads to people leaving c(urc( and t(e secularisation 0it(in a country t(at leads to a HcivicI religionLc(urc(. -e recognised t(at t(e impact o# secularisation varies across countries but also bet0een et(nic groupings and urban and rural areas. E(e overall t(eme o# our discussions 0as ecclesial belonging and t(e missionary +missional2 dimension o# t(e c(urc(. -it(in t(is 0e loo1ed at t(e di##erent structures and attitudes, deconstruction and possible reconstructions o# t(ese and ne0 paradigms and models o# c(urc(esLcongregations. -e recognise t(at t(e issue is not only structures but t(e cultivation o# C(ristian (abits in t(e c(urc( suc( as (ospitality, #orgiveness, integrity and t(e building up o# relations(ips. E(e 0estern e$perience o# c(urc( today ma1es it possible #or persons to believe 0it(out belonging and belong 0it(out believing. -e cannot no0 debate t(e #iner points regarding 0(at levels o# believing and belonging are necessary #or 4members(ip4 +0(atever t(at mig(t mean2 in t(e c(urc( o# Aesus C(rist. !o0ever, #e0 0ill debate t(e assertion t(at some #orm o# believing and belonging, coupled 0it( particular (abits o# #ait( is a requirement #or 4members(ip4. -e e$perience di##erent #orms o# belonging some are vague #orms but t(e missionary tas1 o# t(e c(urc( is to nurture a deeper sense o# belonging. ?ur goal is not individual private spiritual e$perience and salvation, but t(e creation o# a people t(at can proclaim and be a sign o# t(e reign o# Mod and call people to enter t(e reign o# Mod. .ome discussion 0as given to t(e place o# Hcentres o# spiritualityI in a postmodernLsecular conte$t. E(is included some t(oug(t on t(e role o# ne0 monastic traditions. G Iona as a potential e$ample. In t(ese conte$ts HbelongingI is #or t(ose at t(e centre very strong but may be transitory and less clear #or t(ose moving in and out. =ess clear yet a realistic and valuable sense o# belonging in a postmodern conte$t. not(er possibility is t(at a temporary resident 0ould ta1e t(ese li#e #orms to rene0 and enliven anot(er community to 0(ic( t(ey can belong. E(oug(t 0as given to t(e use o# HspaceI especially t(e use o# c(urc(es as buildings t(at can be 0elcoming to t(e individual #or prayer, re#lection and learning about t(e C(ristian #ait(. E(oug(t 0as also given to t(e role o# HtimeI in postmodern conte$ts o# belonging. <sing an e$ample o# a pilgrimage 0al1 in 0(ic( communityLbelonging 0as ac(ieved by a group o#

people on a (al# day pilgrimageL0al1 but at t(e end eac( person 0ent t(eir separate 0ays. &oes t(is e$amples indicate a place #or a Hbelonging Io# t(e momentJ !o0 do 0e t(en (elp to 0eave t(ese ot(er0ise isolated incidents into an overall C(ristian )ourney. E(at leads to0ard a deeper and more co(esive sense o# belonging. In postmodern conte$ts 0e need to appreciate t(e role o# biograp(ical pilgrimages in 0(ic( people move to0ards a c(urc(Lcongregation, connect 0it( and move a0ay. &iscussions on t(e role o# languageRbot( 0ords and images, symbols and music. Dno0ing and understanding t(is language o# C(rist is a po0er#ul #orm o# belonging. E(is point emp(asises t(e need to (ave t(e HC(ristian .toryI told 0it(in t(e culture. E(e c(urc( needs to see1 ne0 0ays o# interaction 0it( #orms o# postmodern culture suc( as art and literature. Miven t(is #irst set o# issues 0e need to give attention to related issues #or e$ample leaders(ip, role o# t(e c(urc( in t(e mission o# Mod and culture. -e also discussed t(e role o# leaders(ip in t(e #ormation o# suc( communities. -e 0ant to e$plore t(e nature o# leaders as e$plorers or mid0ives. In t(is lig(t, 0e t(in1 leaders mig(t R 1. .(o0 t(at t(ey donIt 1no0 0(at t(e #uture loo1s li1eRt(e realities o# li#e in t(e 8ostmodern conte$t c(astens previous Modern assumptions o# predictability and control. 7. &isturb rat(er t(an direct t(e emergent gro0t( o# t(e community/ model and encourage an (ealt(y e$perience o# con#lict. C. Erust t(e .pirit o# Aesus t(at is embodied in t(e communityRt(e community (as all it needs to solve its o0n problems o# mission. S. ;e#use t(e temptation to provide ans0ers and solutions #rom above/ 0it( #or innovative 4guerrilla4 leaders to emerge #rom belo0. 9. .erve as language teac(ersRcultivate an environment #ramed by our particularly biblical narrative, 0(ile also cultivating t(e ability to read and spea1 t(e languages o# our cultures. 6. .timulate t(e c(ange process 0it( a #res( stream o# ne0 in#ormation t(at creates greater a0areness and understanding o# our missional environment and #uels innovation. continuous e##ort o# t(e c(urc( to be engaged 0it( culture. E(ere is a continuous tension to a##irm and embrace our cultures and at t(e same time to live counterGculturally. E(e c(allenge #or t(e c(urc( is to become biGlingual and discerning. E(e c(urc( needs to be in t(e 0orld but not o# t(e 0orld. >or t(e 0est t(ere seems to be a c(allenge to become more counterGcultural. E(is is necessary because at t(e centre o# an ecclesiology in#ormed by t(e 6ible stands t(e question o# ultimate loyalty G to 0(om or to 0(at do 0e belong, pledge our allegiance, and con#ess as t(e primary commitment t(at de#ines every aspect o# our livesJ .uc( a question, so daring in its simplicity, cuts t(roug( to t(e core o# t(e issues be#ore us3 in 0(om do 0e believeJ Eo 0(om do 0e belongJ Caesar and t(e seductive po0er o# politicsJ Mars and militarismJ E(e .irens o# capitalist consumerismJ -(en a congregation or collection o# congregations #ails to 0restle 0it( t(is question o# ultimate loyalty and encounter t(ese cultural #orces o# rede#inition 0it( a rigorous (ermeneutic o# suspicion, it 0ill be incapable o# resisting t(e #orce t(ey e$ert to captivate t(e gospel and its c(urc( to lesser and idolatrous loyalties.

1ssues )or )urt'er re)lection%

-e (ave come to a deeper grasp o# t(e diversity o# models o# c(urc( and community t(at e$ist to promote conversations t(at c(allenge and enric( ot(er conte$ts.

-e realise t(at in a postmodern conte$t t(ere 0ill not be one model, one normative c(urc(, and 0e need to appreciate and celebrate a variety o# models. Coupled 0it( t(is is a need to create space, encouragement and resources #or e$perimental models. -e celebrate in all our deliberations t(e creative presence o# t(e .pirit o# Mod 0(o (as made promises about t(e #uture o# t(e c(urc(. -(ile it is easy to #ocus on our present struggles and disappointments t(ese need to be (eld in t(e lig(t o# t(e .pirit and promises o# Mod.