This is not to say that the people who choose to remain within the confines of the institutional church are insincere about their choice to embrace the faith. The fact is, to live a life venturing in the waves of insecurity and uncertainty is not something desirable or conceivable for everyone – and this is precisely that which is required to find a life within the organic missional church. As fear and intimidation overwhelms, one may find the organic missional life unnecessary in the light of a neater alternative being made available in the institutional church context. This neater alternative allows for one to “follow Christ” devoid of the risks and the costs the faith entails. This applies even for ministers of the church – serving the institutional church comes with titles, stability of income, reputation, and authority accorded by the powers that be. Serving the organic missional church leaves one unrecognised, ignored, and perhaps most fearfully, unnecessary.

In missiological circles, it is commonly assumed that parachurch organisations and mission agencies are visible representations of the organic missional church. However, in accordance with the above descriptions, it must be clarified that these organisations are not the visible representation of the organic church, for they too are inclined to being thoroughly institutional and self-absorbed in nature. They too seek their own self-sustenance and are often preoccupied with issues of self-preservation, these inclinations exhibiting themselves through a fixation on policies, procedures and processes. Hence, it must be clarified that parachurch organisations and mission agencies are not necessarily a part of the organic missional church. For the most part, they represent yet another facet of the institutional church and are often subject to the same inclination to exhibit structural evils that compromise Kingdomic values. Hence, what has come to be known as “modalities” and “sodalities” in missiological language are not to be taken as synonymous with our terms employed in this ecclesiological construction. This is not to say that the parachurch organisations and mission agencies have no part in God’s scheme of things, for to advance this assertion would be equivalent to claiming that the institutional church has no part in God’s purpose.

This segment of the essay has deliberately refrained from proposing a nuanced definition for the institutional and the organic missional churches. I have instead sought to draw broad descriptions of the two dimensions of the church insofar as it would suffice for our purpose of moving on with the discussion. It can be said that the institutional church represents the organised dimension of religion, and is not simply about denominations. Any assembly of people which seeks to perpetuate its assembly through structures and constitutions represents the institutional church. Any community of people which seeks to embrace and express its commitment to the Kingdomic vision beyond (and sometimes in conflict with) these institutional structures is an organic missional community.

Posted by SK at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What we cannot deny is that the two seem to truly be entirely different kingdoms with diverging interests and preoccupations. Whilst a minute fragment of the faith community may be attempting to embrace the values of the Kingdom in all its senselessness, much of churchlife consists of a mechanical dispensation of the religious life either at the convenience or the compulsion of its adherents. And these two dimensions often seem to exist in conflict with each other. One would not be going too far to attribute Calvin’s visible and invisible church, the lower and the higher dimensions of the church, to these two components comprising that which we call “the church”. The language I shall choose to employ to fit the contemporary context of the church is the “institutional church” (representing the lower dimension or the visible church) and the “organic missional church” (representing the higher dimension or the invisible church).

Whilst it is almost impossible to device apt definitions for the two dimensions of the church (if one even cared to attempt to do so), the divergent concerns of the institutional church and the organic missional church are starkly apparent. The organic missional church focuses on values of the Kingdom as its supreme guiding force, whereas the institutional church manipulates the gravity of these values to accommodate its interests and sustain the viability of its structures and organisational mechanisms. In the latter, the church’s commitment to Kingdom concerns is limited and determined by the resources it can and is willing to commit to the realisation of those concerns. The organic missional church focuses on the cost of following the way of Christ, whilst the institutional church focuses on amassing resources to sustain the costs of preserving structures. The cost of discipleship in the organic church is not immediately visible or measurable except that one is conscious that it involves everything within one’s jurisdiction for disposal; the cost of discipleship in the institutional church is almost immediately measurable.

In the institutional church, salvation often seems quantifiable. But this is not so in the organic missional church. For this reason, the institutional church sees people as “members”, whereas the organic missional church sees people for precisely what they are – people. The institutional church occupies a “sacred space” constructed of bricks and mortar. But the organic missional church sees the entire world as a sacred field in which God is at work. At the same time, paradoxically, one finds the organic missional people to emerge from within the institutional church confined by bricks and mortar. The institutional church functions in accordance with policies, procedures and processes. The organic church hardly “functions”, for it just is. The preoccupation of the latter is with the dignity and worth of the human person and of creation. The former is inclined to subject people to the structural oppression of the letter of the law, often at the expense of their dignity and personhood; they are often reduced into numerical entities. The latter often bends those very policies and procedures instated by the institutional church just for the sake of people’s wellbeing.

Posted by SK at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I. The Institutional Church and the Organic Missional Church

John Calvin, in his ecclesiology for a Protestant Church which had miserably failed to attain reconciliation with the Roman Church, spoke of the visible and the invisible church. He spoke of these two dimensions of the church within a context of tension and emerging from his concept of election. Within the visible church are the wheat and the tares, but the invisible church consisted only of the elect. The church consisted of two levels, the first being the lower dimension that is visible but constitutes a mere reflection – a shoddily inferior reflection – of the higher dimension of the church. The higher dimension of the church consisted of the elect, those who were true followers of Jesus Christ.

Arising from Calvin’s theology, the Christian would almost immediately resonate with the inclination to engage in a process of segregating the true followers from the shoddy ones. But Calvin clearly states, “…we are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do”. Calvin derives this understanding not as an entirely new conjecture, but rather, articulates it afresh from Augustine’s ecclesiology. The marks of the true church in accordance with the Reformers, which are the word of God purely proclaimed and the sacraments administered in accordance with Christ’s institution, do not render a visible church true; they only serve to affirm that the true church is somehow invisibly found within that visible church. That which is hidden can be found only within the revealed congregation of believers, albeit in impure and imperfect form.

One does not need to be Reformed in position or to entirely embrace Calvin’s doctrine of election to agree with his distinction of the visible and the invisible church. One also need not undertake the self-appointed task of pinpointing in an effort to demonstrate just how legitimate Calvin’s delineation is in the felt experience of the Christian community. A mere unwavering determination to embrace the Kingdomic vision of the gospel story and to act upon it would already, over time, bring one to observe and experience the tension of the two entirely different “kingdoms” within this entity we call the “church of Jesus Christ”, or so it seems.

Posted by SK at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

ORGANIC MISSIONAL ECCLESIOLOGY

Incorporating the Kingdomic Ontology of the Church

Sherman YL Kuek, OSL
November 2006

This is an ecclesiological treatise for the organic missional church. If historical ecclesiology has hardly distinguished between the institutional church and the organic life of the church, this treatise seeks to tread on a fresh path (albeit finding its cues from mainstream traditional ecclesiology). Much of historical ecclesiology has indeed acknowledged that the church is, as mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a “society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ” and “the visible society and the spiritual community”. However, in the same instance, the observation of these seemingly organic definitions seems to have been done through thoroughly institutional lenses. In other words, the distinction between the church institution and the church organic is not perceived in as great a measure as I deem necessary. It is as if the church institution takes itself to fully and visibly embody both the organic and the institutional church.

This ecclesiological effort seeks to take precisely the converse approach by peering at the church institution from the viewpoint of the organic missional church, and articulating an ecclesiology therefrom. If traditionally, the institutional church held the sole prerogative of examining and validating the legitimacy of the organic missional church, it is now crucial that the organic missional church articulate an ecclesiology from its perspective. This is difficult since the organic missional church remains undefined and its form is unpronounced. Also, this effort would entail the risk of emerging with an ecclesiology that makes the church sound like it consists of two distinct entities with bipolar concerns – this may not necessarily be wrong, but it nevertheless is not the purpose or the point of this ecclesiology.

The point of this ecclesiology is that over decades and centuries, faithful followers of Christ who have sought to embrace in deep measure the vision of the Kingdom have found themselves at odds with the church institution although being ardently connected to the soul of the Christian story. They often wonder what it is about themselves that causes them to love God and his church so deeply, and yet being unable to find themselves a “fit” and a deep sense of belonging in the institutional church. For them, the institutional church often seems to have compromised the cause of the Kingdom. Further to that, if the institutional church has compromised the cause of the Kingdom, why does God – in his sovereignty – still allow for its existence? Why not simply dispense with the institutional church, leaving just the organic missional church – those who supposedly hold Kingdom concerns as utmost priority – in existence to participate in his eschatological vision? It is hoped that this treatise will be of help in at least partially mitigating this concern by providing some concrete answers.

Posted by SK at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I ain't got nothing better to do with my life than to spend half of it on the road. Been away again throughout the past weekend. Attended a wedding dinner which served superb wine (oops, there you go - now you know teetotality isn't my way of life and I wouldn't have exactly been very much loved by John Wesley), met up with some old acquaintances, and managed to grab some research material from the theological library in a neighbouring country. All in a weekend's work. Achieved everything I expected to for this trip.

And more. There was time for lots of personal reflection. So much time that I even managed to develop a new theology in my moments of silence. So I reflected a lot on my personal struggle and the struggles of many other friends throughout the years with the institutional church. If we have all been so committed to our faith and to the message of the gospel, why have we often not found ourselves fitting the mould of the institutional church? What's wrong with us? And if it's true that the institutional church doesn't always stand in coherence with God's Kingdom concerns, then why does he still allow it to exist? Why does he not abolish the institutional church and establish a church that's entirely organic and missional in nature?

I believe - after years of pondering, virtually - I've found the answer now. Now that I'm back from my trip and have a couple of days to sit in front of the computer screen before I zoom off again, I'm in the process of articulating my theological thoughts regarding this issue. It's going to be a rather new ecclesiological articulation from the viewpoint of an organic missional follower of Christ. I and others like me have for far too long found ourselves displaced. It's time to return with a connected understanding and to see how we fit in the scheme of the church even if we don't always condone how her policies and procedures often take precedence over Kingdom-life.

It'll take a couple of days before I start posting installments of this ecclesiology, but I'd say it's going to be worth the wait. This frame of thought, I increasingly find, is helping me discover answers to so many ambiguities I've entertained regarding my role in the church and why many like me have existed in such a state of tension with the institutional church. It helps me to understand how I should relate with the institutional church from where I stand, since God isn't likely to abolish the institution in the near future - and this ecclesiology explains why God has good reason to require the presence of the institutional church on earth even if it doesn't always see things from his point of view.

Until then...

Posted by SK at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You scored as The Philosopher. Hola, thinker! You always always have your thinking hat on. Somehow you have the special ability to pick out the oddities of life and the particular something that catches your eye. A little different from the shouter, you shout out in a deeper context. Not many may understand what you've typed, but to you, recording your train of thoughts is all that matters!

Posted by SK at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I remember the earlier days of ministry when I used to be rather bold in my undertakings. I'd think nothing of walking into an orphanage or a drug rehabilitation centre, just to connect with the people there and to make them my friends. Or to walk along the streets of the city and to have chats with the beggars I saw there. It was very much a regular feature of my life. It was, in fact, a lifestyle.

But it was quite a high price to pay to live such a lifestyle. The fact is, a Christian who lives a lifystyle like this does not live within the normative prescription of urban Christianity. So in the process, I got some very painful kicks in my behind from my church leaders. As an urban Christian, I was taught to pursue the good life: to amass wealth, to pursue upward mobility, and in the process convert some people and take them to church... all for the glory of God!

Over time, I "matured". I learned to conform. Even when I did go connect with people in those places, I did it silently, as if it was a wrong that I should hide from the knowledge of my religious community. This was my sincere way of abiding by the orders of my leaders: "You're a very threatening character, did you know that? Don't rock the boat!"

But recently, I'm challenged all over again as I observe a faith community - in the heart of an urban area - gearing themselves up to go out into the slums. Care to participate in Soul Action?

It's not just about us helping downtrodden people who need some love and help. It's also about us finding the magnitude of our own love challenged for God and our neighbour. Just when you think you love deeply enough, you realise - through these interactions with the unloved and the unlovable - that your love isn't nearly as deep as the way God would have you love.

We have a lot to work on. Before we even think of gospelising the world, I think the modern church needs to work on thoroughly gospelising herself first. Learn from those who're doing it right. If you ask me, I'd say this is ultimate spirituality. It's not merely about dispensing the sacraments, but about being in the world as real sacraments of Christ, dispensing the grace of God in real time to real people.

It's not about religion, it's all about soul.

Posted by SK at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What do you do when you feel like you're holding a vision alone, when people who matter seem only to oblige occasionally (and that's only when they remember)? What do you do when you seem to observe that the sense of self-priority and personal comfort incapacitate the missional sensibilities of a people?

To press on or to take the easier route out... the right choice is obvious, but emotional survival is bleak.

My goodness, so this is what I've been doing to you all these years, Lord? Give me the strength, that I may be as foolish as you.

Posted by SK at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

She died of a congenital renal failure in May last year at the age of two. It was a devastating moment. But for what it was worth, she had a beautiful life with us.

Last night, I had a very strange dream. I dreamed of her. I saw her jumping very playfully and actively in a strange place. She was apparently very happy.

Then she turned to me whilst playing, and she spoke to me! She said joyfully, "I'm very happy here!"

Do dogs go to heaven?

I miss her.

Posted by SK at 01:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I was having a brief conversation with Sunflower just last week. About the church. And all its religious drudgeries. And she asked me what keeps me going on despite the grave disillusionment I've faced as a result of structural oppression, power abuse, and mechanical religiosity.

What keeps me going is the reality that God doesn't seem to have given up on his church; and if that is so, then neither should I. For if I give up on something that God refuses to let go of, that would make me guilty of abandoning the dream of the Kingdom. As long as God sees hope in this Body that has now evolved into a mechanical and institutional religious entity, I can't simply rely on the assessments of my own myopic sensibilities.

And I'm constantly reminded that this church, this organic body that has now been turned into an institutional entity - which is largely powerless to lift the helpless, which sustains the life of the middle-class urbans, which gives little space to the downtrodden, which professes a religious belief but largely ignores its practical implications on its every day life, which administers the instituted sacraments but neglects the sacramental life, which proclaims the word but ignores its radical capacity for fear of inconvenience - is also MY church.

For all that it is, I am a part of it. I know God is dealing with his church, because he's dealing with me. And I'm helpless to affect structural and organisational change, save for my own capacity to be the change I desire to see in this Body. I feel pain because I'm a part of it, and I cannot be numb. Because numbness drives me into the mechanical religious life, which would render my service effective towards institutions rather than people and my devotion towards organised religion rather than God.

Pain keeps me knowing that I'm still embracing the dream of the Kingdom.

Posted by SK at 01:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When I was younger, I used to visit the home of my Muslim friend. And I noticed how his mum would cook large portions of food even if there were only, say, five people at home for lunch or dinner. So I'd ask her why she cooked so much.

She said, "You never know, somebody might come along and say he's hungry. And we want to have enough food for people who want to eat, you know. Our house can be small and congested, and our things may be simple; but we must always make sure that anyone who comes has their basic needs met. So always have food on the table."

At that time, I had never seen something like that before. As long as there was enough food for everyone present and no one had to go hungry, I didn't see why there was a need for us to cook extra food. I mean, what if no one actually ate the food and it went to waste? Or what if it caused everyone to eat more than they should, and people in the house began to put on weight? Didn't seem like a very clever idea to me.

One day, I saw an old lady walk into the house when the gate was wide open. She was dirty-looking and rather frail. She had nothing on her except a plastic bag that had what looked like pieces of rags in it. She walked right into the kitchen, greeted my friend's mother, and sat down at the table and started treating herself to the food on the table. After eating, she smiled at my friend's mother, and left.

When she'd left, I asked my friend's mother who this old lady was. Her answer was, "I dunno. She comes by once in a while to eat though."

Then I understood. Always have food on the table. Your home can be small and congested, and your things may be simple, but always have food on the table.

Posted by SK at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There I was, sitting face-to-face with the interviewer of a major broadcaster. He was there to interview me on the all important subject of the Christian life and church.

Interviewer: Hi Sherman, thanks for being here with me today. Which church are you from?

Me: Oh, that really depends. How do you define "church"?

Interviewer: Do you think it's important that a church be involved in mission?

Me: That depends. What do you mean by "mission"? Does the church have one mission, or does it have multiple missions? Do mission trips have anything to do with the "mission"?

Interviewer: How about evangelism then? In your assessment, is it crucial that all Christians be involved in evangelism?

Me: That depends. How do you define "evangelism"? By the four spiritual laws? By the sinner's prayer?

Interviewer: You know, recently, there've been issues about Christian leaders falling into sin and all. How do you think sin should be addressed in the church?

Me: That depends. What do you mean by "sin"? Are you referring to sin in the Pelagian way or the Augustinian way?

Interviewer: Hey, are you evangelical or not? When you were nominated for this interview, we were told you were evangelical.

Me: Err, that depends. What do you mean by "evangelical"? If I disagree with the common definition of some evangelical jargon, does it make me non-evangelical?

Interviewer: Okay. Thanks for nothing.

Fortunately, all this is just a daydream. I really don't think any interviewer with preconceived notions of how Christianity should look like would survive me very well. It wouldn't take too long for him to find that religious evangelical jargon doesn't work very well on me.

Posted by SK at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

In regard to this issue, I wonder if any of us actually think we're less sinners than Haggard is. If we do, then we've just fallen into the trap of the Pelagian heresy, and that makes us just as much sinners as we make him out to be. Sin is innate in the constitution of the human person. Whilst some people's condition of sinfulness manifests itself through sexual vulnerabilities, some other people's condition of sinfulness manifests itself through a strange form of pharisaism.

I believe in what God is doing in Haggard's life. Whilst many may be pained by the unfortunate series of events that have recently taken place in his life, let's not forget the prospects of his contribution to the Kingdom. For many years, Haggard may have been a key figure in North American Evangelicalism. But this experience will eventually bring him to a place from which he can speak past the legalisms of the Christian religion.

After today, as he progresses towards restoration, he will be a minister who sees and speaks into the heart of real Kingdom matters. He will possess the power to see things that leave others guessing and speak with such depth in regard to the realities of the human soul. He'll speak of something beyond the significance of the 14 thousand and the 30 million, beyond the television interviews and the stage lightings.

Read Sunflower's reflection and Alwyn's reflection and Winsome One's reflection on this issue. Scot McKnight observes,

1. Christians, and not just pastors, do not feel free to disclose sins to anyone.

2. Christians, including pastors, sin and sin all the time.

3. Christians, including pastors, in evangelicalism do not have a mechanism of confession.

4. Christians and pastors, because of the environment of condemnation of sin and the absence of a mechanism of confession, bottle up their sins, hide their sins, and create around themselves an apparent purity and a reality of unconfessed/unadmitted sin.

5. When Christians do confess, and it is often only after getting caught, they are eaten alive by fellow evangelicals - thus leading some to deeper levels of secrecy and deceit.

It takes such pain for God to form ministers who truly understand his heart. And Haggard is a true minister in formation. He's a real reminder that we're sick people; all of us. Surgeries of the soul are delicate; they're seldom painless. But the Master Surgeon will complete his work with great care and skill. And precision.

Posted by SK at 08:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It is one thing to profess Christianity and to adhere to it as a form of religion, but another thing to truly understand the heart of Jesus' concern and to seek to follow it with dedication in one's life.

Christianity as a form of religion is rather simple to follow. All it takes is the observance of some rituals that serve to initiate and retain one in the church institution. If you're seen often enough in the church and contribute enough to the life of the community, nobody really cares if you're living a life that's thoroughly compartmentalised or if you're ignoring (or even defying) all your professed beliefs in other spheres of your life. You can be a professional crook in the marketplace or a business person who thrives on bribery, and yet still be a deacon or an elder in the local church. Really, nobody really cares.

However, Christianity as a path to unity with the divine (theosis), as a spiritual journey in which one seeks to embrace in totality Christ's message of the Kingdom, is bewildering. It's almost oppressive, and yet it sets one free. It's oppressive in the sense that it provokes one to consider the cost of following the way of the Kingdom - it costs you your wealth, your family, your social networks. Actually, its costs you your kingdom, in exchange for an eternal one. It's strange when people profess full commitment to the faith of the Kingdom when its impact on their vocations, their relationships and their wealth remains utterly unchanged. It's almost as if they wished it to be so.

It's difficult to take too seriously what Jesus says in the gospels. Because if we do, we'd know exactly how far we've fallen short of the Christianity he's speaking of. So we settle for a lesser rendition by practising the faith but denying its power.

Posted by SK at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I was having a long chat last night with a younger brother of mine who’s in training for the full-time ministry. The basic essence of the discussion rested upon the reality that few people today understand the most fundamental functions of a minister, which are to conduct the sacraments (together with living the incarnational / sacramental life) and to preach the authentic gospel of Christ. Even senior pastors; they’re most often taken in by church growth models and programmes focused on acquisition and retention.

The model of ministry has evolved uncritically. A pastor is now gauged by how effective he is in managing a church which propels around programmes and systems. The pastor is consciously seen as coordinator, manager, and organiser; everything but the sacramental presence of Christ among his people.

Accordingly, my advice to this brother (as it is for all my students in the seminary) was that full time ministerial work is worth it only if one has the guts to stake one’s income, future, reputation, career and security upon one’s convictions. As we enter the said vocation, the immediate expectations of our “employers” would be to run programmes, attend meetings, write reports, and perhaps, occasionally preach good sermons. If we have no inkling of our mission in this vocation and rely on a job description prescribed by others, we’ll find ourselves simply doing what others do in the corporate sector, but receiving half or a third of the income they get. Being in this vocation is worth it only if we have the guts to say “no” and to abide by a divinely prescribed role for the minister… and to risk losing it all.

As a very young minister in training in my early twenties, I was abruptly thrown off when I was given this piece of advice by an elder whom I’d looked up to prior to that occasion: “You have potential, you can become somebody. All you need to do is learn to play the game well.” As a very young hot-blooded minister, I answered in utter defiance, “If I wanted to, I could play a better game than you do, but I’m not interested in your games.”

Unfortunately, after some eight years of being in ministry full time, I’ve realised that this elder was right. And perhaps he was simply observing a reality which I myself now observe to be true. Just like any other corporate institution, the minister finds himself having potential to rise to high positions when he establishes “relations” and plays by the rules of the game. Some (not all!) of those who do it best eventually rise to become denominational leaders.

To be true ministers of the gospel, the only way to go is to be at peace with the idea of being a nobody for the rest of our lives. We shouldn't resort to playing games in the name of "calling". If we want to kiss ass and climb the ladder, might as well go do it in the corporate sector and be paid two or three times the amount.

Posted by SK at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)