Eddie Gibbs, churchmorph: how megatrends are reshaping christian communities

Thanks to Jim and Mason for getting the ball rolling.

Gibbs concludes Chapter Three of Churchmorph with a provocative statement: “I believe there is mounting evidence to demonstrate that some of the the most innovative, and potentially most enduring and significant ‘fresh expressions’ of church are found within the inherited denominations” (84). Gibbs believes this is the case because newer churches within established traditions have the potential to exert influence back on the tradition that birthed them, thus “helping them transition from a Christendom mindset to engage the missional challenges of a post-secular society” (85). If Gibbs is correct, the implications of this statement are huge. Gibbs spends most of the chapter offering examples of ‘fresh expressions’ of church within established denominational traditions in America, England and Canada, as well as many ‘breakout’ churches that have had a high profile as ‘emergent/missional’, and he thinks that the institutionally sanctioned ‘fresh expressions’ actually have more cultural, ecclesiological and missional potential than the stand-alone expressions of the emergent frontier.

The great thing about Gibbs is that he does not force us to side between good guys and bad guys on this question. Both ways of being the church are viable: institutionally sanctioned or the ecclesiological equivalent of the Wild Wild West (I’m thinking Escape Club here, not Will Smith, but take your pick). Both can give faithful expression to the kind of ‘missionary values’ identified by the 2003 Anglican document: Mission Shaped Church. According to this statement, a missionary church is: 1) trinitarian, 2) incarnational, 3) transformational, 4) disciple-making, and 5) relational (Gibbs adds “reproducible” and “globally-minded”). If the 21st century church is to respond to the cultural mega-trends Gibbs discusses in Chapter One, then it must have these kinds of missional qualities as its DNA; they are non-negotiable.

Gibbs’ take on the ‘emergent/missional’ frontier here is refreshing in its own right, because it takes the pressure off of us as pastors/leaders, feeling like we have to found the next Solomon’s Porch, or Jacob’s Well, or Mosaic, or Marsh Hill, or whatever. Instead, the chapter provides a rationale for working as the emerging frontier of church from within an existing tradition, and paints a picture of how this can be done with the blessing and support of a denomination that acknowledges that it has something to learn. This takes a great deal of humility for both denominational leaders and church planters - the former must be willing to both trust and learn, while the latter must be willing to work within certain limits, and to submit to the authority of leaders. The stand-alone churches are free from this pressure, but they are also free from the benefits of working within a tradition and its inherited wisdom; it also lessens the potential scope of their impact. The best case scenario appears to be one in which all Christians recognize the importance of these missional values and are willing to overcome any and all other difficulties for the sake of proclaiming the gospel to a post- culture.

Gibbs thinks that ‘fresh expressions’ of church are more valuable long-term than independent emergent/missional initiatives. Do you agree or disagree, why?
If you are a pastor or leader working within an established tradition, how do you begin taking steps toward the kind of missional mindset that Gibbs sees as essential in the 21st century?
How do we know when it is time to engage in an independent initiative as opposed to working within our existing churches/denominations? How have you wrestled with that tension?