Tradition Four

Before I begin, I must state I am using the word “assemblies” in lieu of the word “churches.” I feel like we often take our own personal “churches” as a representation of church catholic, often to the detriment of our unity. We must remember that we are part of one body, and the many little bodies that we find ourselves in must not be thought of as the one body. This exercise in not saying “churches” is to help remind ourselves of that fact. When I refer to church, I am referring to the Church catholic, or the unity of all believers.

Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
or A.A. as a whole.

What can the Church learn from this “tradition”?

I grew up in a denomination that made it’s assemblies, for the most part, autonomous. Now, I know certain denominations (traditions, groups, whatever) such as Catholics, Anglicans, and Mark Driscoll’s assemblies, are not all that autonomous, but I’m under the impression that most assemblies are fairly (if not wholly) autonomous.

As autonomous organizations, assemblies are able to better “fit” the culture around them. With no earthly headship dictating the ways and means of an assembly, it is up to that assembly itself to decide where and how they can be most effective in carrying out the message of Christ. (Not proselytizing, but representing the hope of the Cross)

This topic is an interesting one to look at if you’re part of the now entirely autonomous “organization” known as emergent. Emergent Village is, essentially, the center of Emergent (US- I would state that it is not the center of Emergent Worldwide). Recently, EV asked the opinion of it’s “members” (for lack of better word… perhaps blog readers is a better phrase) what they would like to see happen with EV over the next few years. The overwhelming response showed a desire to see EV as a networking Hub, and not the headship of this group.

This, at least now within the realm of Emergent (US), leaves us with an model that fits within the intentions of AA’s fourth tradition. This model keeps the idea that our assemblies should remain autonomous, yet we still have a mouthpiece if we need someone to speak on the behalf of the many. The beauty of the group known as Emergent is that we retain our autonomy that has enabled us to fit in the cracks of culture to help wherever and however we are needed.

Thoughts?

email2friend
  • @Andrew: long may the emerging community eschew the trappings of organizations.
    I'll toast to that.
    I agree, the para-church is a valuable asset, and hope that they continue to make themselves available to the church as a whole.

    @Theresa: Thanks for stopping in, I hear you on the defense of the EC and the human desire to critique those who do not agree. To a certain extent, however, we must speak up, the question is how are we voicing our belief. I'll openly admit that I have, at times, spoken out in a way that is both detrimental to myself and to those which I was directing my comments. Something to always be mindful of.
  • Andrew, I would like for you to visit my site. My name is a link to it. I love your writing here. Beautiful. And your comment, "Maybe desiring a voice is unnecessary; maybe seeking to be able to refute others’ misinformation is counter-productive," made me first think of my drive to defend all things emergent early in my journey. I have since calmed and settled, but I remember the frustration of trying to tell people they were misinformed - not about the Bible even, but with EC itself. It then made me think of the temptation as an emergent Christian to tell people they have been misinformed about the Bible. That too is not my role. (Although that role rightfully belongs to some whom God chooses.... Prophecy is not dead.) It finally made me think of my friends' and critics' (many are both somehow lol) desire to show me how they think I am being misinformed. Interesting. Either way, it is as you said: counterproductive.

    Also, I am quite glad there is not one figure-head leader or mindset in EC. It would go against EC's greater purpose to have either one. How beautiful and complex is our loving God!

    Peace
  • The tradition I grew up in had no centre to exercise control. Assemblies had to be autonomous because there was no alternative. Yes, there were various resource groups - missional, mostly, but also magazines, the occasional conference, and so on - but they wouldn't presume any special authority outside their role. They existed to serve the assembly, never the other way around.

    Just as there's great merit in having a diversity of leadership locally, so too there's much merit in having a range of those para-assembly (!?) organisations - lest one of them become the de facto denomination centre. Maybe we need people to speak for us; maybe we need a mouthpiece. Maybe we do not: maybe the way of the Kingdom is to accept the worldly weakness which comes from not having a figurehead (single person or national committee). Maybe desiring a voice is unnecessary; maybe seeking to be able to refute others' misinformation is counter-productive.

    People like to criticize emerging/emergent things because there isn't a `proper' denomination, there isn't a leader, there isn't a single basis of faith or fellowship. That's their problem: long may the emerging community eschew the trappings of organizations.
  • I appreciate your committment to only use the term church when referring to the greater group that is the followers of Jesus. Yes, we are the church. And I like the way you talk about the autonomy of the various sects of the church. Yes, it is so valuable to have a group like EV who respects our differences, and seeks to be a resource to those of us who seek Christ, without demanding of us a set of values they feel are the holiest. EV is so awesome in that way. I love it. Thanks for sharing.
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts