For a while now I have desired to start posting more on some of Harvie Conn’s writings. Sadly most of my books and articles by Harvie are in a box five hours away from me, until September. Today, however, my copy of Harvie’s Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace was returned to me by a deacon who had borrowed it and I thought, for now, I would post several of my favorite passages/quotes from the book.
This book had a radical and profound impact on me when I read it about five years ago. In the near future I plan to work through it in some fashion on this blog. But, for now, a few of my favorite quotes from the book. These provide some excellent snapshots of Conn’s heart and what he desired to see our Reformed churches live out.
For too long evangelical white Christian communities in the United States have had a “come” structure, a parochialism that identifies with saints. One cannot be a missionary church and continue insisting that the world must come to the church on the church’s terms. It must become a “go” structure. And it can do that only when its concerns are directed outside itself toward the poor, the abused, and the oppressed. The church must recapture its identity as the only organization in the world that exists for the sake of its nonmembers (23).
The gospel that ignores the sinned-against may work among the middle class, but it cannot possibly work among the overwhelming majority in Asia or the United States—publican peasants and workers. It conveys too much superiority, condescension, yes even pity, to be credible. What is missing is compassion. Compassion becomes possible when we perceive people as the sinned-against, as well as the sinning (47).
Let people know that by giving their allegiance to Christ they will be embarking on a great campaign to banish war and poverty and injustice, to set up a life where love and service and justice have taken the place of selfishness and power. Let people know that the church that sends out this manifesto plans to be an advance copy of the new world order it preaches (56).
Do these quotes inspire any of you? When you read these is there something inside you saying “that’s just…right”? I recall the Lord kindling in me, through this book, a greater passion and drive to personal and communal holiness, prayer, and serving the Kingdom. Most challengingly, it did so by exciting me and encountering me with the rich social, communal, and “missional,” aspects of holiness, prayer, and serving the kingdom.
Rather than going on and on about these quotes, the numerous ways they challenged and impacted me, etc., I would love to hear your thoughts, comments, and responses.
August 6, 2008 at 2:11 pm
(JB,
I’m surprised you are taking a summer language course and interacting on this blog. You must be some kind of beast!)
Just wanted to share how I am encouraged that we have the same basic ideas represented here, even if our emphases are differently placed and weighted.
I think the point (dare I say of Stephen and Conn) is not to rebuke, but to stir up one another to love and good works. If we rest in thinking that we are doing ‘enough’ or ‘all we need to’ then we are certainly missing something.
Personally, I don’t like the language of a ‘going’ or a ‘coming’ church. Phrases like that tend to shift my mind into a discussion of those descriptions rather than what the actual church should look like.
My two cents:
Woe to the body of Christ if it does not preach the gospel.
Woe to the body of Christ if it does not administer the sacraments.
Woe to the body of Christ if it does not minister to the afflicted of this world (and again, that includes all of us, even our enemies).
August 6, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I don’t have much time, but let me briefly respond to a few comments
FTH,
I assure you, I have anything but an individualist conception of the Gospel and the Christian life. I see how you could be interpreting me in such a way here given some things I’ve stated, but anyone who knows me well can attest to the fact that quite the contrary is the case.
I don’t really disagree entirely with anything you’ve said. Nothing a Christian does is done in isolation from the larger body. Perhaps it’s just that I see an epidemic of downplaying the importance of ministry of Word and Sacrament–which were considered by the Reformers to be the only two true means of salvific grace and marks of the church for a reason–for the sake of other things. I’ve tried to be very clear in clarifying that I don’t see these other engagements as being bad things. They are rather very good. I agree with the world of Christians thought prior to modern Evangelicalism that there is no salvation-no partaking in Christ and the benefits of his redemption–(ordinarily) outside of the Church and her ministry of Word and Sacrament. And when I see this truth in danger of being sidelined for the sake social concerns, even though they are good social concerns, I get a bit concerned myself.
Again, I’m not saying that this is what you, anyone else here, or Harvey Conn, is doing. I’ve already made it clear that I’m not opposed to social outreach per se. I’m just expressing caution in how we proceed. My initial purpose for commenting on this thread was primarily to try to help ya’ll see where Dr. Hart may be coming from in his criticisms. That was all I intended. I wasn’t meaning to be understood as criticizing Conn myself (for like I said, I don’t know his thought enough to offer any valid criticisms).
Hi Foolish Sage,
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your explication of the two different conceptions. Like I said before, I’d probably land somewhere in the middle. I certainly don’t think that Word and Sacrament are the *exclusive* means of exhibiting the Kingdom to come. I do however believe they are the *primary* means, and the sole means (ordinarily, of course) by which we partake of, as Calvin puts it, Christ with all his benefits.
d,
Yes, the great commission begins with the command to “Go.” But what is the going to accomplish? The making of disciples. And how are disciples made? Through Baptism (Sacrament) and teaching (Word). No one denies the going, but we should probably pay attention to what the going looks like and what we should be doing as we go. The commission has an overtly ecclesiological dynamic which is often missed.
As for your second paragraph: I never said we should ignore the lives of Jesus or Paul. I think all the qualifications I’ve offered to this point should be sufficient to shield me against such a charge.
…back to translating…
Peace,
J
August 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Doesn’t the whole of the great Commission actually begin with “GO”? Yes, it includes the word and sacrament, but Jesus seems to command us to take it beyond the comfort of our pews.
Also, are you really arguing that we should ignor the lives of both Jesus and Paul when we plan the body life of a church? Let’s ignor all of the gospels and most of the epistles: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, traveling to reach the lost…none of those have a place in the church? Only two things count… ignor large chunks of scripture to make it all fit my model there’s a high view of Scripture.
August 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I think it may be appropriate to bring FTH’s third quote to bear at this point in the discussion:
“Let people know that by giving their allegiance to Christ they will be embarking on a great campaign to banish war and poverty and injustice, to set up a life where love and service and justice have taken the place of selfishness and power. Let people know that the church that sends out this manifesto plans to be an advance copy of the new world order it preaches (56).”
I think this delineates pretty clearly two different conceptions of what “the church” is: a lifeboat which those adrift must swim to and enter to be rescued vs. an exhibition of the kingdom-to-come into the kingdom that is, a piece of the “not yet” bearing witness to the “already.”
Some whom I am lumping in the “lifeboat” camp might object that in their faithful maintenance of Word and Sacrement they are actually doing the latter (i.e., exhibiting the kingdom-to-come). With this I would not argue. The point of debate, then, it seems to me, comes at whether Word and Sacrement are the exclusive and sufficient means of such an exhibition, or should it also include actual tangible acts of kingdom mercy toward the “sinned-against”?
August 6, 2008 at 10:10 am
JB,
Thanks for your continued engagement here. You have clearly thought through this in more detail and sophistication than most, just as DGH has.
To start, I do not buy this distinction between the calling of Christians in their own lives versus the calling of the Church community as the church as it tends to be employed by people arguing for Word and Sacrament as the calling of the church (as opposed to social-mercy, enacting New Creation, etc.). You will need to argue for this distinction in this way.
I see places the distinction can be helpful and why we have used it: I do not go baptize people on my own. But, why should the argument not work the other way around, Christians cannot simply “on their own” engage in social-mercy, out-reach, serving the poor, enacting the New Creation, etc.? Why should not such things as part of the Gospel be considered just as much a part of the church’s calling “as the church” as Word and Sacrament? When I hear distinctions between the calling of the church versus individual Christians I am suspicious that our individualist notions of the Gospel and identity are at work. Being in a relationship with Jesus is to be in relationship with the rest of His people—to be part of the church.
As to why we think such “horizontal” things are part of the church’s calling, there’s a fun Biblical discussion. To start with, without the calling of the church versus calling of Christians distinction, it is difficult to explain away the almost endless passages that articulate this Horizontal aspect of the Gospel and Kingdom work.
If you would like, we can go into the biblical details, Paul, Luke-Acts, etc.
Lastly, I do appreciate your point about how we are to care for those in the church. It is sadly too often true that concern for “outreach” eclipses concern for caring for each other as a Christ-motivated serving community. At the same time, in my experience it is the churches that take seriously the outward focus who also do best at serving and enacting Christ to each other in the community. Just a thought…
Thanks again for your comments. I hope others join in as well.
August 6, 2008 at 7:24 am
I just re-read my comments from last night, and should mention that the first sentence of the last paragraph in comment #11 should read “This is where the “high church” Reformed are coming FROM.”
How come no one told me I wasn’t making any sense?
August 6, 2008 at 7:11 am
Nick,
Of course Paul received support. He most definitely should have. And we should continue to support men who have a similar calling, though none of them are apostles.
And, maybe I’m the one misreading, but I really don’t see a whole lot in the epistles to the various churches about the redeemed assembly going out into the larger community. I see a whole lot about how we are to live in community with other Christians and conduct ourselves in the Church of God. As I said above, all Christians are called in their daily lives to love their neighbors as themselves. This no one would dispute. But we are talking here about the nature and purpose of the Church as assembled community.
And again, I don’t want to be misunderstood as saying that churches doing community outreach (and such functions) is necessarily a bad thing. It is not. I’m even a member of a church that attempts to do such things rather frequently, and I’m usually supportive of the efforts. What I’m saying, though, is that what I see happening in many cases is that things like outreach and being “relevent” to the community is all too often over-emphasized while the ministry of Word and Sacrament, the importance of traditional methods of Christian nurture such as regular catechesis, and the care of those within our own midst (which ought always to be our primary concern as an assembled community) are de-emphasized. I think this is a pretty dangerous trajectory to be on.
August 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm
D.G. Hart
You Said – ” By teaching (word) and baptizing (sacrament)… Who or what is going to do this if the church doesn’t?”
Do you really believe this amazingly constructed strawman, or are you just attempting to be provocative?
Nick
August 5, 2008 at 10:47 pm
FTH: what really does the church do beside word and sacrament? The Great Commission speaks of discipling the nations. How? By teaching (word) and baptizing (sacrament). Is there any more important work in the world? Who or what is going to do this if the church doesn’t?
August 5, 2008 at 10:38 pm
J. Bonobo –
You Said – “Re. Paul: I’d argue that Paul’s missionary journeys, wherein he established churches, are something of a different order than the weekly inns and outs of local church ministry. Paul was not a church. Paul was not the pastor of any one particular church. Paul was the founder and spiritual father of a multitude of churches. ”
Agreed, but paul also recieved a lot of support from these churches and did his ministry in and around the local congregation. I see Paul as something like a localized missionary in each area he went to. He was supported by the local church wherever he went and his purpose was to build/bring people into the church of that area.
Maybe I am misreading this, but it seems to me Paul’s idea of “coming” into the church included a lot of “going” to the community the church was founded in.
Pax Christi…Nick
August 5, 2008 at 9:54 pm
FTH,
Thanks. I’m not necessarily trying to criticize Conn here (I’m not familiar enough with his work to do so responsibly, anyway). I just find myself, as usual, as sort of a man in the middle, as I share many concerns (while disagreeing in some areas) with both the contributors of this blog and with more strictly confessional folks like Dr. Hart, respectively.
I’m on a journey of trying to figure out how to be a faithful Reformed Christian in the midst of a broken cultural and ecclesial context. Trying to appropriate the faith of my forefathers in a world they never knew is a pretty hard task, but one I’m doing my best at, anyway. This being the case, I may say some dumb things at times. Thanks for your patience.
Time for bed… I’ve spent too much time staring at Hebrew today to write anything more and have it be intelligible.
Peace,
J
August 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hi Art,
No offense at all, my friend.
I’m definitely not saying that all the church should be doing is Word and Sacrament. What I’m saying is that those are the things which are the primary concern of the Church, without which there is no such thing as the Church, properly considered.
Re. Paul: I’d argue that Paul’s missionary journeys, wherein he established churches, are something of a different order than the weekly inns and outs of local church ministry. Paul was not a church. Paul was not the pastor of any one particular church. Paul was the founder and spiritual father of a multitude of churches. Now, the Church universal certainly needs her Pauls in every generation. This I do not for a moment contest. I would, however, caution against comparing Paul’s missionary journeys with ordinary local church ministry.
Re. James and the necessity of visiting widows and orphans: well, of course I wouldn’t contest you there. Our faith is nothing if we are not caring for the poor and demonstrating our love for God through love for our neighbor. However, I think a distinction is in order here between the lives of Christians individually considered and the work of the local church as assembled community. All individual Christians are called to live lives of self-sacrifice for the good of their fellow man. But the Church as assembled community is called to be primarily concerned about those within her midst–the spiritual nurtue of and material provision for her own members (and most importantly, her widows and orphans). Such things as church sponsered outreach committees or evangelism teams, while certainly well-intended and not necessarily “bad” per se, enjoy little biblical precedent and in my opinion betray a wrong view of what the church as assembled community is called primarily to do.
We have to be balanced here. Word and Sacrament do not infallibly ensure a living faith in the members of a particular church. But when we emphasize “outreach” (understood as reaching the lost apart from the context of the local Gospel ministry) to the expense of Word and Sacrament (not saying that this is what you’re doing), we are entering a world about which the Reformers never dreamed. Not that the Reformers have the final word, of course, but I do think we should proceed with more caution than many have shown a willingness to do.
August 5, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Just to throw this out there, Conn does not “downplay the importance of the ministry [of the?] Word and Sacrament.” Rather, he wants to recover the significance of other things such that the all of them can be kept in proper focus. Again, at times this will take the form of criticizing over-focus on certain things or (especially) the lack of focus on other things. For Conn, such lack of focus inevitably leads to distorting the things already focused on. (did I use the word “focus” enough?)
JB, I see you do not explicitly say Conn does so downplay things. Nevertheless, I thought I would throw this out there for now.
Also, I agree with Art, no need to apologize.
August 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Jonathan: No need to apologize for anything. This blog exists for conversation and for people to be able to put forward their thoughts. You never have to apologize for doing so.
I’m not sure that I’m following you, however, in terms of a “coming” church being a “going” church simply because they preach and observe the sacraments. I apologize if this offends you, but your explanation sounds pious, yet a bit credulous.
Would Paul have even gone to Mars Hill if his idea of “going” was simply preaching in a church and administering the sacraments? Would James have described true religion as visiting orphans and widows in their affliction if true religion was really preaching in a church and administering the sacraments?
While I agree that Word and Sacrament should be highly valued, I honestly don’t believe that those are all the church is supposed to be doing. If so, the NT authors got a bunch of things incorrect.
August 5, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sorry if I’m beginning to sound like the perpetual Darryl Hart defender around here, but I think that it might be wise to put ourselves in his “context”, as you all have asked him to pay attention to Conn’s.
For high church Reformed like Dr. Hart (and to a certain degree myself as well), what Conn describes as the “coming” church is actually itself a “going” church, as the divinely ordained means of the church’s witness to the world is the faithful preaching of the Word, the reverent administration of and participation in the sacraments, and the joyful observance and celebration of the Lord’s day. Individual members of the church ought to be witnesses to the world in their daily lives, of course, through demonstrating a dilligent work ethic, ethical dealings with their fellow men, and taking advantages of opportunities to share their faith in Christ with others. But these things are different from what the Church, as the assembled community of the redeemed, exists for. One might argue (rightly, in my view) that the Church’s best means of witnessing to the world is to take the means of grace instituted by her Lord seriously, and to hold them as supreme over all other activities she may or may not be involved in. Things like mid-weak bible studies, evangelism teams, etc., are all good, considered in themselves. But to the extent that they may detract from the significance of the ministry of Word and Sacrament in particular churches, they run the risk of being a detriment to the body of Christ, and the witness of the body of Christ to the world.
The churches of the Reformation have always held to 2 (3, in some cases) marks of the church, not 9 (sorry Mark Dever), or whatever number of things we may want to dream up. There is a reason for this. The ministry of Word and Sacrament is to take precedent over all else that we do.
This is where the “high church” Reformed are coming free. There seems to be an alarming trend amongst modern day “progressive” Reformed types to downplay the importance of the ministry Word and Sacrament. Call such de-emphasis what you may… one thing it most certainly is not is Reformed.
August 5, 2008 at 2:39 pm
These quotes from Conn suggest that he is simply the right hook to Miller’s left jab of outgrowing the in-grown church. I think the despite heaped on so-called traditional churches by both of their arguments is not charitable, nor is it fair. “Traditional” churches minister all the time, every week, to those outside. That’s because they believe that preaching is a convincing and converting ordiance (sort of the way the apostle Paul did in Rom. 10 — you know, how can they hear. . .). The question then is how will the preaching be structured or organized. Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalians answer that question differently but all insist upon the church and her polity as supplying the proper structures for telling the lost to come to Christ. But just like Gilbert Tennent thought that critics of the First Great Awakening were unconverted, Conn and Miller seem to say that those who defend traditional Presbyterianism aren’r really interested in those outside the church. Well, isn’t that convenient.
Can anyone tell me that with quotes like these from Conn that three vs. two office, Sabbath observance, psalms, hymns, or praise songs, or ordination procedures matter? Aren’t those concerns of “coming” churches when the real action should be directed toward “going.”
Isn’t the Reformed faith grand? Indeed.
August 5, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Stephen, thanks for the post.
The thing that has changed my thinking the most over the past 3 years is the idea of “perceiv(ing) people as the sinned-against, as well as the sinning.” As someone who has spent most of his life completely self-focused, it is a radical notion to consider others as victims of a fallen world. On the other hand, it is very easy to everyone else as lacking. I have often heard folks in my demographic (white, middle-class) say of the homeless or of those living in bad neighborhoods, “they have chosen to be where they are” or “there are organizations to help them if they would only take the initiative.” While there might be some truth in statements like these, there is little compassion.
Where would I be if I grew up in a single-parent home in a poor neighborhood, my mom working two jobs to keep us from being evicted, an abusive uncle and nothing but other kids and drug users/pushers to keep me company after school? I doubt I would be where I am today. Most of us (hopefully) have sympathy for such a harsh scenario.
But what about the middle-class white folk? Yes, we must have the same compassion for Dr. Hart and Mr. Boulet, who are also the products of lives of sinning and being sinned against. Their personalities and ideas are also shaped by their experiences. Some of the things that may drive their friends crazy, may very well be the results of being rejected, abused, ignored or mistreated in another way. Remember the bully at school? Chances are good that his home was far from ideal. The ‘know-it-all’? Also the product of his/her fallen environment.
This common reality makes us equals. Compassion realizes that equality and should move us to speak words that heal rather than words that destroy.
August 5, 2008 at 11:22 am
Most of the comments here have focused on the first of the three quotes, which is fine. I am excited there is discussion about it.
I invite everyone also to share thoughts about the 2nd and 3rd quotes listed above. What they are getting at was quite radical to me. I continue to wrestle with what it looks like to live out what they are getting at as a church…
August 5, 2008 at 11:15 am
Darryl,
As a historian you like to study things in context. Put these quotes in Conn’s context and the context of what he is trying to do with his book. I think Art and Sam are right on here.
Conn is writing to people who, from his point of view, have the “coming” structure of being the church down—that is their default and standard operating mode. In his view (and mine as well), much of the white middle class world, much of the world of North American Reformed, has focused too much on being the church for themselves, on a “coming structure,” etc. So, he writes a book for the purpose of serving those very people, in which he seeks to address the imbalance by highlighting other aspects of the Gospel and what it means to live out Jesus as a church.
He does not have disdain for “your demographic,” it was his as well. He wants to help them/himself encounter a more full-orbed Gospel and identity as Jesus’ people. These quotes are not so much “molitov cocktails” as creative and challenging attempts to present snapshots of another aspect of what it means to be Jesus’ people.
Can you not think of settings where it is fitting to emphasize how the church exists for the sake of its non-members? Can you not think of settings where it is appropriate to emphasize the necessity of focusing identity more around “going” than said church(es) have? Also, Conn in no way thinks the church does not exist as a community also to encourage its members and to serve them. Rather, he thinks it is not done properly if that does not happen in an overall outward focused identity and church life.
Also, for Conn—and this is where I think Art and Sam are also right on—having a “coming” structure is important as well. He just does not think it is possible without living out of a “going” structure. How does the church attract or somehow have a situation where the un-reached “come” unless said church is “going” to the community?
Some may not like that he does not explicitly dwell on what it looks like to be a church with a “coming” aspect as well. But, that is not his purpose. Again, he apparently did not think that needed emphasizing. Rather, I imagine he would say that the church functions better in its “coming” mode when it functions properly in its “going” mode.
So, Darryl, are there situations and contexts in which you can see Conn’s comments as pastorally wise and appropriate?
August 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
Dr. Hart: Sam and JD make two good points:
1) Conn was aiming at church members who have become inward focused instead of focused on the mission of God.
2) Conn would not disagree with you that the church itself has needs and that members of a local congregation need to be nurtured, fed, encouraged, admonished, etc.
You cannot take a few selective quotes from Conn’s work and then claim his views are completely “either/or.” Admittedly, these quotes are one sided as to encourage church members to live outside of themselves. The people Conn was aiming at where those who were “coming,” but not “going.” They did not need a systematic definition or explanation of why they should “come” because they already were coming. They needed motivation to “go.”
I’m also pretty sure Conn wouldn’t have had Ron Paul on one of his seminar reading lists, unless there is some political theory class at WTS that Conn taught and has since been discontinued.
August 5, 2008 at 10:59 am
Darryl, I’m reading your comments and wondering whether Harvie would really disagree with you. I have a hard time believing he’d think the local church, it’s mission, and it’s needs didn’t have the place you described. But wouldn’t you agree that though there are real needs and responsibilities in our congregations, often we’ve allowed our inward focus to obscure our sense of responsibility to those outside and eclipse the Great Commission?
August 5, 2008 at 10:02 am
Obviously Conns remarks are a bit one-sided. He assumes an audience of people who go to churches whose idea of reaching out looks like hoping people seek services. He challenge those people to go. I think he would say something different if the problem was Christians going out into their communities too much – it’s unfair to read that as a call to abandon “coming” to church
August 5, 2008 at 7:15 am
Art, then why didn’t Conn say the church must be a “come” and “go” structure? He didn’t. He said it has to leave being a “come” institution and become a “go” one. That sounds pretty either-or, as does Conn’s obvious disdain for my demographic — white, middle-class. Sorry, but I think his ecclesiology is about as off as his politics (BTW, I don’t think Ron Paul would be on one of Harvie’s seminar reading lists).
August 4, 2008 at 11:46 pm
FTH: They do inspire me. I am also a church member…and it is for that reason that it inspires me.
If I had no connection to the church then I would pass by these quotes without thinking twice about them. But I think Conn’s analysis, in many instances, is spot on.
Dr. Hart: I don’t think it’s an “either/or” situation in regards to making disciples or reaching out to the community. Wouldn’t a disciple of Christ be mandated to reach out to her or his community with the redemption found in the Gospel?
August 4, 2008 at 11:25 pm
FTH: They don’t inspire me. They actually make me feel like chopped liver because I am a church member.
These quotations also strike me as molitov cocktails, designed to cause a bit of commotion but never to be taken seriously. As if tomorrow night when I gather with session we are to forsake the agenda and go out to the corner of Church Rd. and Willow Grove Ave. with sandwich boards on reading, “we’re here for you.” Do folks in the congregation have needs? Too bad. The church isn’t here for them.
Sorry to rain on your parade. But Conn’s remarks are hardly free from contestation.