GlocalNet

Secular society and particularly western say, “a “religious” and “non-religious” society sees faith primarily as a personal decision”.  Be whatever religion you want - all roads lead to heaven - but don’t bother me or anyone else with your religion.  That’s all changing - not because of Christianity as much as it is because of Islam going global and from dress to various views on Sharia - it’s something that has put its foot in the door of society not allowing it to close.  Christians and other religions see this and follow suit.  Many of the competing religious ideologies want equal time in the public square with faith issues so the result is conflict with ideologies, nations, tribes, religions - etc. 

Religion is not ever, nor ever will be a “privatized” matter or issue, nor should it be.  The balance always has to be found in living with mutual respect yet not infringing on other people’s rights in a pluralist society.  Faith seen primarily as privatized is over - and faith restricted by “secularist” is the new front on religious freedom. 

Faith has a healthy role in society - beyond a religion’s beliefs, dress, convictions, and doctrines - things such as morality and community generally are strengthened and reinforced by faith communities.  One thing Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris cannot provide is hope for the masses or answers for life’s meaning both now and in the hereafter.  Faith is only going to grow - many secular books realize this and affirm it - perhaps that is what upsets many atheist and agnostics.  Their world would be one only for the intellectual elites - and a minority group at that of elites - and those with resources to survive.  Come to think of it - be it in Gaza or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world - I’ve never seen any atheist organizations serving people in the name of NO God - not to say it won’t happen. 

The other response to faith is “organized”.  I did not say institutionalized deliberately.  There is much confusion on that word “institutional”.  The early Apostles were an “institution” themselves.  They held the authority, teaching, and directed the church.  They didn’t have seminaries, buildings, bureaucracies - but be very clear - they held the story, the values, and the purse strings.  There was a Jerusalem Council; there was a process of making decisions as well as recognizing leaders.  Much of the debate in the Western Church as to what it should look like often is stated as “institutional” vs. “non-institutional” - but the reality is if you look deeply, what you are talking about is still the structure and process whereby the church moves forward - be it informal or formal processes - the processes exist.  THUS, I would focus on the word “organized” more than I would “institution” because all movements from denominations to house churches to religious relational networks are “organized”.  Sometimes those that decry institutional the most are the very ones that have the strictest processes and leadership expectations of any group. 

So for me, to see faith as public or even organized is an insufficient view of the church and faith - those are two realities of existence - not what should be.  Now the question for me is - what should be beyond form and processes, and the answer is what the early church was in Jerusalem, and later Antioch, and Asia - a global church.  Everyone focuses on either “house” churches or “congregational” churches - I believe they are 2 expressions of the same church and both should be connected and intertwined.  I admire Tony & Felicity Dale (house church people) and Matt Carter (megachurch pastor) for doing all they can to connect the two expressions - we are one church - whether we like it or not whether we claim one another or not - there is only one heaven!

Having said this - there is a third expression of the church that I believe informs the other two - the global church.  It is the least understood - but the most critical for the future of Christianity.  Most Western churches would view that as “missions” and spreading the church - it is much, much more than that.  We’ve had centuries of the “congregational” church - and a century and a half of deliberate “house churches” - the future/present will be the global church.  The greatest threat to the global church will be the western church and even more specifically the American Church.  As my young friend Micah Fries has forced me to think - sadly we often do 21st century church in an 18th century manner.  Frankly, we need the global church more than they need us. 

What does it mean to be a global church?  I’m going to write on that some the next few days . . .  what do you think it means?