How can we say one form of church is better than another? Wendell Berry’s criteria for a community’s adoption of a new technology almost immediately comes to mind. His list, in a general sense, is instructive to us as a people who have been formed by Consumerism and the analogous form of Christianity. As you’ll see below, I try to draw some parallels with his criteria for innovation and the “new” forms of missional church (intentional community and new monasticism) that I find particularly hopeful. (Also, for those of you who would like to read about a successful mega-church pastor who sold his 12 million dollar building, moving the administration of their community to his home basement, read here.)
Berry writes:
To make myself as plain as I can, I should give my standards for technological innovation in my own work. They are as follows:
1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces. [Holding church worship services at home or in multi-use community spaces is central to intentional community/new monasticism, not to mention practices of co-housing and pooling of resources. And, of course, these are all cheaper than event/building centered ways.]
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces. [The above options, by definition, also meet and exceed this criteria.]
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces. [I guess you would have to do some research on this one to really know. Here are some communities that I have either personally interacted with or read autobiographical books/blogs about: The Simple Way - Missio Dei - Seven - Vineyard Central. I believe these communities of faith are, by their design, better prepared to embody mission and the formation of an apprentice in the way of Jesus than the attractional form of being the church.]
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces. [I guess it depends on how you interpret this one. Living together and sharing meals, for example, exerts less overall energy from those involved by making it more practical to live out Jesus’ teachings. The time saved in making larger meals and living with other apprentices leaves more personal/communal energy for entering the work loving one’s neighbor. Also, in another very important sense, it uses less energy (read PG&E) than a traditional church might by combining its living space with its meeting space and by relying on community members and neighbors more than technology.]
5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body. [Like was just said, these churches are less dependent on machines than the attractional model. They are rooted in local embodiments of culture, within particular neighborhoods and places, and, therefore, give first place not to ‘information technology’ and speed but to households and stories of faith. Also–now this is really great–walking to church becomes an actual reality!]
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools. [These communities are small enough and flat enough (in terms of hierarchy) to be “fixable” by ordinary folks (like us) who have good mentors along the way and decent libraries]
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible. [With this way of being the church, you are not required to purchase curriculum or expensive materials in order to subsist. In a very real sense, no ‘Rick Warrens’ are necessary. The people who support it will likely be found from within its local limits rather than from highly specialized and distant “experts.”]
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair. [These churches tend to be organically grown and have many affiliates and co-conspirators within a short distance. Plus, if established churches were to embrace these “new” forms of church I’m sure there would be plenty of folks from within who would be willing to take newly planted communities back for “repair” and “maintenance.” We’re family, right?]
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships. [Now this is a hard one…I’m not sure how to think about it. Perhaps moving into an intentional community and calling that ‘church’ would actually result in a disruption of certain community relationships and family. On the other hand, entering Jesus’ Way almost always meant more than a little suffering. Perhaps new monasticism’s commitment/submission to the collective Body of Christ in a given place would solve that one. What do you think?] ‘Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer’ by Wendell Berry
Am I fooling myself here? Will a new (old) form of church do all that I hope for our community?
To get some further (perhaps broader) input on the matter, see Dan Kimball, David Fitch I/David Fitch II, Tim Keller (in the comments section), Bill Kinnon, and Brother Maynard.
