Context, Content and Identity: Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
I recently wrote a piece on “Contextual Missiology”. The article ended with this statement – “Let’s be ‘missional’. Let’s be ‘contextual’. First, however, let’s know who we are.”
“Let’s know who we are…” That is a question of identity. As we enter into a missionary endeavor within any context – urban, suburban, rural, foreign, millennials, campus ministry, etc. – part of the content which we bring is “who we are”. Much of the time this is interpreted only in terms of the personalities and personality traits and particular gifts of those who are engaging in the work of ministry. It must be said, however, that we are usually pretty pragmatic in our evaluations. We may say that this or that person is “kind” or “patient”, but more usually we will speak of someone in terms of being “a gifted teacher” or a “dynamic worship leader” or a “charismatic preacher”. Often, as we have seen in so many cases, the identity of the individual, in terms of their particular gifts, becomes the identity of the church or ministry in which they have a leadership role.
We may think of this only in terms of mega-churches with “celebrity pastors”, but in reality it happens in a wide variety of settings. I have seen it in a small church plant in which the congregation of 10 or 12 people is largely made up of the pastor’s extended family and, sure enough, the invitation given was “to be a part of this family”. Yes, there was a worship service. Yes, there was confession and absolution offered. Yes, the Eucharist was celebrated. Yet the identity offered was of the the pastor and the pastor’s family. In campus ministry this is endemic. The “pet cause” of the chaplain – LGBTQ issues, the environment, political activism, etc. – becomes the identity of the chaplaincy itself. We can see the same approach taken in Nadia Boltz-Webber and her founding of the House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver which was very much shaped in her own image.
The journey of Todd Hunter from Calvary Chapel, to the Vineyard movement, to the Anglican Mission in the Americas (ordained a deacon in 2008, a priest in 2009, and in the same year made a bishop), and finally, after breaking away from AMIA in 2011, to ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) is also instructive. His self-created extra-territorial diocese, CS4O (Churches For the Sake of Others) is, as one might expect, a little bit Calvary Chapel, a little bit Vineyard, and a little bit Anglican. Those ordained, like Hunter himself, are new to the Anglican tradition and make use of church planting techniques common in evangelical circles. There are some good people involved, but lacking an identity and knowledge outside of themselves and their own particular gifts, the churches which are planted will be very much in the image of those doing the planting… similar to Calvary Chapel, the Vineyard, Nadia Boltz-Webber, the “one issue” university chaplaincy, or the evangelical mega-church down the street with a “gifted teacher” and a “dynamic worship leader”.
What is lacking is an identity that goes beyond the personalities and gifts of the individual leaders.
Identity is made up of many elements. It is made up from what is seen, what is taught, what is heard and what is experienced. It is also made up in terms of how you pray, what you sing and how you worship. It is made up of a world of countless things both significant and insignificant. Yet all have an importance and influence. Moreover, it is identity that allows a church or a movement to outlive and go beyond the personalities of individual founders or leaders. Equally as important, the loss of identity is the precursor to insignificance and insularity. In the world of marketing this is what happens when you “lose your brand”. People no longer know who or what you are, what you stand for, or what your value might be. As anyone in marketing will tell you, the first step in rebuilding a failing company is to reestablish your brand.
Once upon a time, Calvary Chapel had a “brand”… as did the Methodist Church… as did the Episcopal Church… as did the Presbyterian Church… as did The Lutheran Church… as did Southern Baptists… as did the Roman Catholic Church… I could go on. Yes, individual churches or parishes might be better or worse, but there was a general understanding as to who they were, what they did and, even, how they worshipped. Now, so many individual churches are so busy trying to reinvent the wheel that they have forgotten (or never learned) what the original wheel looked like.
Recovering identity will be different for each tradition, but until we know who we are, we will lack the content to truly enter into mission, no matter the context.
It would appear from your article that many have forgotten the words of Paul;
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”
1 CORINTHIANS 9:19-23 NASB
https://www.bible.com/100/1co.9.19-23.nasb
Richard,
“I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.” Indeed, yet Paul remained Paul (even in the council at Jerusalem). Moreover, he did not want a Church in which it was said,” I’m of Paul”, “I’m of Cephas”, etc. The identity has to move beyond the individual which, especially in the case of Paul, I believe it did…
This is an issue that the LCMS. Many people, who travel for work, or go away for school, or vacation, or who visit out of town family, would like the ability to visit an out of town LCMS congregation with the expectation of a familiar and consistent worship experience (i.e., liturgy hymnody and Word and Sacrament). However, this shared identity is not highly valued by some, which results in much more due diligence being required by the would be visitor. Moreover, outsiders are confused when it comes to the question of what is LCMS faith and practice?
well done, Duane.
It’s no secret to those who know me that I believe this is a critical reason why the church is in the shape it’s in today.
When you remove the identity markers from a group, you also remove the reasons why someone would join the group.
When people like Hunter install clergy in Anglican churches who are utterly unaware of Anglican practice…not even knowing the centrality of the Book of Common Prayer in worship…they are destroying that they think they are expanding.
This mindset is now applied across the denominational landscape and we are seeing the fruit of it…
Jean
Thank you for your candor! This is a problem for all of us. Somehow we don’t value our connection with others. When I was a university chaplain (Episcopal Church) I viewed the Anglican students on campus as having been “loaned” to me by their parish church. My job was not to push my issues or my churchmanship, but rather to strengthen them in their faith and to help them retain a connection to their home parish. I realized in doing this that I was playing a “long game”, i.e. I wanted their primary connection to remain with the parish rather than the chaplaincy. I wasn’t there to “build my own kingdom” but to be of service to my wider church and to encourage the students to a life long commitment. By the way, I ended up mentoring four future priests along the way!
Michael,
Many thanks! Yes, it’s brand… it’s identity. I have a dear friend deeply involved in the success of two companies – one of which is Apple. Have you ever noticed that if you walk into a Apple Store – San Francisco or Indianapolis, you know what to expect. You find a similar level of service. The helpers there KNOW what Apple is about and what they can offer. It is not shaped to the personality of the individual manager… And guess what? It works…
I think SBC has an identity, but it is a bad one. I’m not sure that any amount of shifting can shake the image. It is why a lot of new SBC plants try their best not to be associated with SBC in public image. It’s a strange conundrum.
Sorry, that last guy was me. I put in the wrong email 🙂
Josh,
The same thing is happening in Calvary Chapel…ironically a bunch of them are going SBC because it’s a better brand…
Josh
I know. It’s similar to those traditional Anglicans in the Episcopal Church (yes, they do exist!). The larger denomination colors the public perception. I think the clue is to find what are the basic elements that provide identification and emphasize those elements in ministry. For SBC it might be the pulpit. For Episcopalians it is the Book of Common Prayer. Things are so far removed from the norm, it is a struggle…
Seeing the SBC as a better brand…WOW 🙂
I think the SBC is best when our public face is missions. Unfortunately, most of the big dogs seem to prefer right-wing politics.
Duane hit on the sweet spot.
It’s incumbent on each group to distinguish its identity markers…then protect them.
Michael
Protect AND promote! If you are an Anglican, you should know the BCP; know how to do liturgy; know how to do pastoral care; know your own tradition. If you are SBC, you should know how to use the pulpit; know about the challenges of missions; etc. Content and identity carry with them a body of knowledge and practice…
Duane,
Yes.
A knowledge of the ancestry as well, if you will…
Duane, I know your intentions are good but for me I’m not buying into any of the branding or identity other than identity in Christ. Too much branding and churches can tend to operate primarily in a small business model and potentially loose its kingdom focus instead become tribal and competative. If someone wants to have their own club, group or social club or business than start one and define it anyway you like with the brand you desire. I have no problem with that. But I’m sorry I’m having a hard time for anyone other than Jesus saying what the brand of His church should look like. I mean no disrespect, but I’m just not completely following here.
Steve,
No problem. I understand your concern. I used the term “brand” for lack of a better term. What I guess I’m trying to communicate is that separate groups do in fact have differing identities – in practice, doctrine, modes of worship, etc. When we abandon those identities we lose something of who we are and become something with less to offer, rather than more. Certainly our identity is in Christ, but how we express that identity varies according to our history, our manner of worship and a whole range of almost indefinable “markers”. If we lose those markers, I think we lose much of who we are in Christ.
I’ll be doing a bit more writing on this in the near future….
BTW, always feel free to disagree.
I have a question for Duane and Michael and any other lurking Anglicans’..
I’ve heard there are 3 main branches in Anglicanism…low church, broad
church and High Anglican.
2 questions —
1) does the orientation of the parish depend largely on the priest? IOW
if the parish was High Anglican, would the next priest they called likely be a High Anglican?
2) It’s my understanding that Anglo-Catholics aren’t the same as High Anglicans. I’m currently looking at a book about TS Eliot and his Anglo=Catholic faith and the author makes this distinction.
Thanks in advance!
bob1
First question: There are parishes that have an Anglo-Catholic tradition and, as a result, tend to call priests that are in that tradition. Occasionally, you have a high Anglican priest who will introduce certain elements into a parish that will take it “higher” – such as vestments, incense, etc. Generally speaking, moderate Anglo-Catholic worship is a bit more common now.
Second question: In Eliot’s time there was a section of the Church of England that had a very high view of doctrine, but were not in any way ritualistic. They looked to the work of the Caroline Divines – Hooker, Lancelot Andrews (a favorite of Eliot), William Laud, etc.
Now, in all honesty, many of these lines are blurred in current Anglicanism, but individuals gravitate toward certain parts of the tradition. For instance, I’m more Anglo-Catholic in my orientation. Michael, with his Reformed and evangelical background, tends more toward the centrist Prayer Book tradition. JI Packer is almost wholly low Church Reformed. Despite the differences in theological orientation, however, we are bound together by the practice of the Daily Office and our common worship…
Thanks, Duane! Very helpful indeed.