“Reaching Out” - Why I don’t like this phrase…

Paul writes – A phrase I still hear in relation to local churches is that of “reaching out”; however, I don’t see the deeper issues of missional concern as being centered on enabling churches to “reach out”, but rather as having to do with imaginatively, humbly and lovingly incarnating (living and embodying God’s future in the ordinary and the everyday) a conversation between eschatology (“what does God want to do?”, identity (“whose are we… and why?”) and gospel (what is “good news” in this context).

“Reaching out” implies to me an understanding of church as somehow being apart from the everyday and the ordinary, so we have to reach out. In one sense this “set apartness” is true, but in an equally important (and mostly neglected) sense, the church, as the predominantly (% of time) dispersed people of God, is already in the (relational)world – we are members of families, school boards, workplaces, places of study etc. 

In this regard a missional leadership takes seriously the importance and role of all God’s people. It demphasises the traditional ordained-laity divide. In mission-shaped congregations members need to learn “to function like cross-cultural missionaries rather than [seeing church primarily as] a gathering place where people come to receive religious goods and services” (Alan Roxburgh). This, it seems to me, is a critically needed transition: from a primary focus on the “church gathered” to an increased focus on the “church dispersed.”  As a friend reminds me, the church exists – its mission, if you like – is to sustain, resource, heal and encourage the people who are a part of its community in their following of Christ in the world.    

The other important (re)emphasis that people like Alan Roxburgh encourage us to understand is that the Spirit of God is among the People of God. This mission work is Spirit work. Also, God’s future [is] among all God’s people. Roxburgh writes, “God’s future is among the regular, ordinary people of God. It’s not primarily in great leaders or experts but among the people.” This is an important point. Traditionally, and to this very day, many in congregations passively see the role of the leader as the ‘visionary’ who speaks the future of the church into being. The leader is the person who does the ministry of the church. Again, I think the modern ordained (tending toward ‘leader as CEO’)-laity divide, and the self-understanding of local congregations had made this (re)emphasis important and needful.

Comments

[Tom Allen]

Tackling exactly the same subject yesterday - I think it comes from the basic theological position of many evangelical/protestant churches who have calvanistic tendencies. Here in the UK there is in the Anglican tradition inherited from our Christendom parochial system which means that clergy and many lay people see their faith as being integral to their everyday life - and so, easily move [to] a missional understanding of God at work in the ordinary We had an interesting dialogue yesterday with two Amercian emergent Christians - who could not get their head around what we were saying and were very puzzled at how "unChristian" we were, and even more puzzled when we took that as a compliment see:
http://bigbulkyanglican.typepad.com/bigbulkyanglican/2007/12/emergent-and-mi.html

[Craig]

To "reach out" always made me think of violently pulling in...stuff of horror-film nightmares.