Gathering Together

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. [1]

Throughout the centuries there have been discussions about what ekklesia is or should be: What a gathering of believers should look like. These discussions have sometimes been heated. 

There are only two references to Jesus using the word ekklesia or ‘gathering’ in the New Testament; in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:17[2].

This paper is an attempt to take a fresh look at three types of ekklesia from a missiological perspective. The final section ‘Following Jesus’ is an attempt to look at some of the examples of these approaches in the Gospels.


As I get comments from people about this, I will add them in to the text as quotations. So please add comments to this so we can dialogue together.

Types of ekklesia

From my observation there are three types of ekklesia or gathering: Messianic Bridge Communities (MBCs), Extracted Christian Communities (ECCs) and HCCs (Historic Christian Communities). I know there are actually many more, but for the logic of this document I will focus on the three that I think fit many parts of the world. I also recognise this is in some ways an over simplification of the categories, for example, some HCCs may exhibit some MBC characteristics or any combination of the above.

MBCs focus on being a bridge between the local culture and Christ, often struggling with Christianity as a western culture that embraces warmongering, structure and control.  Technically they are mistaking Christendom for Christianity but this unwarranted criticism is a common error that causes stress to many in HCCs[3] that may result in them rejecting MBCs without understanding the real reason why they express this issue.

Members of an ECC are extracted from the local culture and associate with Christianity both as a religion and often as a culture too even though it may be a foreign culture to their own.

HCCs are not extracted, but have for some time been creating parallel cultures as historically they associate with Christianity both as a religion and as a culture. This is often a politically accepted culture with long history and either is their home culture that fits their ordinary working life as well, or has become so. Hence why for many outside the Christian faith the word ‘Christianity’ becomes synonymous with a western culture even when that culture is at variance with Christian faith. For example, a Muslim recently asked me about how many people I had sex with, since I came from the Christian west. Even though he knew me to be a passionate follower of Christ, he had not understood that the image he had of western promiscuity was at variance with following Christ.

It is also observable that some HCCs also exhibit either MBC or ECC characteristics, so the boundaries between the different types are not always clear-cut.

When looking at these three types of gathering you can observe their practice, their theology and their missiology. Because there is a concern over syncretism for some MBCs, for the purpose of this paper I am going to assume we are only dealing with groups following an orthodox Christian approach on ‘the divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.[4]’ I will, however, look briefly at syncretism later in the document.

My thesis is that MBCs, ECCs and HCCs vary on their practice (praxis) and missiology rather than on their beliefs about the nature and personality of God and His relationship to mankind. It is easy to feel one or more of these expressions of ekklesia are wrong: I have observed criticism of MBCs by some HCC members and of ECCs by some MBC members. In considering the differences we should 'bless the light, not curse the darkness' and remember the old Native American proverb ‘don’t judge a man till you have walked in his moccasins’.

My thesis too is that these three expressions of ekklesia can be observed throughout the world. They are not unique to one region, country or continent. In each instance there are similarities and differences: HCCs tend to be internally pastoral while being externally isolationist, ECCs tend to be internally somewhat self-righteous whilst being externally highly concerned for those who do not yet know Jesus and MBCs tend to be internally very defensive while externally very open. Each has their positive and negative characteristics.

Historic Christian Community (HCC)

A Historic Christian Community can be an Orthodox or Catholic Church, a Baptist Church, a Vineyard Fellowship or in some cases even a House Church Fellowship. They are characterized by their open declaration of being Christian. Often, though not necessarily, HCCs will own buildings and have a common time for gathering, which is usually sometime on a Sunday. When they gather they will often have some form of structure to their meeting, often involving singing songs and listening to a talk. Frequently the teaching is didactic rather than dialogue based.

Extracted Christian Community (ECC)

An Extracted Christian Community is some sort of community where the members of that community are extracted from the culture in which they live or from which they used to belong.

An ECC can be part of an HCC or function alongside a number of HCCs. ECC members usually have no problem with the practices of HCCs and are open in their declaration of being Christian. Having moved from one culture to their new faith they often see the transition in black and white terms ‘you are inside or outside the Christian faith’. They perceive MBCs as being fuzzy on this and are critical of them for that reason.

Messianic Bridge Community (MBC)

A Messianic Bridge Community is some form of community that, in seeking to follow Jesus as Messiah, believe they should embrace or retain certain holistic aspects of the host culture (but not the religion) from which they come or in which they live. They are often characterized by a dialogue rather than didactic teaching style, with gatherings that are not necessarily in a special building or at the same place or time.

They sometimes have problems with HCCs, observing the ‘Christian’ label to be confused with ‘western’. Their greatest problems, however, come between ECCs and MBCs since one group embraces their host culture and the other rejects it.

Personality of the community

These different communities also have different personalities. Note, I’m talking about the personality of the community, not the personality of the people attending the community. The community tends to have a personality of its own. In comparing the three communities I looked at the Myers-Briggs type indicator.

HCCs tend to be Introverted. They receive their stimulation not so much from interaction outside the community but from ideas inside the community and find it easy to focus on God within the community, enjoying sermons with depth. HCCs are most at home with the familiar and routine of their meetings and enjoy reinforcing their traditional values often seeing them as the proper way to believe and act, thus HCCs tend to be Sensing rather than Intuitive.

When it comes to decision-making HCCs emphasize their perception of truth as core, often being very careful on words used and their meanings, being more Thinking than Feeling in their decision-making.  They have a strong need for order and structure. The structure might be informal, but it is structural nevertheless and might include the hierarchy of eldership over members being more Judging than Perceiving.

MBCs tend to be the mirror opposite of HCCs, which is why the two types of community find difficulty in communicating: The community is extroverted (even if the members are actually introverted) and receives it receives its energy from interaction with people outside the community, focusing on the people rather than internal meditation and reflection. This can be perceived by other groups as a stronger desire to meet with people rather than God.

Because MBCs tend to be intuitive, their view of God is more transcendent; not only do they see more of the awe and majesty of God they see Him at work in a wider variety of activities and might feel (possibly inaccurately) that HCCs restrict God. In their reading of Scriptures they take a more figurative approach, looking for principles and allowing the outworking of the principles to be the concern of the individual within the context of the society they find themselves.

Because they are more influences by feelings, MBCs look for a warm and friendly approach to their decision making contrasted with the HCC focusing more on truth. They still firmly believe in truth, but they communicate truth externally in a very different way to an HCC. For MBCs God is best perceived through a personal and intimate relationship rather than the facts that HCCs appreciate. They like music that evokes deep feelings and warmth and are often more focuses on tune than text.

As Perceivers MBCs have a free spirit and enjoy a more open and flexible approach to worship. They have a willingness to ‘go with the flow’; regardless of where it might lead which. Sermons or talks will often be less organized and may start and restart and go in a variety of directions.

I'm not sure I agree with your description of the contrast between methods of decision-making between MBC's and HCC's. You describe the former as making the decisions based more on feeling than on thinking. While that may be true of some ECC groups, I think the contrast might be more accurate if described as a contrast between Western linear Greek thinking, and a perception of scripture that leads to action. The latter is not just feeling oriented, but neither is it the Western preference to see the basis of church as sermons and Bible studies. In the great commission, Jesus said to "teach them to do what I taught you to do." In the West, there's great tendency to think that serving Jesus is largely a matter of absorbing the right information. However, think of the impact if Muslim followers of Jesus in MBC actually beginning to forgive their enemies! This would be a dramatic change from the typical Muslim culture which could rock the world, while being much more relevant to Scripture than how and when you worship. (Gary Henley, founder IOM)

One of the core concepts of Myers-Briggs as a type indicator is that none of the 16 types are right or wrong; they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. However, the strengths of a particular type become a weakness if multiplied.  Hence the Perceiver approach of an MBC can lead to communication that is so roundabout that the listener has really no idea what it is about.  Often conflicts between HCCs and MBCs result form one group seeing the strength multiplied as a weakness in the other group.

So what of ECCs? Clearly ECCs are Extroverted: They get their strength from the interactions they have outside the community. They inherit the ‘proper way to believe and act’ from HCCs often rejecting their society in favour of the way HCCs believe and act.

When it comes to decision making ECCs again follow HCCs and emphasize their perception of truth as core, being very careful on words used and their meanings, often being more Thinking than Feeling in their decision making. Since truth matters above feeling, if someone gets hurt in proclaiming truth then so be it. They have a strong need for order and structure: As Judgers they actually have a stronger perception of structure than HCCs, with the ‘one of us’ or ‘not one of us’ being a driving force. They wish to push the extraction model upon everyone else - almost unless you have extracted yourself you are not a true Christian.

These three concepts of community, which I think can be seen worldwide, in the West, East or Middle East, raise the question about how we need to be more incarnated with those around us. There are some who see HCCs or ECCs as a 'peculiar people' separated from society.  Though this extreme is not the dominant view among HCCs and ECCs, nevertheless it is a view that influences a lot of their thinking.

What does an MBC look like?

I remember visiting a Mennonite community in downtown Chicago in the USA. They held a common-purse, which was not a societal value, but to all other characteristics they lived, worked and shared the love of God totally embedded into the society in which they lived: The poor of Chicago. They lived in apartments in the area they wished to serve, while having gatherings that were more open and informal than HCCs in their area. Their gatherings were more like a community meal than a church service.

Geoff Lanham led B1 – a church without walls – for some years. It was based on the B1 postal district of Birmingham in the UK. ‘We saw the huge numbers for whom the City Centre was a magnet for social life. So we started to meet in venues where they would be comfortable. The broad target was 20-40’s but we recognised that there were lots of sub-cultures. So we began with the networks of the team through their interests – sports, leisure, work…’[5] They were working within the culture to reach out to the culture but were not necessarily from that culture.

In both the above examples though they meet the criteria of being Messianic and a Bridge Community, they were both cross-cultural in that the members were not natively from the host culture. Geoff Lanham again, ‘We set ourselves to do some cross-cultural mission work. We realised that some of the subcultures were different but more nuanced. The main shift we made was away from being “event dominated”. These had been high quality and guests came, enjoyed them and sometimes came back. But it was very difficult to build ongoing relationship. So we cut the frequency to bi-monthly and spent more time engaging with the networks in smaller settings. We downgraded the overt Christian content and events seen to have no hidden agenda brought in lots of visitors. Like the ”Help, I’m a TV producer get me out of here”. We’ve moved from programmes to friendship.’[6]

What is key to seeing the long-term effectiveness of MBCs and in many ways the difference of MBCs to HCCs and ECCs is the ‘move from programmes to friendship’. At this point it should be noted that some HCCs have caught the vision for a change from programmes to friendships so this is not unique to MBCs, though it is predominately something that characterises the difference.

In the Middle East there was a community I visited a few years back (I am not sure if they are still meeting) that met in a coffee shop. They didn’t have a regular time of gathering; they just used to send text messages around the group as they felt the need to meet. However, it was frequent if not regular. They gathered together, drank coffee and shared fellowship. One of them would share a thought from the Bible, which they would discuss.

When I visited, one major question I asked was this: Because the gathering was irregular wouldn’t it be possible that someone would be forgotten to be told about the meeting? The response was that because they were so involved with each other on a daily basis that was highly unlikely. This community was both inward and outward looking; they were bridging the way of Christ with the local community in which they lived. It was truly friendship not programme.

Differing views on mission

Over the centuries many of the divides in the worldwide church have come about over a differing concept of mission. That has in part been due to different understandings or models of how someone becomes a follower of Jesus. In chapter 3 of my book ‘In the image… of a creative God’ I address the commonly held models of the church, becoming a follower of Jesus and how it happens. ECCs predominately tend towards the Inside/Outside Model, HCCs towards the Process Model and MBCs towards the Orientation and Relationship Models.

ECCs can take the Inside/Outside model to extremes. One example was a sequence from a TV show they used to demonstrate their effectiveness where they show an ECC group pressurizing a distraught viewer calling in to the TV show to ‘repeat this prayer after me…’ Eventually the viewer is persuaded to repeat the prayer and then the line goes dead. The sequence goes on to show the presenters expressing exuberance at any success in winning another soul for Christ.

To some degree the difference in missiology between HCCs and ECCs on one side and MBCs on the other is the difference between what is termed missional and attractional church, where MBCs could be considered missional and HCCs and ECCs attractional. Often the word missional is used for so called ‘emerging churches’, and frequently emerging churches would fit into the category of MBC. However, some people see emerging churches as a way of getting people into ‘regular churches’ (ie HCCs). I think that is an unhelpful way of seeing this as it denigrates an MBC to being merely a stepping-stone to people being members of an HCC.

The conceptual difference between missional and attractional churches is whether the aim is to go out to where people are (sent out) and share about the Kingdom of God there or whether to invite people outside (attract them) to gatherings of people within the Kingdom of God. A classic example of attractional was expressed by a Vineyard pastor in the USA who said that the aim was to have such a deep sense of worship of God in the singing that non-believers present would be automatically attracted to know more about God. He didn’t see a need to proactively go out, even though that congregation did one or two events to reach outsiders per year.

To some degree missional churches live outside the comfort zone of gatherings of followers of the way, almost constantly interacting with and demonstrating ‘Kingdom of God is at hand’[7] to those they meet on a daily basis. There may be widely differing understandings of what the concept for ‘Kingdom of God’ actually is, although very few people would argue that it has any real linkage with the commonly held English understanding of a physical kingdom. The point missional churches claim is that Jesus was outward looking sharing the concept of the Kingdom of God within the society and community that he was living. This is the idea that missional embodies.

Syncretism and MBCs

Within the Middle East and other Islamic cultures MBCs have sometimes been called ‘insiders’ or part of an ‘insider movement’. This descriptor has recently become very divisive, with strong feelings being expressed both for and against insider movements. This descriptor I believe to be both inaccurate and unhelpful, and it is for that reason that I propose the three types of HCC, ECC and MBC.

One of the concerns I have heard expressed by HCCs and ECCs about insiders is syncretism: Mixing a non-Christian religion or worldview with Christianity. Although MBCs are usually more tolerant than ECCs if pushed they too express a concern about syncretism. That concern is seen two ways, looking at themselves and looking at HCCs/ECCs in the west. At extreme they might quote Jesus comments about the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.[8]

In meeting with one group of MBCs one of their concerns was syncretism. They talk about it; we don't bring it up. Not all the time, but it is something they actively consider. People who are concerned whether or not they are syncretistic and checking regularly are probably not. I wonder how many HCCs look and consider if they are syncretistic in any way.

MBCs can be either syncretistic or not, its not possible to paint a broad stroke that says all MBCs are sound and all are unsound, in the same way you cannot say all HCCs are sound or unsound.

I'm sure that there is a real danger of syncretism in the MBC's. But the Western model of church is quite syncretistic in itself. When the church is more nearly like a university, or a successful business, isn't that a syncretistic adaptation to the priorities and methods of Western life? If we see church as a family, then dialogue and the action resulting from the dialogue is the normal pattern. However, dialogue does not take place easily in gatherings of 100 or 1000 people. It can occur quite naturally and simply in a gathering of a dozen or so. Certainly  sound teaching  and/or other means of understanding what the Scripture says should be the basis of that dialogue, a should not preempt it. (Gary Henley, founder IOM)

Some MBCs that are potentially orthodox can still exhibit problems. As an example take the Nine O’clock Service (NOS) in Sheffield. I visited once only when I was filming at that church, so cannot talk from long personal experience, although I do have friends and acquaintances that have more experience of the community.

The aim was basically that of an MBC. It was wildly successful, attracting many from the locality who were unable to relate to HCCs. However, in 1995 accusations surfaced about Rev Chris Brain, who was leading the community, of psychological, emotional and sexual abuse of NOS members. In August of that year the Archbishop of York barred him from acting as an ordained Church of England minister. By this stage the Bishop of Sheffield had already banned him from practising in the diocese.

Note the above example of abuse was not actually syncretism, but personality control issues. Although it could be a problem with any of the groups, illogically, this type of thing is often used as an example of why MBCs can drift into syncretism.

Negative experiences of MBCs in the west have made HCCs wary of all MBCs, especially since 11^th September 2001 within the Muslim world. Since the attack on the World Trade Center there have been increasing concerns about terrorism worldwide and this has resulted in promotion of some very negative perceptions about Muslims and Islam. This is primarily driven by fear and by a lack of experience of Muslims within their society. Within HCCs, ECC members wishing to validate their position of being ECCs have sometimes fuelled this.

Similar negative experiences relating to post-modernism or the New Age Movement have fuelled a rejection of MBCs acting in the west. In both cases this is often claimed to be concerns over syncretism, when in fact it is a difference of missiology and language with both MBCs and HCCs sharing a common orthodox perception of the Gospel should they actually take the time to sit down and listen to each other.

My perception is that to have a blanket rejection of all MBCs is as ridiculous as blanket acceptance of the practices of all HCCs and ECCs. We need to evaluate, in light of orthodox theology, the approach of all communities that claim to follow Christ, pointing everyone towards the Father. This, I believe, fits with the orientation model and relationship models within ‘In the image… of a creative God’ and is closer to what I observe Christ doing when He was on earth.

Speaking of movement, I think that is the issue in all three environments. Are the participants pragmatically moving forward toward the "obedience of faith" as Paul describes the objective in Romans 1, as well as in the last few verses of that same book. Which direction are you going? Is it toward the Lordship of Jesus, and obedience to his teaching, or are you just sitting while stuck in place or, worse yet, moving away from true obedience to Him? The Western model has frustrated me because it focuses so much on learning, as opposed to doing. However, perhaps that's because I'm more of an activist than a theologian. (Gary Henley, founder IOM)

Following Jesus

The three key characteristics of an HCC gathering tend to be singing together, listening to a talk and sharing communion together. ECCs add to this proclaiming a message of repentance. MBCs tend to focus on dialogue and having meals together. All 6 characteristics can be seen in the Gospels to a greater or lesser extent.

There is only one reference I can find to Jesus singing. It is brief and to the point and comes just after what we call the Last Supper.

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.[9]

Does this mean we should rarely if ever sing in gatherings? From the fact that there is only one recorded instance of Jesus singing we cannot assume it was the only time He sang nor can we assume the contrary that He sang frequently. From various records we know the early gatherings of ‘followers of the Way’ frequently sang together. We must realise, though, that there is no record of Jesus using the word worship as a synonym for singing.

Some people like singing. However, some (like me) do not. But I love music and I used to enjoy hearing the spontaneous music making and singing of more musically gifted members of another and my family when we got together. I’m not against music, but what I think we can deduce is that it is not an essential part of a gathering of those who follow Christ.

Re: worship, I certainly agree with you that singing should not be the focal point. The best description of worship is found in Romans 12:1 --2. Additionally, Jesus made it quite plain in John 4, that worship in the Kingdom that Jesus was launching would not be a matter of "in this place or in that place" but "in spirit and in truth", which also relates to Romans 12. (Gary Henley, founder IOM)

Though many gatherings have a central point of the gathering to listen to a talk, there are relatively few examples of Jesus giving direct teaching in this manner. Mostly we see asides at the end of stories, like at the end of the story of the list sheep, but mostly he communicated through the stories or through dialogue.

There are, however, two examples: What we now call the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and Jesus teaching at the synagogue in Capernaum. The Sermon on the Mount is the longest record of any of Jesus’ teaching, spanning three chapters in Matthew’s narrative. The account of this talk ranges over many topics, and covers a number of different styles of teaching. Hence, I suspect the Sermon on the Mount may have actually been a series of smaller talks that Jesus gave over a period of time during that day pulled together by the Gospel authors.

There are many more examples of Jesus in dialogue with those he met. In ‘In the image… of a creative God’ I consider three of them: Nicodemus, a woman He met at a well in Samaria and the woman who was caught in the act of adultery. In each of these cases, Jesus interacted with the people concerned. The communication was two way. Jesus came to earth to bring God and man back into a relationship. And relationships are concerned very much with communication and dialogue.

The fist Passover was described in chapter 12 of the book of Exedus. Every household was to sacrifice a lamb and paint the blood onto the lintels and doorposts of their houses. This was so that the angel of Death would not kill the first-born sons of those households, but only those of the Egyptians, as God had already warned them. The lamb they had killed the household were to eat along with bread without yeast and bitter herbs to build up their strength prior to their hasty departure from Egypt when Pharoah kicked them out.

Every year at the same time the Jews celebrated the feast of the Passover. Jesus ate the Passover meal with His disciples and in that meal introduced new meaning to the symbolism for His followers. He then commended His followers to do this same meal as a remembrance of Him when He was gone.

Over the centuries the symbolism has increased and the meal decreased so many HCCs now have a sliver of bread and a sip of wine or juice to remind them of Jesus.

There are numerous accounts of Jesus sharing meals with His disciples and with many people during the three years we call His ‘public ministry’. Eating together seemed to be an important part of the gathering when He was on earth and the early disciples continued this practice.

Sharing meals together is something all of the types of ekklesia seem to be discovering, though Eastern MBCs seem to be leading the way. This is in part due to their focus on hospitality, which is partly cultural and partly a natural outworking of their outward focus.

Proclamation Evangelism is very much at the heart of modern Evangelicalism. Proclamation, which is almost the antithesis of dialogue and more related to listing to a talk is described as ‘to announce officially and publicly; declare – to indicate conspicuously; make plain – to praise; extol’[10] So when Luke writes. ‘And Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."’[11] Then we too are commended to ‘proclaim the Kingdom of God. How we do it and what it means in today’s society is a different question. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God primarily in stories.

Proclaiming the Kingdom of God in a way that is being critical or challenging, Jesus only did with religious leaders. Singing was historically part of early church practice and can be accepted or not, but is not an essential part of a gathering. The question of dialogue contrasted with didactic teaching is one that will continue till Jesus returns. However, it can be seen from this that MBCs are not some strange syncretistic aberration of the practice of Jesus, but very much at the core of what He did on earth. 

---

[1] Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV

[2] Strong’s Concordance number 1577

[3] Stuart Murray Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) 83-88.

[4] Evangelical Alliance Basis of Belief, statement 3.

[5] Rev Geoff Lanham, Mission Shaped Church conference in June 2004

[6] Rev Geoff Lanham, Mission Shaped Church conference in June 2004

[7] Mark 1:15, ESV.

[8] Matthew 7:3-5, ESV

[9] Matthew 26:30, ESV

[10] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proclaim

[11] Luk3 9:60, ESV