The Shaping of Things to Come - Alan Hirsch & Michael Frost
Review by Matt Glover, October 2004

            In The Shaping of Things to Come, Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost provocatively propose that the institutional church as we know it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced by models of church that are incarnational in their mission, messianic in their spirituality and apostolic in their leadership. Of the Christendom model of church, they suggest that as God’s people we must, “Give up trying to rejig the paradigm to suit massively changed missional contexts of the Western church. It simply has not worked.” [1] Instead, new models of church, based largely on what Frost and Hirsch interpret the early church to be, are required if the story of Jesus is to be retold in the western culture and context. It is the purpose of this paper to critically explore Hirsch and Frost’s ideas, with a brief survey of other christological and ecclesiological writing, and to offer some suggestions for further areas of dialogue between the emerging and established churches.

Incarnational Mission

            Central to the Christian faith is the incarnation, or, the idea that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. More simply, God became one of us, breathing the same air, eating the same food and experiencing the same emotional, physical and spiritual challenges that any human might face. How the divine and human could exist in one man is a debate well beyond the scope of this paper, but for the benefit of our discussion, it is worth noting Macquarrie’s idea that Jesus differed from other humans, “In degree, not kind. As far as his powers and limitations are concerned, they were of the same kind that belong to all of us.” [2] That is, Jesus became fully human, but was an example of a human who was living life to its full potential – in perfect relationship with the Creator.

            When translating the ideas of the incarnation to church, it is quite easy to see why Frost and Hirsch argue the way they do. If the church is the divine community that has accepted the Spirit’s invitation to participate in life with God, and has been given the responsibility to carry that invitation and offer it to others, then this is best done in the same fashion that God invited humanity in the first place. [3] By being,  living and experiencing life with those that are invited.

            The early church had no choice but to be incarnational. Being in the overwhelming minority, there was no place to retreat to, or shelter from, persecution and ridicule. Instead, these first Christians boldly lived out their faith in the midst of their Jewish or Gentile communities, with no expectation of special treatment, but a hope that others would respond to the compassion of God, told through the story of Jesus. With the dawning of Christendom, the Christian faith became dominant and the church found itself in a position of authority and privilege. Churches became the center of community life and to be anything other than Christian meant being on the fringe. Being incarnational, or the “going to them” of mission was suddenly off the agenda as the church could now demand that people came to it. However, with time Christendom began to be diluted and both the power and authority it once enjoyed diminished. No longer could the church expect people to come through its doors, or even have any idea of want went on behind them. The central argument of Frost and Hirsch’s argument states that while Christendom is dead, the western church still models it’s life and mission in a Christendom mode, running attractional ministries that assume people will come to them rather than put energy into incarnational ministries that see people commissioned and sent to carry the Spirit’s invitation into the community. [4] Hence, the western church is in rapid decline despite the interest in Jesus being at an all time high.

            Thinking of the church incarnationally means, as Frost and Hirsch argue, that the church no longer defines mission (ie dictates people come to it) but instead the mission dictates the form of church. That is, the people it goes to determine how the faith community looks and feels. Support for this thinking is found when Moltmann states, “Mission does not come from the church; it is from mission and in the light of mission that the church has to be understood.” [5] In my own context it is interesting to note that many of the established churches have their roots in this very thinking. As the suburbs expanded, there was a need for Christian education and before churches were planted, Sunday Schools were established which then gave birth to faith communities several years down the track. However, the needs of the community at the time still contained echoes of Christendom, something that is no longer the case.

            The ‘incarnational argument’ is not new by any means, and while individual, established churches may or may not be operating in incarnational modes, Frost and Hirsch’s astute analysis of western culture is something that all churches must learn from – institutional, established, emerging or otherwise. Leadership team meetings to brainstorm ‘new outreach programs that people will come to’ need to be remolded to ‘outreach initiatives on which we can send people’. No doubt, attractional ministries such as playgroups and the like will remain strong and even grow as their relevance to the wider community is appreciated and their presence desperately needed. But your rally-with-speaker events should probably be put to rest in favour of sending ‘community missionaries’ to the places people meet (schools, pubs, sporting venues etc), with the view of telling God’s story and establishing faith communities in a missional mode.

Messianic Spirituality

            Frost and Hirsch rightly say that, “Incarnation and contextualisation won’t suffice unless we can find the spiritual framework and resources for real and lasting engagement…” before going on to describe a messianic spirituality that should be characteristic of the emerging church. [6] Even the simplest analysis of our culture will reveal an interest in spirituality at some level, whether it be a heartfelt search or passing curiosity, and for those that are looking to find out more the church is often the last place they think of looking. Again, the Christendom period plays a large role in the separation of everyday spirituality from the church. By the fifteenth century the term spirituals, or ‘spiritual people’, had come to refer exclusively to the clergy and monks of church orders, effectively cutting off the ‘everyday folk’ or laity from any sense of spiritual life. The idea of the priesthood of all believers was ignored by the church and forgotten by its theologians. [7]

            Messianic spirituality then is the rebirth of a spiritual life based on the life and teaching of the resurrected Jesus, in relationship with the God of the Hebrew people, for all people regardless of class or position. It moves away from the Hellenised form of spirituality, influenced by neo-Platonism, that reserved a connection with God for the church’s elite, and returns it to the real world. [8] Whilst emphasizing their belief that humanity is saved through the grace of God, Frost and Hirsh outline how a messianic spirituality has a sacramental affect on our actions. As God is a God of the everyday, interested in the mundane tasks of our existence as much as the spectacular, everything we do takes on a spiritual dimension. And rather than let our actions be restricted to the reflective and inward, Shaping calls for a return to spirituality based on action, letting what we do being an identifier for who we are. [9]

            The call for a return to the spirituality of the Hebrew people is well supported by other writers. Moltmann for instance delves deeply into messianic Christology and the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity. He says, “The more European churches free themselves from their ancient role as established or state churches, the more the Christian congregations find themselves in contradiction to the ideologies and conditions of power that sustain the empires and ‘redeemer nations’ in which they exist…the more acutely they open themselves for Israel and Jewish existence…the more they suffer for the sake of God’s righteousness and justice, over the unredeemed condition of the world.” [10] Frost and Hirsch’s writing is perhaps a more practical outworking of Moltmann’s in-depth theology, however there remains a tension between reclaiming a messianic spirituality based on the Hebrew experience and being incarnational in mission. If our mission endeavors are to be incarnational, telling the story of Jesus in the context of a host culture and not repeating the mistakes of Christendom then there must be an effort to discover a spirituality that is grounded in the host culture as well. Obviously Jesus cannot be separated from his ‘Jewishness’ and his life must be interpreted in this setting. So to can we learn from the way the Hebrew people expressed their life and faith as God’s people. But for spirituality to be truly messianic, then surely this means a rebirth, or even discovery of, the spirituality of the host culture rather than that of the Hebrews.

            This thinking presents many difficulties for the Australian setting and it’s multicultural nature. Firstly, there is the issue of indigenous spirituality which is well formed and rich with meaning. Newer ethnic groups likewise have a rich and unique sense of spirituality imported from their home countries. But the white, European Australian not only struggles to articulate a spirituality, but also what his or her culture actually is. A messianic rebirth of spirituality in this mix of subcultures will require far more than the Hebrew sense of spirituality alone can offer, but perhaps a multiple birth that sees ‘sibling’ spiritualities pointing back to a common ancestry, but exhibiting their own unique expression.

Apostolic Leadership

            The call for a new from of leadership in the emerging church is based on what Frost and Hirsch call the APEPT model – Apostolic, Prophetic, Evangelistic, Pastoral and Teaching. Drawn from Ephesians, this model is proposed as being that of the early church and thus the catalyst for the astounding growth that the new Christian movement experienced. [11] Christendom saw an emphasis placed on the pastoral and teaching aspects of leadership, with the neglect and virtual disappearance of the others. [12] In addition, Shaping points to a need for rediscovering imagination in leadership, urging leaders to dream dreams that are so impossible that they will only succeed if God is part of them. [13]

            In a culture that has a distrust for all forms of authority, it is fortunate that the role of the clergy in the Australian context is rapidly changing. In Baptist and other ‘free’ churches, the priesthood of all believers is evident by the number of ministries that are established, run and grown by people other than paid staff. In recent times, denominations that have an hierarchical structure of leadership are also discovering the ‘power of the people’ as ordained leaders are becoming harder and harder to find. Thus, the church of the future, whatever form it might take, will not be led in a Christendom type fashion, but from the grassroots. Interestingly, Bosch says that the everyday people of God have been largely responsible through history for the initiation of mission societies and movements all around the world. [14] The emerging church continues this healthy tradition.

            The APEPT model however is just that – a model. No doubt the early church would have used something like APEPT, consciously or not, but the earliest church would have been an unorganized group of uneducated fringe dwellers with little idea of how to give momentum to a movement, but instead a passionate faith that was lived out in the midst of others. While I don’t suggest that we dispense with leadership, I think arguing for one model is dangerously close to repeating the mistakes of Christendom. Incarnational leadership, drawing on the natural leadership structures of a host culture, is perhaps more fitting for the emerging church. Yet there remains a questions about how do you be prophetic (for instance) in a culture where the leadership structure leaves no room for such a voice. I think Frost and Hirsch are more helpful when they refer to the elements of their APEPT model as functions rather than a type of leadership.

Rethinking the Shaping

            When reflecting on the direction Christianity should take in the years ahead, Athol Gill wisely wrote, “Before we plunge into the future again, we made need to pause and get our directions straight. We will at least want to be heading in the right direction. Some of us, however, may have difficulty reading maps, particularly the old maps we have…the times have changed and we have probably already made many mistakes and developed many bad habits in deciphering the directions.” [15] Frost and Hirsch have done a good job at reading the maps written by the early church and the mistakes made by the Christendom period of history, but it is my feeling that they have left a vital part out of the ‘big picture’: God.

            For all the mistakes it has made and the atrocities it has been responsible for, the fact remains that the church is still around after 2000 years. God has and is working though it and it is likely to be the ultimate arrogance to dictate to God what can and cannot be done in the future. Studies in the theology of mission widely state that the mission of the church is God’s mission. God chooses when and how to work and the church, through prayerful discernment, joins the work as God’s tools. [16] While this might be exactly what Frost and Hirsch have done, there still seems to be an attitude of ‘giving up’ on what is actually a group of people that struggle like any other to connect with God, and are doing their best to make it real. I would guess that the suggestions in Shaping  are likely to be the seed of some amazing ministries in the future IF the vision can be shared in a way that motivates through possibility rather than through criticism. The emerging church that can be identified at present is still very much dependent on the institutional church for it’s very existence, and Paul clearly says that no part of the body of Christ can exist without the others. More segregation is the last thing we need and a call for Christian unity would go well with the call for a transformation of church. Imagine the different response if the approach was, “This is where we think God is leading us,” rather than, “You’re wrong and we’re right.” [17]

            Finally, in Shaping and in person, Frost and Hirsch, have endeavored to identify what contributed to the astounding growth of the early church as well as that encountered in places like China in our time. Yet the element of persecution rates no mention in any of their work presented for this unit. It’s absence in the Christendom period is perhaps the greatest contributing factor to the watering down of faith and the limp expression of Christianity we are left with in our time. Can we even hope for the same vitality and conviction in church life unless the church once again faces life-threatening persecution that separates a real faith community from a mere social gathering? I doubt that this will be so, thus the ideas of a church that is incarnational in mission, messianic in spirituality and apostolic in leadership need to be passed through the filter of persecution. For instance, how would the prophetic function of leadership change from times of intense persecution to times of comfort and health? The energy and confrontational style required to motivate somebody out of a place of comfort would likely get a prophetic leader prematurely killed during times of persecution.

            The contribution of Frost and Hirsch to our life as the people of God is challenging and timely. If nothing else, their call to study our culture and dispense with anything that has become irrelevant with the passing of time is enough to radically transform many of our communities. The suggestion of a messianic spirituality and an APEPT leadership model are also helpful but perhaps contain more scope for debate and development. One looks forward to a time when we can look back and see whether the shaping happened as they expected.

 

 

Bibliography

Bosch, D.J. Transforming Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002)

Frost, M. & Hirsch, A. The Shaping of Things to Come (Peabody, M.A.: Hendrickson, 2003)

Gill, A Life on the Road (Scotdale: Herald Press, 1992)

Kirk J.A. What is Mission? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000)

Kung, H. The Church (London: Burns & Oates, 1967)

Macquarrie, J. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. (London: SCM Press, Philadelphia: Trinity International Press, 1990)

Moltmann, J. The Church in the Power of the Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress 1993)

Moltmann, J. The Way of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993)

Pinnock, C.H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1996)