Welcome to the Interrelational Church blog. My desire is to communicate an ecclesiastical direction for those who are questioning the traditional structures of how “church” is done. There has been much talk about an “emerging” church over the past decade and I would like to offer some form to the emergence. I would like to name the emerging church.
Why the “Interrelational Church”? Why not the “Relational Church,” the “Community Church,” or even more relevant, the “Postmodern Church”? Why is the word “interrelational” so apropos to what a Biblical representation of the Church should look like? I believe that the term “interrelational” best describes how the Body of Christ should work. Some definitions of the word “interrelate” will help make the case:
encarta.msn.com defines “interrelate” as: “have or bring into a relationship: to have a relationship in which each person or thing depends on or is affected by the others, or cause persons or things to have such a relationship.”
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861621977/interrelate.html
wordreference.com defines “interrelation” as: “mutual or reciprocal relation or relatedness.”
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/interrelation
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines “interrelate” in a transitive sense as: “to bring into mutual relation,” and in an intransitive sense as: “to have mutual relationship.”
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=interrelation
These definitions primarily suggest that the term “interrelate” refers to relationships that are mutually effective and cooperative. The Encarta definition is especially helpful in that it expounds on the fact that “interrelatedness” means dependence on the other; to be affected by the other. It is a “reciprocal relation,” as wordreference.com puts it. Leaving the “inter” out of the “relation” leaves the “mutual” aspect out and thus leaves the relationship up to the winds of individuality. That is what the “inter” is ultimately trying to deconstruct; the individuality that drives most relationships. The Church has long been the pulpit of the individual rather than the Image of Christ.
“Interrelational” is a descriptive term that reveals the reciprocal relationship that each individual has within the Body of Christ. One member of the body cannot move without affecting the rest of the body. There is différence, but it is a corresponding difference; one that works upon a common foundation that “inter”-locks those relating. The “Interraltional Church” is the name that we believe should be given to the emerging church. It represents community with a foundation; community with a common purpose. This purpose limits it and opens it up. It limits it in terms of ethical interaction with the world but yet opens it up to communicate with that same world, in hopes of drawing more individuals into the interrelated body of Christ. Yet the foundation must never, can never, be compromised in order to allow others in on their own terms. God does not make deals on the “other’s” terms. The Foundation of the Body can never point to “other” than Himself, because to do so would be idolatry. So therefore, the Foundation on which we stand as an interrelated body, Christ Jesus, must be represented in a faithful way, a way that is faithful to His revelation of Himself.
With this brief statement as a compass heading, let us begin to discuss church in terms of interrelation and cast visions together of how to best establish these Biblical concepts in local congregations of the Body of Christ.
5 comments:
"The Church has long been the pulpit of the individual rather than the Image of Christ."
This is a good quote, as it seems the church is more influenced by society and it's norms than the church impacting society. Churches in general, even the "progressive" or "postmodern" churches seem lame and inept at perpetuating the love of Jesus Christ. There have been some individuals that have demonstrated this love to me over the years and most of those people happen to be church goers, but even those people are indifferent to the next new emergent institution. I see little difference between the "new" churches in the U.S. and the "old" ones. Rock bands and coffee shops seem to be the signature of a true "emergent" church.....that doesn't do much for me, it's the same as pipe organs and potluck on Wednesday night. I think I'll just sleep in....
Jesus has left the building
I like the idea, but I think that the problem we encounter is that most people are readily willing to impact others lives, but are not as willing to be impacted by the lives of others. Especially the lives of people who may be marginalized by society or may be extremely new or immature believers or take it to the extreme and ask if we are really ready to be interrelated to nonbelievers and really allow their lives to impact us first so they will be open for us to "inter" into their lives as a voice and presence that represents the Savior. Just my 2 cents, but the onus must definitely be on our shoulders as we plow some long fallow ground.
Great points all. Keep them coming. "Anonymous"": I am certianly with you on the fact that all ecclesiastical structures have proven that they are, for the most part, inept in communicating the love of Christ in a consistent manner over a significant period of time. I myself, on many an occasion have been part of the disease rather than the healing, but that does not mean that I give up on the current structures as a whole. The Body is spread throughout manner traditions and denominations and I must seek to influence that which He has given me access to. For me, at this time it is the SBC.
Jacqueline: right on. Oh to be obedient without any ambiguity or confusion. May our mutual reading of the Word and subsiquent conversation draw us nearer to that shared conviction we seek to actualize.
T. Rall: Good to hear from you brother. I pray you are doing well. Thanks for commenting. I would make one comment in response to your reply; we must always make a distinction between our obligation to those whom we are already interrelated to in Christ and those we might soon hope to be interrelated with. Though our obligation requires that we assume the role of ambassadors for our Lord in Savior to a lost world, that role can never be served by compromising the inherent obligation we have with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Though I might bear witness to a lost world on my own power and initiative at times, ultimatly I desire to perform that task within a healthy union with my brethren.
But there is something to be said about learning, at least in some aspect, from those we are seeking to draw into the Body.
Good post -- just some thoughts from the post and comments....
The problem with the church is the problem with each of us. I comment about how the Church does not love; neither do I. If I was loving the Church the same way I was expecting the members of the Church to love one another, I would not be so frustrated. If I viewed the Church as the BRIDE OF CHRIST... and I am part of the preparation of the bride, how would I respond? I think it would be a quite different response, indeed.
Jacqueline: That Tozer quote is spot-on. If we could begin by candidly admiting that we have not taken God seriously, that is a great place to find repentance and begin to learn to walk. Once we really acknowledge our sin, we can better-understanding our need. We acknowledge that we are, categorically, sinners, but we don't BELIEVE we are truly sinners in everyday life. If so, we would see, feel, and know our great need... and that would lead to changed lives.
Interrelational is a good word. What's sad is this: The church has become so-not-the-church that we are now describing it with words that should be inherent disriptors. It's like saying "The car with tires" or "The house with a roof". These things are crucial parts if the normal functioning of the whole. As it should be with the church... may we never have a view that the church is not interrelated. That is FUNDAMENTAL to the true church and Gods work in the world today. We've been driving with no tires and living with no roof over our head for far too long.
Em- Thanks for your response. Certainly some wise words about having to describe the Church with terms that are inherently descriptive of it. I agree that it is unfortunate that believers do not understand basic principles of The Body of Christ. Yet, that is the predicament that we face. Thus, I think it is important to seek a word that can draw all to a similar understanding of what the Church is. You rightly said, "May we never have a view that the church is not interrelated." Yet that is where the majority of believers are currently resting; at a place where the Individual's relationship with "their Savior" is sovereign (however they might frame that relationship) and "other" Christians are seen as individual sojourners on a similar, yet independent, path that leads to the same telos.
So let this be a springboard to discussing why the term "interrelational" is a more encompassing descriptor to focus on, then say "evangelical" or "reformed" or "missional."
I will present a post with what I believe are telling Biblical passages that point to the "interrelated" foundation of the Body, or "Bride of Christ" as EM well stated. Your continued interaction is appreciated.
Post a Comment