What is an Authentic Community of Faith?

Posted on February 17, 2007 by mcanaday

In order for a local congregation to be an authentic community of faith, its practice must be congruent with its functional purpose, that is, its Christian mission. The underlying question is “What is the mission of the church?” and “To what are the people of God being called?” If the church is only serving itself (meaning only its own church members) and not loving and serving others beyond the local congregation as a priority of its life of pratice, can it be considered an authentic Christian community of faith? Is the local congregation just one form of “church” among many forms, and it so, can other forms be considered authentic Christian communities of faith?”

About mcanaday

Marty Canaday is Minister of Christian Formation at Derbyshire Baptist Church in Richmond, VA
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What is an Authentic Community of Faith?

  1. igalindo says:
    February 17, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Good questions, Marty, thanks. My initial response is to say that local congregations ARE authentic communities of faith. They may not be very good ones for a variety of reasons and causes, but an important corrective to thinking about and leading a congregation is to start from that point of view: congregations are, by their nature, an expression—a “type” of–faith community. That remains true despite the fact that we so often misguidedly try to organize and program the life out of them.

    You raise two fundamental questions: (1) what is the mission of the church? and (2) to what are the people of God being called? The oversimplify I may say that the first question has to do with the Mission of the congregation and the second may have to do with the VISION of the congregation. Theologically, I think there is only ONE universal “mission” for the church, and hence, for congregations (which are “churches” and hence expressions of the Church). One can phrase that one mission a number of ways depending on one’s place on the theological spectrum, but it may go something like this: “The mission of the Church is to be the redemptive Body of Christ in the World.” Beyond that you can finesse that, but soon it dies of qualifications and slips into the “vision” a congregation (or denomination) may have about the church. For example, some may tag on to that fundamental statement something like: “…by winning the lost.” Or “…by the proclamation of the Gospel.” Or, “…by feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, caring for the sick ministering to the needy, empowering the helpless, etc.”

    As you can see, mission and vision should be congruent, but I think it’s helpful to not confuse one for the other. As I’ve mentioned in another post, as an example, if becoming a large church numerically is your vision, all well and good if you can make a theological case for it, just don’t confuse that with the MISSION of the church.

    Because congregations are authentic communities I think of necessity it MUST engage in BOTH meeting the needs of its own members AND serving others. I don’t think it can be either-or. It is the nature of both communities and organizations (and congregations also are a type of organization) to practice self-preservation and generativity. It needs to work on its own self-survival, health and vitality, and work to ensure that it passes on its values, purpose, culture, and existence by investing in itself in and through the next generation. This is a perpetual tension that congregations, and other mission-driven service organizations (like service-oriented non-profits) constantly deal with.

    As to the question about whether the local congregation is “just one form of ‘church’ among many forms,” I think the answer is “yes.” A congregation is merely ONE expression of a socio-cultural form of an institutionalized faith community. There are many others (but for fun, get a group of church people together and challenge them to come up with a list of OTHER kinds and see how difficult it is for them to do so. I speaks to the formative power of one’s experiences. When one’s exclusive experience of a faith community has been a congregation it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to conceive of any other way to be and do “church”). So yes, there are other kinds and forms of authentic Christian communities of faith.

    However, I think beyond the issues of type and form, there is one additional element required for a group to qualify as “authentically Christian.” I’ll caution that not everyone holds to this opinion, but I’m convinced of it. That element is that any community of faith that says it is “Christian” must have at its center the confession and proclamation of the Kerygma. If it lacks that ONE thing, then it can adopt the FORM and/or STYLE of a “Christian” church or congregation, but it will NOT be. There is nothing sacrosanct about the WAY to do “church” or even the ways to be a “Christian” church. But it cannot be disconnected from the Tradition (capital “T”) of the Christian Church’s confession of Kerygma, and it must ask that second question you raised: “What has God called us to do in our particular context as the people of God?”

Comments are closed.