Movement, church, or network.

The question at hand is which one is Grassroots Conspiracy. Are we a movement, are we a church, or are we a network? You may be thinking that this is an incredibly boring question…but I think it’s worth pursuing and I think it’s answer sheds much light on how we go about our activity as a community of conspirators.

The answer is that we’re a movement. We’re not a church (not yet at least…in the sense that we use the word). We’re not a network (insomuch as intentionality and purpose is concerned). We’re a movement.

Let me define how I’m using these words just a bit.

Network: a network’s commitment is to celebrating the satellite organizations/groups associated with the network. It’s not about what ‘we’ are doing but about what these other groups are doing. A network might give advice but they do not really speak into the movements to which they are connected. Each satellite group has its own leadership, direction, and purpose. A network, as I’m defining it, is about celebrating multiple missions with at least some sense of overlap that causes us to be ‘together’.

Church: a church* is a local gathering of Jesus people who are not only committed to each other and a certain way of life, but also to a structured identity that organizes them into a public/social entity. A church exists when you have a community of individuals who choose to die together for the sake of others, when new people are entering into this way of life, and when they’ve then determined to own a shared story publicly, privately and as they move forward into the future. (a whole blog should be written about church)

Movement: a movement, as I am defining it, has a central mission–a direction that a collection of people rally around. It is different from a network because unlike a network a movement is about ‘us’, about a direction that we are moving together. A movement can (and should) support satellite groups, but it does so insomuch as they are inline with the movements direction and mission. A movement is not quite a church because it is not about the formation of a localized gathered people as much as it is about a way of life that pursues a certain direction. The distinction is subtle but I think that when lived out practically it makes a huge difference. My guess (my assumption and my hunch) is that a movement should and will lead to the formation of a gathered church where people are not only committed to a way of life but to a gathered way of life.

Grassroots Conspiracy is a movement of people who are choosing to live a certain way. We are a collection of individuals who are choosing to live scattered across the downtown neighborhoods (and a few families who live outside the downtown vicinity), prioritizing living scattered in the neighborhood doing life with and for people over-and-above gathering together often. We gather together only once a month in order to remind each other of the mission that draws us together only then to send each other out to live it. Grassroots Conspiracy works in partnership with a surprisingly large number of churches and organizations. It’s easy to do so because our commitment is to the good news of Jesus (gospel), to seeing his kingdom realized on earth as it is in heaven. At the same time, however, GC has a peculiar way that we are attempting to do life together, certain rhythms that we believe are both fitting to our context and to our story. While we are all about the kingdom and the gospel and therefore in full partnership with anything that is gospel-ish, we also recognize that these rhythms and ways of life that  are distinctively “us” will at times bring separation between us and other groups (hence the reason we’re a movement and not a network) And while we’re committing to a way of life together, I don’t see us as a church because at this point we’re not about the formation of community but to living out the gospel. My guess (my assumption and my hunch) is that this way of life will lead to the creation of a new church…but that’s not where we’re at yet. It’s a part of our anticipated future but not a part of our present reality.

Let me finally add that all of this (and if we were honest much of life) is a grand experiment. We are exploring new ideas, new ways of living, new paradigms for what it means to be church, to do church, to live like Jesus, and to die for the sake of others. I don’t expect to get it right the first go around and so we are therefore all about exploration and experimentation–trying things on, taking things for a spin, and believing that “failure” is a clear part of our future.**

* “a church” is different in my mind than “the church”. THE CHURCH is the name given to those who have committed to following the radical ways of Jesus. It is a global movement, it is massive, messy, crosses every culture. A CHURCH is what I refer to as the local and contextualized expression of this massive movement. It is local, it is somewhat definable, and it (too) is super messy.

** I should also add that I’m more nervous posting this blog than most. When you write something down it tends to be viewed concretely (as maybe it should). While I wish I were that type of person that only writes and says things that he’s certain to defend…I’m not. I work things out publicly, in dialog, with others. When I write blogs or engage in conversation I will rarely sit down beforehand and figure out exactly what I believe in a black and white fashion that I then intend to defend. I realize that this is abnormal and potentially unhealthy for a pastor/leader because we’re supposed to have things figured out…but, again, that’s just not me. I do think I can and would defend everything I’ve said above, but I think it would work better in conversation than it has/does as a blog. Regardless I see it as an important set of ideas to put out there as GC moves forward.