Rebuilding common ground

The Court of the Gentiles was a very real, physical space, expansive, dusty, marked out by walls and gates and colonnades - and eventually demolished by the armies of Titus. If we are to rebuild it today, what shape might it take?

It could be defined, in the first place, as an extension of conventional church structures. We see the creation of a space somewhat like the Court of the Gentiles when church facilities are used for activities that bring normal people closer to the presence of God, when home groups are open to the participation of normal people, when unchurched people are invited to church social events, and so on. In the UK the Alpha Course is probably the outstanding example of this type of structure.

One problem with this approach is that these activities rarely define a genuinely ‘common ground’. The space is owned and managed by the church, sometimes to good effect but always subordinated to some other purpose. I think we would come closer to fulfilling the requirements of a mission to the emerging culture if we could define this common ground in such a way that it is not directly under the control of the organized church. This is the significance of the boundary between the sanctuary and the Court of the Gentiles: believers must come out of the church in order to play on the common ground. They do not cease to be believers, but the rules of the game have changed.

A second problem is that the church has struggled to develop a form of engagement with outsiders that is not either overtly evangelistic or spiritually sterile because the model does not allow for a significant middle ground between the church and the world, betweem being either wholeheartedly Christian or ashamedly secular, between expressing and repressing our faith. This is perhaps the fundamental missional challenge that we face: how do we allow this intermediate state of spiritual being to emerge, protected from both the world and the church?

1. At one level the ‘common ground’ principle needs to be implemented as close as possible to the normal patterns and dynamics of human relationships. Here we might envisage a largely disorganized, grassroots network of small gatherings that in different ways recreate the ‘common ground’ that is represented by the Court of the Gentiles. It would depend on innovative individuals (agents? entrepreneurs?) discovering ways of bringing this shared space into existence. An important part of the strategy, therefore, would consist of identifying, equipping, and supporting these agents, both within and outside our immediate sphere of influence. There is no reason why we should not encourage people from other churches and organizations to think of themselves in these terms. We may seek to stimulate, catalyze and even instruct this movement, but we cannot claim ownership of it.

2. If a grassroots movement of this nature is to have visibility and identity, it will probably also need larger public structures. Seeker churches fulfill this role but we would probably now regard them as operating too much within a modernist paradigm. One alternative which has been proposed is a monthly evening event closer in form and ambience to a club gathering, providing a spectrum of activities including dance, worship, visual arts, discussion, prayer, meditation, lectio divina, teaching. My model for this is Planet Angel in London, a club that has sought to extend the standard clubbing experience by developing both the relational and creative dimensions of the community. They describe themselves as ‘an ever-expanding network of like-minded people working together to promote and create a free-spirited, interactive environment. An environment invoking creativity, balance, harmony, fun and love!’

3. There is perhaps a third level to consider. The spread of a grassroots movement will to some extent produce, but will also depend on, a cultural and intellectual transformation within the wider society. Martin Robinson (UK Bible Society) has spoken of the need not only to reach individuals but also to ‘campaign to the culture’. It would be consistent with the wider objectives of an emerging culture mission, therefore, to seek to expand the overlap between Christian and secular culture, to develop a common ground where there can be a creative, respectful, intelligent examination of what it means to know God. We would want, therefore, to encourage Christians with access to the media, the academic world, and the arts not only to develop the forms of public discourse that would enable this but also to explore those elements in non-Christian culture that help to define the common ground from the other side. It would be a fascinating exercise to look at the work of people who stand on the outside of the kingdom of God looking in.