Is Family the Best Simile for the Church’s Generational Ministries? Reflections on a Recent Youth Ministry Book
Wherein I am “the lone American among a heap of Australians”
I recently had the privilege of contributing a chapter to Australian Evangelical Perspectives on Youth Ministry: Identity, Church, Culture, and Discipleship, the newest volume in the Australian College of Theology Monograph Series. Ruth Lukabyo, senior lecturer at YouthWorks College, did admirable work editing and bringing this work together.
I am “the lone American among a heap of Australians” in this academic work on student ministry. My chapter began as a lecture at the 2017 House Conference in Port Hacking, New South Wales, Australia. In that lecture, I corrected a definition of “family ministry” I had proposed in 2009, and I used that opportunity to reflect on the past, present, and future of student ministry. That lecture was then expanded into the chapter for this book.
A Quibble over “Family” and the Possibility of a Different Simile
In a recent review of the book, John Sandeman raises a legitimate and thoughtful question about the simile of “family” that I encourage churches to adopt:
Timothy Paul Jones makes the link between [Christian Endeavour] and the rise of other mutual societies in the industrial revolution. The Ragged Sunday School movement might have been a good parallel for him to mention as another example of working class religion combining with social progress.
But his analysis is insightful about class, describing the twentieth century rise of the youth ministry expert as an example of Taylorist management, [with] the church adopting the rise of the management expert.
Here is how he argues for church as family. “Building inter-generational connections and congregational diversity does not, in my estimation, require the elimination of age-organized activities or generational specializations. What a thoroughgoing church-as-family ministry does call for is the development of a church culture in which segmentation and specialization become exceptional instead of assumed.”
Here’s a quibble. Would it be better to describe church as “tribe” rather than “family”? What other similes might have a better fit?
Those are good questions.
So why am I so focused on the word “family” here? And is it possible that some other simile, like “tribe,” might fit better?
Is “Family” the Best Simile?
My preference for “family”—or “household,” which I find to be an equally helpful term—is simply because I’m trying to remain as close as possible to biblical terminology (οἰκος, οἰκεῖος, οἰκονομία; see Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:13; 1 Timothy 3:15; Titus 1:7; Hebrews 3:6; 1 Peter 4:17). I’m also trying to give precedence to biblical depictions of intra-church relationships, which tend to center on familial relationships (Titus 2:1–8). Additionally, “family” and “household” include adopted household members, which is a key component of a biblical understanding of the church. I’m not suggesting we are limited to biblical terminology to denote everything we do in church, of course. At the same time, I am inclined to prioritize biblical verbiage whenever possible.
So what other biblical terms might work as similes here? “Temple,” “priesthood,” “people,” and perhaps “genus”* would be other possible terms (Ephesians 2:21; 1 Peter 2:9). And yet, none of these terms seems quite as useful as “family” for describing the relational aspects of the church. “People” and “genus” in biblical usage seem to emphasize the distinctness of the church in contrast to the prevailing culture. “Priesthood” has to do with devotedness and access to God, while “temple” highlights the church’s unity as well as God’s presence within the people of the church.
“Church-as-Tribe”? Why or Why Not?
But what about the term “tribe” specifically?
Here’s why I would hesitate use “tribe” as a primary simile: the church is not called to be a tribe but to include a mingling of many tribes.
In contrast to household identities—which, through adoption, may include kinship bonds between people who have absolutely no other connections to or affinities with one another, genealogically or otherwise—tribal identities are grounded in common interests or ancestry. In biblical usage, “tribe” refers to a group that is genealogically related, and that connotation of “tribe” still seems to dominate today. When tribal connections aren’t genealogical, they tend to be grounded in affinities.
The church does not quite fit the characteristics of a tribe. Our connections in the church are grounded in adoptive kinship that produces a new identity, not in genealogical descent or external affinity. The church is one household that brings together a multiplicity of tribes, languages, people groups, and ethnicities into one people (ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, Revelation 5:9).
In the early church, identity in Christ redeemed and relativized various ethnic and tribal identities without obliterating or replacing them, according to the work of Philip Esler. This enabled each individual member to flourish as part of a new household constituted of persons from differing ethnicities, cultures, ages, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This is apparent in Justin’s defense of the Christian faith, wherein he highlighted the ways that churches brought together people from a multiplicity of cultural, ethnic, and tribal backgrounds into one people (ἀλληλοφόνοι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὐχ ὁμοφύλους διὰ τὰ ἔθη καὶ ἑστίας κοινὰς μὴ ποιούμενοι, Apologia A, 14). Early Christians collectively formed a distinctive, supraordinate Christian identity that transformed other aspects of identity without eliminating these ethnic and tribal affinities. The church is one family, one temple, and one genus of people consisting of many tribes.
In some sense, my hesitation to use the term “tribe” is probably grounded in my commitment to multiethnic, multigenerational, multisocioeconomic (and multitribal!) churches. Now, it could be that I’m thinking of the word “tribe” in a different way than my Australian brother is defining it. If others of you have other perspectives, let’s talk more about it in the comments.
Further Reading on Early Christian Social Identity
Philip Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 2003).
Philip Esler, “Giving the Kingdom to an Ethnos That Will Bear Its Fruit: Ethnic and Christ-Movement Identities in Matthew,” In the Fullness of Time, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016).
Philip Esler, “Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,” Biblical Interpretation, 2000.
Philip Esler, “Judean Ethnic Identity and the Matthean Jesus,” in Jesus-Gestalt und Gestaltungen, ed. Petra von Gemünden, et al. (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2013).
Justin, The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy of the Rule of God. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2008.
_____
* Γένος is sometimes translated into English as “race,” but modern racialization has caused this rendering to carry implications that no first- or second-century Christian would have intended.
Great reflections! I wonder how much of a difference the size of a congregation makes and the number of congregations within a church. Where there are multiple expressions of worship are their multiple church families within a broader 'community'?