Steve Timmis spoke humbly and graciously. It stood out that unlike many visiting speakers at conferences, there was barely anything about how big his church network was or the many things he has done.

He had researched his audience and venue -Moore College
and spent much of the morning outlining his reformed evangelical views of the gospel and church. There were plenty of quotes from people we know...like Graeme Goldsworthy and he even explained the Knox-Robinson view of church. The quotations continued through the day, with lines like…
“well I know you will agree with this because Don Carson says"..." “

While it seemed like a bit much of the day was taken up with laying the groundwork, it appears that Steve is very much a principle driven person. He lives driven by ‘the imperative of the gospel’ so making his views on that clear were significant. What he wanted to make clear about church was his emphasis on it being not just an event or meeting, but ‘shared lives lived together under the authority of the word’.  In practise this means the Crowded House churches have no big programs or showy events. Most do not even meet in a church building or any sort. In fact the only one that does, with 100 people is too big and is about to split into 5 new gospel communities.

‘Living with gospel intentionality’ was a phrase that came up many times. The benefits of living in a community where we help each other make gospel driven decisions about jobs, marriage, homes, etc and keep each other accountable was emphasised.

As for how decisions are made about their church it is driven by the question...’would you do that as a family’
Does your family have a church bulletin? No, then neither will we
Does your family vote on decisions? No, then neither will we
Does your family have discussions to decide things? Yes, then so should we.

There was plenty of time given to answering questions which was helpful for fleshing out some of the details of how all this works in practise.

Good commentary David.

I am no theologian, but Steve’s theology made sense to me and resonated with my own studies in this area. So preaching to the converted there.

It was good to hear actual examples of an alternative to Attractional church working. We struggle to conceptualise what any other way would look like, so steeped are we in our current paradigms.

It was also a sharp reminder of how our experience of “community” can lack real depth, but also an encouragement that deep community can become more of a reality.

The sting in the tail of that, though, was the cost. Steve’s off-sider (Jonny) outlined the change in life mindset they have had to go through. Instead of the decision flow of people being:

Job -> Location -> House -> School -> Church -> Gospel/Mission

Which is essentially secular with gospel tagged on the end. The alternative approach is that the Gospel is put first so it then goes:

Gospel/Mission -> Church -> Location/School/House/Job

The cost of this, in wordly terms, can be high, but the upside is huge.

One impression I got was that the approach was largely untested for families with young kids. Steve himself said that they were only just now connecting with that demographic. The issue here, as anyone with little kids knows, is that young kids require a high degree of structure and predictabiliy in their routines and this makes participating in many of the activities Steve described very difficult.

I’d agree with David and Jeff’s comments.

However I also think Steve did an excellent job of encouraging people to move in the ‘gospel community’ direction in small, manageable steps.

In practice changing a church’s entrenched culture can seem so massive that it is paralysing.

I wrote my published summary to highlight what I thought was most helpful in Steve’s advice.

I will post MP3s of Steve’s four talks once they are cleaned up technically.

cheers
JH

Its nice running a fan club but I’d be interested to hear where people might depart from Steve.

Indeed, I did see some grumpy faces at some points in the talks… but there wasn’t much energy/spark in the question times.

I’d imagine some people may have concerns about ecclesiology and soteriology ie the risk that a ‘gospel community’ is creating a ‘gospel plus’ situation.

Looking for constructive criticism

the big one is
“ is it gospel plus”

ie is the dual fidelity of gospel and community really saying that God’s saves throug his word and his people

so what do you think Shane?

the big one is
“ is it gospel plus”

ie is the dual fidelity of gospel and community really saying that God’s saves throug his word and his people

Shane I think that you cannot draw a distinction between word and people. “Christ” was and is the word and yet is also a person and is God. There is danger of making to much of the Gospel being merely words. Jesus preached not through mere words - but through all he did - words and actions. He then sent people out to preach not just in words - but in action...in the power of the Holy Spirit…
So I would not say it is Gospel plus - rather that the full Gospel is not being preached if it does not include, accept and practice that God saves through his people - for God indwells His people - to argue against this sets a basis for Hyper Calvinistic thinking such as was told to Carey - “Sit down young man, if God wants the Indians saved he will do it without your help”

However I also think Steve did an excellent job of encouraging people to move in the ‘gospel community’ direction in small, manageable steps.

In practice changing a church’s entrenched culture can seem so massive that it is paralysing.

Jeremy I think it would be foolish to try and move the whole church culture to embrace this style. Rather it would be better to release those who are comfortable in this type of ministry to go, minister and disciple others in this way. As Paul says, there are a variety of ministries under the one God.

Jeremy Halcrow - 10 April 2008 10:22 AM

so what do you think Shane?

I can understand the concerrn but I think ti is a failure to understand the gospel.

God doesn’t just save individuals - he saves individuals into his family. I think it is fair to say that when we are saved into fellowship with God we are saved into the fellowship of his people.

I do think there is always a danger that the dynamic of relationships might be overplayed and the dynamic of the gosple word might be undermined - but it is never an either /or situation - its always both and.

I’ll be away till Tusday - but in the mean time I think it worth answering this question

is God activity in the world about bringing individuals into a saved and santified relationship with himself?

or

is God’s activity in the world about bringing a saved and sanctified people under his saving and sanctifying rule?

Jeremy I think it would be foolish to try and move the whole church culture to embrace this style. Rather it would be better to release those who are comfortable in this type of ministry to go, minister and disciple others in this way. As Paul says, there are a variety of ministries under the one God.

I am not sure its boutique.
is it merely a style that we can pragmatically adopt and drop as we see fit? I think one of the things that Steve Timmis is suggesting is that the gosple indicative leads to some principled imperatives that are not as negotiable as we pragmatists might think.

here’s a thought to play with

pragmatism is always wrong - its is never right - it is as wrong as wrong can be

and sydeny is guilty of much unprincipled church practice that has not worked d the gosple indicative into the gospel imperaitve thoughtfully, biblically or thoroughly enough.

look forward ot coming home to some thoughtful replies.

every blessing,
Shane

[Rant] Ahhh this is the second time I have submitted a post ( on 2 separate occasions )and for some reason it was deleted [End of Rant]

is God activity in the world about bringing individuals into a saved and santified relationship with himself?
or
is God’s activity in the world about bringing a saved and sanctified people under his saving and sanctifying rule

Shane I think you need a combination of both and not either. One leads to individualism the other into legalism. Therefore it would be better to say that

God saves people through His people into relationship with Himself and others under His headship through His empowering presence.

pragmatism is always wrong - its is never right - it is as wrong as wrong can be

Terribly un-biblical thought. Scripture is full of pragmatic actions. Take Moses taking heed of his father in laws wisdom to elect other judges so as to avoid burnout. The same happens when the Apostles tell the people to elect some deacons to serve the bread to them…

Shane how do you see every ones gifting being utilised under the Total church scheme with out trying to turn every one into a evangelist?

Another question is in regards to the Anglican communion and its way of doing things. Say you were to implement Total Church into your parish.In regards to Baptisms, weddings, communions, confirmations and funerals who will be presiding at them… You or the cell group leader?

Craig Bennett - 11 April 2008 09:12 AM

Another question is in regards to the Anglican communion and its way of doing things. Say you were to implement Total Church into your parish.In regards to Baptisms, weddings, communions, confirmations and funerals who will be presiding at them… You or the cell group leader?

Many perceived the issues you described above craig, and in fact there was a question about structure and hierachy which related to them.

Timmis replied by suggesting that the episcopal hierachy that the Anglican church has in place is unneccessary and certainly not exhorted by scripture. To which many of the present Anglican ministers and Moore students nodded & chuckled in aggreement!!

The Crowded House do appoint elders based on the 1 Timothy etc qualifications, which is not neccessarily having a theology degree. And I gather it is these elders who do all the things you mention.

Many perceived the issues you described above craig, and in fact there was a question about structure and hierachy which related to them.

Timmis replied by suggesting that the episcopal hierachy that the Anglican church has in place is unneccessary and certainly not exhorted by scripture. To which many of the present Anglican ministers and Moore students nodded & chuckled in aggreement!!

The Crowded House do appoint elders based on the 1 Timothy etc qualifications, which is not neccessarily having a theology degree. And I gather it is these elders who do all the things you mention.

I agree with Timmis’ reply and yet that is not that helpful in regards to the Anglican way of doing things.
I’m excited by this method and interestingly something like it has been happening for many decades within some Pentecostal circles overseas and been spoken about and slowly introduced within Australian Pentecostalism for at least the last 10 years...such as the G12 movement. which has had it’s successes as well as it’s problems which every movement / church structure has.

History has shown how within Anglicanism small groups have worked evangelisticly and that was what John and Charles Wesley did who never renounced their ordinand’s and it was far later towards the end of their ministries that methodism as a denomination became truly separated from the CoE.

Personally I have much to celebrate regarding my last 10 years fellowship and ministry within the Anglican church - and I don’t have to totally denigrate it to admit that I also had many frustrations with / within it. I have found ministry a lot more freeing where I fellowship now and can see that the method of Total Church can be more easily put into practice.
Yet there are many other Godly people who enjoy Anglicanism and while Scripture may not totally exhort its structure it doesn’t speak against it either. So I would suggest that a way can be found forward for it to be implemented within Anglican structures without having to totally dismantle it all together.

Timmis actually described their structure as a modifed form of Presbeterianism.

You question is pertinent (can something be done within the exisiting Anglican structures).

My view - I have doubts it could. I think it would have to be driven forward as an independant network, even affiliated with Crowded House (as has been done in the US).

Structurally, the comparison to the Methodist movement seems apt. Still, Methodism eventually found it necessary to split off from the Anglican church…

Craig S,

You are right that they eventually did split off. But it was not Wesley’s wish to do so and they struggled against doing so for a long time. It was the C of E’s attitude and militancy against them that caused it to happen.

Those darned Anglicans… ;-)