The third co-operative principle seems timely to address considering the current economic situation. Our community, the Hawthorn House, has been taking a serious look at economics for months now. This is a subject that is often taboo within churches. But in times such as these where the systems we assumed would always work no longer do the Church has a duty to talk about economics.

In the introduction to the Church as a Co-op series I wrote:

Recently, I’ve had a couple conversations with pastors that have confided that beginning a discussion of personal finances with their congregations would be virtually impossible. Why? It would seem that the Early Church set a precedent for sharing personal economic information. Just read the Book of Acts. We live in a culture in which we find much of our identity through economics. We find identity through what we purchases with money. We have social status based upon our perceived income level. We receive favor from others by the amount of money we spend on them. We buy things to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

If we read some of Jesus’ last words to his disciples in what is known as the Great Commission, this segment of Scripture can be understood to say that Jesus is encouraging his closest friends to initiate people into a community in which their primary identity is a Trinitarian identity. In a culture in which the almighty dollar is a primary identifier it seems only appropriate that discipleship would start here: re-ordering the place of money in our lives.

We live in a culture that has an idolatrous relationship with money. Money maddens us. The fervor for a good deal actually led to a Wal-Mart employee being trampled on Black Friday. As Shane Claiborne wrote in his recent post on Sojourner‘s God’s Politics blog, “It seems like a good time to say: ENOUGH.”

Claiborne goes on to write:

“Enough to the myth that happiness must be purchased. Enough to an economy that is awarding CEOs salaries 500 times that of their workers and still manages to seduce people in poverty and wealth alike to give more money to these predatorial corporations. Enough to the American dream that now consumes over 40 percent of the world’s stuff with less than 6 percent of the world’s resources. Enough to a dream that would need four more planets if the world pursued it … a dream the world cannot afford. Enough to the advice of government leaders who fearfully order us to “just keep shopping” after tragedies like September 11 and November 28. ENOUGH. Maybe God has another dream.”

Of God’s other dream, our friend Lee Van Ham of Jubilee Economics Ministries discussed what that dream may look like in his two part article on Sabbath-Jubilee economics here and here on the EC blog. Our relationship to money is complex. It is not easy to demystify it nor break it’s hold on so many of us. But it needs to be done. So, many of us are taught to read the Bible as if it had no economic ramifications. But as Lee describes in his articles it is an economic text. We are at a point that in order to find our way towards a deeper Christian path, we need to approach Scriptures with pertinent questions in mind. As Ched Myers wrote in Binding the Strong Man, “… radical discipleship necessarily approaches the Bible with social, political and economic questions in mind.”

And like Claiborne, we need to say “enough” to practices in the Church that have more in common with capitalism than the cross. In his book, The Great Giveaway, David Fitch says this of the misplacement of capitalism within the Church:

” … churches take on the communal characteristics of capitalism in strange ways. In the way evangelical [and others I would add] churches organize, we curiously choose elders who are more successful as businessmen [and women] and accumulators of wealth than they are capable of giving wisdom and Christ-centered shepherding to the local congregation. We project budgets based upon how many people are actually ‘giving units’ in the church. Our people walk and look like capitalists. … We surprisingly get our identities more from our jobs than our life in a Christian community pursuing God’s kingdom on earth. And we treat money as our own. … Our imbedded individualism hurts us as we hoard our money, keep private our personal finances, and die a slow death of the soul as we never learn how to truly live, rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep, (Rom. 12:15).”

The fact that many of us tend to think that giving is about it’s results exposes the impact of capitalism on our thinking over and above a biblical worldview. The stories of Zaccheus, the rich young ruler, Ananias and Sapphira have more to do with willingness to let go of personal control of money than about the return on money given. “God asks us to give,” is a complete statement and isn’t to be ended with, “and if we do this we will get [fill in the blank] in return.” Whether the second portion is attributed to God’s blessing, a clear conscience or shrewd investment is not the emphasis. As I said in my second post, “… intent rather than content takes precedence, which seems to line up with Jesus’ statements about the woman who washed his feet, or the widow’s coin.”

Several months ago, I sat in on a meeting where an African-American pastor was asking his denomination to help his congregation get rid of a building that the congregation could not afford. The neighborhood that this building was within was a majority Latin American community. Two Latino leaders were present in the meeting and several Caucasian men were present as well; denominational leaders, a real estate agent from a large church and another member of that church who was quite wealthy. The goal of the meeting was to determine how the building could be acquired to make use for a Hispanic ministry. The two Spanish speaking leaders present would potentially house the building with two Hispanic congregations.

Throughout the meeting, questions were posed to the wealthy business man. Decisions hinged on his input. The pastors who would use the building were never asked for their input and in fact never spoke except to introduce themselves. Likewise, the African-American pastor who was trying to save his congregation from economic disaster was only asked about the lowest price they could afford to sell at.

The point of this story is that economics often create an unequal portion of influence within the Church. Too often people with deep pockets have more impact on the direction of churches and ministries than those without. There is often an assumption that when we give to our local church that we still control that money in some way. But that isn’t why we give to a local church. We give as a discipline, as a commitment. We give resources to this community that is an expression of the kingdom of God.

In the ICA’s third principle, the resources collected are referred to as “common property.” Within the Church we would make a different distinction. We believe the money is God’s. It is, afterall, an offering, a gift to our Creator. But if you look at many of the New Testament stories concerning giving, you will notice that often the resources are given to care for the needy. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider our collective gifts that are given to the care of those in need are in fact a gift to God.

Valuing Equity and Relationship
What would happen if a local congregation determined together how to use their resources no matter how much or how little each person contributed? I don’t mean to assume that this means we do not attempt to be wise with how we use our money. But we start from the place of giving as a part of our covenanted commitment to God and the Body of Christ primarily. When this is the starting point the amount which is given does not determine influence.

In our community, we have found that it is often those with the least to give that know of the greatest needs to be filled. People with great resources often don’t live lives that connect with the needy, while those without, are more inclined to. Because of that, it seems important that simply because one doesn’t give in large proportion that they are automatically excluded from the decision process of where money is used.

Another thing our community has come to value through this is giving through relationship. Ryan and Holly Sharp talked with us about their involvement with Relational Tithe. It encouraged us to look within our own relationships to discover where the best opportunities existed. It also provided encouragement to those of us that did not have relationships with people in need to reconsider how we live our lives from day to day.

Who Get’s Paid?
Our community also decided to set aside a certain amount of money to ensure that we could take care of each other if there was ever an emergency. What we didn’t do, was decide to pay anyone in our community. Some people may find that surprising. Some of the community members that can afford to, have contributed to our income because they believe that our work in developing a grassroots network of faith communities and community organizing around certain causes is important. But Brooke and I are not paid to lead this community. Quite frankly, we don’t have a need for anyone to be paid to lead this community.

What would happen if we reconsider the importance of paying people within our midst. My friend, Tawd Bell, has over the years consistently challenged the ‘hire and fire’ mentality of churches and their staff. It is too easy to view those whom we pay as simply employees rather than members of a family whom we happen to supplement in order to ensure that they are able to nurture the life of the community in some way. In this light, I often wonder if what we need more than pastors are simply secretary’s. In other words, maybe we’d be better off if we were paying people who can act as a kind of “nerve center;” ensuring that communication and information moves within the local expression of the church.

I know this is a stretch for some and I’m not saying that paid leadership is always wrong. But we’ve come a long way from the times in which a group of people within a particular geographical space gave of their own harvests to ensure one person was made available to care for the well being of the community. Christian leadership has become no more than a career for some.

It seems worth asking what we are paying people for and if it enables people to be the Body of Christ or prohibits this. Over the years, Todd Hunter, along with others, has talked about Christian leadership primarily being about servanthood. If this be case, how we do lead in a manner that empowers people rather than creates dependence?

As I said before, the subject of money can be a difficult subject in many Christian circles. But this only exposes how much authority it has over us. If we intend to bring it under our control as resource we would benefit from stripping it of its taboo. We have found that transperancy and vulnerability go along way in re-ording the place of money in the life of a Christian community.

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to

2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.

It is certainly easier to go the way of theological and/or ecclesiological coercion–allowing only a few to determine the outcomes for the many. Building consensus is time consuming and it most often requires sacrifice from all parties involved. When our community began a conversation on economics, I figured we could talk about it for a month, covering everything I thought was important… Instead, we spent almost four months talking about it.

It is worth reflecting on our motives to move away from the kind of democratic control that co-ops embody. We need to ask ourselves, “Is there any impatience and selfishness driving me away from consensus building?”

I wrote an article a few months back in which I quoted Chris Seay from an interview I conducted with him. For the sake of this discussion, I quote him again:

“We tend to subdivide the Body in a way that has no natural relationships or interaction because we’re built on felt-need models. Instead, single people need to learn from married people; young marrieds without kids should learn from married people with kids; and married people with kids should learn from married people with grown kids.”
(read the article)

Our tendency towards subdividing the Body disables the collective wisdom we have together. When we do not subdivide we learn from each other; we learn to dialog, to listen and to empathize–we learn to make decisions together, to work together more holistically. Yes, there are those that have been educated and trained in theology and biblical studies but this does not mean that they ought to exercise control over all outcomes. A few years ago, blogger Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) wrote an article on theOOZE called this theological dictatorship:

“Tyranny thrives in a vacuum of passivity. Finds its voice inside an intimidated silence. It cannot live under the lively chatter of dinner-table conversation. Dictators cannot bully themselves to the front when leadership is valued by character instead of rank, and is distributed out to the right people for the right moment. Like ducks flying in formation, until the change, when another duck takes the lead for the present direction. Ducks have leadership. Just not the One Leader who leads all the time. And for every thing. And every direction.” (emphasis mine)

On the day of Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophet Joel whose vision of the day of the Lord pictured an egalitarian outpouring of the Spirit of God on young and old, male and female. This dream of a community that embraces all is what Paul consistently speaks of: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As Cavanaugh points out, Paul is not saying that our diversity is erased, rather the inequities within our diversity are exposed. But it also needs to be noted that the gifts of our diversity are brought together for the benefit of all as well: “Because there is one loaf, our many-ness becomes one-ness—Christ doesn’t become fragmented in us. Rather, we become unified in him.” (1 Corinthians 10:15, The Message)

If this be the case, than why would we organize ourselves in a manner that stifles the voice of the collected Body? I don’t mean to assume that all of our Christian structures are designed to do so. But lacking the wisdom to consistently reflect on whether or not our systems empower the “royal priesthood” exposes a lack of concern for this–leaving room for those that would abuse the system to do so.

What does it look when we move towards a more democratic polity? It’s messy! It means that we acknowledge that the Spirit of God speaks through each and everyone of us–even the kids. It means we move towards structures that allow people to find their voices and learn to discern together. It requires that we learn to listen and communicate better within the a local community (which you don’t have to visit too many churches to find out how bad of a job we do at this internally most of the time). It teaches humility to those of us that are used to having a platform.

In our community, I am surrounded by children, single young adults still in college and folks much older than I. It is humbling when a young college student says something that I feel like I should have. It can be frustrating when an older gentleman urges us to restrain from something I feel we should do. But if it weren’t for this kind of structure, a mentally disabled friend of ours would never feel as though his presence was necessary. The homeless mystic would not have a space to offer his wisdom. And the young child would not be heard as she speaks wisdom beyond her years. More and more, I am struck by just how much more we learn from the presence of the disabled, the marginalized, the young, the old or the homeless than from anything I bring to the table.

Does this mean that we do not have leadership? I don’t think so. I have talked to a lot of “house church” people who deny the need for leadership, which is either naive or ignorant in my opinion. There are always those that lead within a community, whether it is acknowledged leadership or not, and often momentarily as Andrew Jones explains. The difference here is that we are talking about leadership that is given rather than assumed. This approach to leadership is not simply the practice of co-ops, but is also rooted in Christian traditions, such as Anabaptism. As our little “collective” grows we are struggling to keep aware of this and it is not easy. But, still, we feel we must try. We are asking ourselves questions about how leadership that represents a particular community gathers with other representative leaders. But as well, we are asking how all of these communities gather so that we do not create a system in which only the leaders communicate from one community to another. Our first experiments in re-organizing ourselves in this manner were with our dear friends of Matthew’s House. Founding leader, Rick Horton used to say something that has always stuck with me and I believe still rings true, “We have one vision, but many voices.”

NOTE: This is the third article in the Church As A Co-op series. The others can be found here:
• Introduction
• 1st Principle

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to

Yesterday, we gathered with many others at Friendship Park to celebrate communion with sisters and brothers from both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. It was a somber celebration of the Lord’s Table. Rev. John Fanestil–who has led the communion celebrations at the border for the last few months–wrote a great article that summarizes our reasons for taking this action. It was the cover article of this month’s issue of The Christian Century and can be read here.

As John finished his introduction, he explained to those gathered that we, the organizers, had been warned that to pass anything through the border that did not go through customs was illegal. If we chose to take communion from those serving from the other side of the fence, it would be an act of civil disobedience. The risk was little to none. Armed Border Patrol agents have stood around and watched us do this for weeks. But at the same time, they did threaten to arrest a man whose kite had flown over the border only a couple of weeks ago.

John asked Dr. Jamie Gates and myself to help serve the elements. I walked up to the monument that stands directly on the border line, corn tortillas in hand, ready to serve people from both sides of the border. To my surprise, almost every one that came forward pressed their hands to the rusty fence to receive the Body of Christ. My only task was to translate, “This is Christ’s body, broken for you.” to those that received communion. I’ve never been more happy to not serve communion.

In his “World in a Wafer” article, William T. Cavanaugh writes “[T]he Eucharist does not simply tell the story of a united human race, but brings to light barriers where they actually exist.” This statement was such a reality yesterday. While we were brought together as one Body, the boundaries–both physical and social–that divide us were exposed for what they are. Our friend, Sunil Sardar, founder of Truth Seekers Int., has a similar mindset in how he has chosen to lead people in communion in India. Rather than the cup and bread, they celebrate communion with people of all castes using a traditional Hindu celebration element, the coconut and it’s milk. Through this they challenge and expose the assumptions of who has access to the Table and who doesn’t.

Back to San Diego, concern of this issue heightened for us during last year’s firestorm that ravaged San Diego county. For more information on that you can read the report, Firestorm: Treatment of Vulnerable Populations During the San Diego Fires, which was published by a handful of local organizations. It can be downloaded off of the Justice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB) website (look under “Publications”).

What became evident through that season is that the varied reasons of opposition to immigration to the U.S. from Latin America, while under the guise of policy and economics, are more often than not rooted in racism.

Is this strictly the hypothesis of a “liberal”? No. This is my experience. I’ve lived most of my life in San Diego county, something few people that live here can say. I was raised in a loving, conservative Christian home. We were taught that racism was wrong. That to hate was to sin. But at the same time we were taught that racial slurs such as “wetback” and “beaner” were acceptable. This duplicity created a disconnect in my mind. Eventually it seemed perfectly acceptable to perceive of Hispanic people differently than others. During my late elementary school years, I lived in the rural part of northern San Diego county. Many migrant workers lived throughout the hills close to the orchards that provided them income. One summer, I found one of these migrant worker camps during the day while the men were out working and destroyed everything I could. I gloated to family and friends of my actions. My tale was returned with laughter.

I tell this story to expose the blindness of our racism. My shameful behavior is alarming but not uncommon. Later in life as a youth leader at various churches, I heard many such stories treated by parents and others as simply, “kids being kids.” Condemning racism while still willing to refer to and act towards a particular group in a degrading way exposes how blind we actually are.

Assumptions are commonly made of people with Spanish surnames or brown skin. What isn’t often acknowledged is that people throughout Latin America come to the U.S., still Hispanic peoples are universally called, “Mexican” by many. Frequently, there is a “guilty until proven innocent” assumption made of the immigration status for those of Latin American decent–many just assume a Latino/a crossed without documentation. And there is the “illegal alien” term which degrades someone’s humanity based on their legal/illegal behavior (Have you ever heard of someone guilty of tax evasion called, “illegal”? No, because it is their actions that are illegal, not their existence.).

Together, these ignorant and improper labels tend to de-humanize Latinos–whether consciously or subconsciously–in the minds of others. As a result, hate crimes against Latinos eventually begin to be perceived as acceptable. This kind of cruelty is not restricted to Minutemen or other like-minded citizens. Through the ICE raids that happen throughout Southern California, government officials echo the same kind of disregard for humane treatment. Should neglect of the well-being of families, especially children, becomes acceptable when someone’s documentation is suspect?

This over-arching posture must be called for what it is. It is racism. I am not a policy maker, nor do I have hopes to be one. I am not a theologian, but that does not make my understanding of my experience any less valid. I can see how inhumane our current system is and how necessary it is to see change happen. As a follower of Jesus who seeks to participate in the Kingdom he announced, I feel that I must allow that conviction to enter into areas of life that may be uncomfortable. Those that were dehumanized in his culture, Jesus treated with dignity, humanity. His acts of love challenged a theo-political system that disregarded them.

Our actions yesterday were important because of the statement it made. Our actions, even though small, exposed the shameful posture of policy makers and citizens towards our Latin American sisters and brothers. As well, our actions proclaimed our alignment with an authority that moves in, through and beyond the nation state, the Kingdom of God. We chose to act as Jesus would have us rather than the state.

Our inability to recognize our biblical call to a particular social posture towards the alien, the immigrant and the ostracized is to expose our complicity with temporal powers, of putting the authority of the nation state above that of the call of Christ. We in short confirm the words of The Thermals‘ song, “An Ear for Baby” from the album, The Body, The Blood, The Machine, that lashes out against a Christianity that has sold it’s soul to political and economic benefit:

good luck getting over the fence
good luck putting even a dent in
the mission, the dream!
the body, the blood, the machine

If you are interested in learning more about this issue, I would encourage you to join us on Saturday, October 25 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at Friendship Park to discuss the role of Christians in San Diego at the border. Contact us for more details.

Other Resources:
• For more theological and political reflection on this issue, check out Subversive’s recent issue (myspace.com/subversivemag)
• Our housemate, Brooke Gonzales provided a summary of yesterday’s events here
• Friend of the Collective, Geoff Hsu posted photos here
• I have started blogging through the book Christians at the Border here and here
• Facts about Immigration at the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium website
• Countering Myths at the Justice for Immigrants website
• Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform resources at Sojourners website
• Immigration in the U.S. Through the Lens of Faith handbook at the New Sanctuary Movement website

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to

I have recently been interested in co-operatives as a model for understanding the Church. More specifically, local, geographic expressions of the Church; a congregation. I’ve been reading through the website of the International Co-operative Alliance. While churches cannot qualify as true co-operatives, there are potentially shared values and defining characteristics. I thought I would share some of my thoughts on those commonalities.

I’d like to start this up again by looking at the ICA’s first principle which is stated on their site as follows:

1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.

As Christians, we often are not as inclusive and welcoming as this statement encourages. We often expect others to believe certain things and behave a certain way before we allow them to belong, to be welcomed amongst us. What would it look like for churches to begin practicing radical inclusion? What if we put a value on first making room for the “other?”

Radical Inclusion
Many are aware of my relationship with Matt Casper, co-author of Jim and Casper go to Church. Matt is an atheist, still Matt and I–along with others that are and have been part of the Collective–often discuss spirituality and it’s place in the world. Through including Matt, welcoming someone whose beliefs are quite contrary to ours, we have learned even more about our faith than we would have without him. I have told Matt that our friendship has made my faith stronger. He has pressed me to think about things that I am simply not challenged to by my fellow Christians. Our friendship is based on a common confession, we both admitted that we could be wrong about some things we believed. It started us on a path to listening to each other, being willing to self-critique and learn from each other. Matt and his co-author refer to this as “dialog over debate.”

Matt isn’t the only person that has had different perspectives on religion, sexuality or politics who have participated in our community life. Each time we have been stretched and our faith has grown deeper. Our Somali Muslim friends have shown us how privileged the Christian religion is perceived by many of the world’s poor. This forced us to ask ourselves how to rightly express and embody God’s preference for the poor. Our Buddhist friend exposed how shallow some of our spiritual practices were. His actions made us desire more space for the Holy Spirit to work in our lives. Our gay friends have shown us what it is to be hated by those that claim Christ. We have been challenged to ask just how defined by love we really are. Our Pagan friend opened our eyes to how much creation cries out in worship of it’s Creator, stirring a deeper appreciation and concern for the natural world within us. People of color in our midst have lovingly directed those of us that are of European heritage towards honest awareness of our privilege and access that others lack.

A willingness to listen and the opportunity to be heard can heal many wounds.

Broadening our acceptance of others does not have to equal shallow discipleship. On the contrary, we have often found that the “other” has often had a deeper appreciation for the call to Christ than those that have been raised in homogeneous, consumer-oriented Christian atmospheres. Referring to Matt again, he has often jokingly told me he isn’t a Christian because he’s too lazy. He has recognized that discipleship to Christ radically alters one’s lifestyle.

Co-creation
In The Source of Life, Jurgen Moltmann writes, “If Christianity is to become aware of what it is, we must abandon the pastoral church, which takes care of people, which is the usual form of the Western church. Instead, we have to call to life a Christian community church. Either we set about this church reform by ourselves, or it will be forced on us by the loss of church members.”

What Moltmann implies is that we have built a church system that is dependent upon the professional, in his words, this is the “pastoral church”. In this environment, the professional, the clergy provide spiritual goods and services to the many. Lay people become consumers and their faith, a casual hobby. What would it look like if we re-imagined all members as clergy–as those called to co-create Christian communities amidst the world?

I think we could start by reflecting on Paul’s words to the church in Corinth, “When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all…” Do our liturgies create space for all to participate rather than be spectators?

Some would think that this approach would simply bring chaos to church life. I don’t think so. Certainly, if we just open the floor without any sense of duty and responsibility for each other, things could get unhealthy quite fast. But if as Peterson interprets, we intend to each bring “something that will be useful for all” or as the ICA states, we each “accept the responsibilities of membership” than we have a metric for what it means to participate equally. At this point, intent rather than content takes precedence, which seems to line up with Jesus’ statements about the woman who washed his feet, or the widow’s coin.

Making space for all of those in a faith community to co-create Christian community addresses a variety of hang-up’s the Church has developed during the era of Enlightenment. It makes contextualizing the Gospel more feasible, it heightens our expectancy of those who call themselves disciples of Christ, it allows people of different backgrounds, life stage, status and capability to equally participate and while different, it is easier than having a paid leader do everything.

Next up: Reflecting on the ICA’s 2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to

A man named, Eusebius–who lived around 300 AD–is typically referred to as the “father of Church history.” Eusebius was also the biographer and eulogist of the most powerful man in the world at the time; Constantine, the emperor of Rome. So, it is clear that Eusebius was writing from a particular perspective and that it was certain to be favorable of his boss.

Can we assume that the history we read from writers such as Eusebius to be the only perspective? I don’t think so. We often find that those who wrote positively about the Church and it’s relationship to economic or political power to have been biased, neglecting much of the reality for common people during that era.

In A World History of Architecture, the authors write, “The adage ‘history is written by the winners’ is nowhere more strikingly illustrated than in the generation of Eusebius… Modern historians have caught Eusebius out in promoting his vision of unity in harmony at the expense of the messier reality called historical truth; Constantine’s Church was neither unified nor harmonious. Little wonder, then, that Eusibius’ vision of God’s edifice would nourish the architects–actual and metaphorical–of a Christian empire for a millennium to come.”

Were the voices and experiences of the losers ever documented? Sure. And just as Howard Zinn has shown, with a little bit of digging around, you can find the voices of the dissenters; those that were reluctant of the Church’s relationship to the state or market. It’s just that they’re usually harder to find.

I’ve decided to start posting every once in awhile on some of these “dissenters”. I’m calling it “A People’s History of the Church”. It’s a nod to Zinn and his approach to history. Of course, I’m not a historian, so this won’t be academic stuff. My desire to write these forthcoming posts comes from a conviction of mine. That conviction is that our history animates us. It provides a story to live into today. If we read history wrong, we live wrong. I want to live as best as possible and as I’ve read stories of Christians that have lived in contrast to the status quo I have found hope to live out my faith in ways that counter those that are popularized in our culture. I won’t be posting chronologically. I will be posting on things as I read, or pulling from past things I have read. And it will continue to be mixed with the other things we write about here on the Ecclesia Collective blog. If you have books, links, ideas, etc. please feel free to post them in the comments or even submit a story for us to post by emailing us at ecclesiasd [at] gmail [dot] com.

If this already has you interested, I would recommend you pick up Radical Faith by Mennonite author John Driver. This book is the closest thing to a people’s history of the Church that I have read yet. It’s not easy to find nor is it cheap. But it is worth it. Driver documents several dissenting Christian movements throughout history and, of course, he includes the Anabaptists. I would also recommend you read Water, Faith & Wood by my friend, Chris Smith. Chris does a great job familiarizing the common reader to the Early Church (approximately the first 3 centuries of the Church) as well as provide practical lessons for today from the life of the Early Church. Chris includes contemporary translations of a lot of Early Church texts in his book as well.

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to

One of the label’s two founders is Ian MacKaye. MacKaye was a member of the band that provided Dischord its first release, Teen Idles – a DC hardcore, straight edge, punk band. Not long after the demise of Teen Idles, MacKaye formed a new group, Minor Threat. For three intense years, Minor Threat played countless shows, touring across the nation and spreading their straight edge message. Straight edge, an ideal that grew rapidly during the 80′s era of punk and hardcore, encouraged abstinence from sex, drugs, smoking and alcohol. The proponents of straight edge encouraged punks to think clearly about social responsibility and personal development.

Four years after Minor Threat split up, Ian formed a new group, Fugazi. Labeled as a “post-punk” group, fusing elements of punk, dub and jazz, Fugazi has released seven albums, and toured extensively both nationally and internationally. Along the way, Fugazi and its label Dischord Records have defined words such “punk” and “indie” before they were trendy. Even with their great success, Fugazi has always charged only five dollars a ticket for a show. Dischord has consistently ensured that the bands on their label make a fair share of profits and provided fairly for record label staff. In a time when record prices soared, Dischord always sought to be frugal and fiscally responsible in order to keep their prices as low as possible so that young people with little money could afford their releases.

For the entire music industry (and beyond) Ian Mackaye has helped redefined success by refusing to tread the well-worn path. Through his identity as a musician and a business owner, Mackaye has defied market principles and creative definition. As Mackaye cries out during the refrain of “Merchandise,” the fourth track of Fugazi’s fifth release, Repeater, “You are not what you own!” Throughout his musical career, MacKaye has railed against the common consumer capitalist assumptions that many within Western culture depend upon.

But more than simply critiquing the system, Ian Mackaye has also created alternatives to it. We, as followers of Christ, could learn a thing or two from MacKaye’s example. Sometimes, we need to pause and ask ourselves, “What would Ian do?”

A Different Economy
More and more of us are realizing that our current economic paradigm of Newer! Bigger! Faster! is not working for most. And yet, at the same time, many Western churches seem to still exalt the “more is better” mentality that Bill McKibben critiques in his book, Deep Economy (Times Books, 2007). We live in a time when most function on a modality of scarcity. We collect more and more because we have been convinced that there is never enough.

In the Book of Acts, Saint Luke writes of the early church, “There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” Instead of scarcity, the Early Church practiced generosity, putting into practice the Jubilee and Sabbath principles that Jesus echoed at the inception of his ministry from Isaiah. They functioned on an economic paradigm of abundance. They were determined to make sure all had access to what they needed.

As MacKaye writes in his history of Dischord Records:

In the beginning it was basically a volunteer arrangement as there was no money to pay anyone, but by the early ’90s we were not only able to pay everyone, but also able to provide them with health insurance and other benefits. I’ve always considered this one of our most important achievements. Most businesses, including record labels, have used profits (or at least the fear of losing profits) as their guideline for operations. Because we have tried to approach the label as a mission of documentation as well as a community-based entity, we have managed to avoid many of the industry-standard practices. The fact that we are able to help support the people who work for us as well as pay royalties to the bands seems to be proof that such an approach is possible.

We must ask ourselves why this small punk record label’s version of economics looks more like the picture Scripture paints than ours does as the Church. Perhaps MacKaye’s example can help us, as followers of Christ, re-imagine what success looks like and help us reclaim the heritage of the Early Church.

Go Local
From its beginnings, Dischord Records has been deeply involved in its local community of Washington DC. For over 25 years, the label has documented the Washington DC music scene – including a new generation of punk kids whose formative years were spent listening to the original Dischord roster. Dischord has raised money for various local causes and concerns and has been involved in many DC area benefits and protests.

Working alongside like-minded people in their local community has been part of the Dischord ethos from their early days. Instead of competing with other record labels and artists, they focused instead on collaboration. This collaborative attitude has created a generative community; for example, Dischord provided the business model and even distribution for local DC label Simple Machines. In turn, Simple Machines published and sent out 10,000 copies of their Introductory Mechanic’s Guide to Putting out Records – a DIY how-to guide that explains the record manufacturing process in simple language.

As socially responsible people of faith, we are often concerned with the plight of people in need around the world – and rightfully so. But, at the same time, how are we actively pursuing the betterment of the neighborhood’s in which we live? As Rob Bell asked at the “Isn’t She Beautiful” local church conference, If your church disappeared tomorrow, who would protest? And, are we collaborating or competing with other local communities of faith?

Do It Yourself
When Ian MacKaye and Jeff Nelson started Dischord Records over two decades ago, they were just out of high school and lacked a college education. They did not wait for permission to promote what they saw as good music with an important message. Along the way, they assisted to empower other young people to pursue their passions as musicians, artists, activists, promoters, and writers. In the punk scene of Washington DC, and across the country, punk fanatics saw it as their duty to participate in whatever fashion they could.

The aforementioned Introductory Mechanic’s Guide to Putting out Records was originally part of a larger booklet released in conjunction with Dischord and Positive Force DC (a DC-area activist group that works for social change and youth empowerment) called You Can Do It, which covered topics such as how to organize an activist group or put on a show. The Mechanic’s Guide has been influential in a number of other ways, as described in the introduction:

This booklet is just a basic blueprint, and even though we write about putting out records or CDs, a lot of this is common sense. We know people who have used this kind of information to do everything from putting out a 7″ to starting an independent clothing label to opening recording studios, record stores, cafes, microbreweries, thrift shops, bookshops, and now thousands of start-up internet companies. Some friends have even used similar skills to organize political campaigns and rehabilitative vocational programs offering services to youth offenders in DC.

In the Western church, we have become painfully dependent upon a spiritual hierarchy. We have professionalized the idea of ministry – with the amateurs sitting back passively and watching the ordained professionals “do ministry” for them. It has been grossly misused by paid ministers and has been the excuse of many to treat discipleship to Christ as a casual hobby.

Author and environmental activist, Derrick Jensen has repeatedly said, “We need it all!” From elementary school teachers to activists willing to engage in civil disobedience, everyone is needed with their particular gifts and abilities in order to fight for their ecological cause. In 1 Peter 2, we are told that, as a people belonging to God, all of us are part of a “royal priesthood”. How do we as Christians need to reconsider our primary vocation of seeking the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven, as Jesus prayed, as our primary vocation? And like the early punk scene, find a place for everyone to contribute so that the church becomes a dynamic, creative force for good in our local communities, rather than simply a destination to consume religious goods and services.

Out of Step
In the same passage mentioned above from 1 Peter 2, Christians are titled, “strangers and aliens”, or what Rodney Clapp has called, “a peculiar people.” But if you walk into most religious bookstores you will more likely find symbols of our attempts to blur the lines between Christians and the majority of consumer culture participants. MacKaye has never had illusions of being just like any other artist and record label owner. He has shown confidence in what may be perceived as limitations: strictly about Washington DC, independent music. Christians would be wise to consider MacKaye’s posture with music to determine how we might follow the “narrow path” today.

The question many have asked is whether music can make a difference. Certainly, it can and does. For some of us that grew up in two camps that often seemed diametrically opposed to each other – punk rock and Christianity – without our musical roots, we have lost our faith. Individuals such as MacKaye and others within the national punk rock scene helped us redefine what it meant to be a follower of a First Century radical and gave us an imagination of how to live out our faith today.

Daniel So and Jason Evans are both faith community leaders and music enthusiasts living in San Diego, CA. They are currently working on a book discussing the intersection between punk culture and Christian spirituality. For more on the subject, read Jason’s article “Punk Rock Prophets” at RelevantMagazine.com.

While thinking about this, I began to think about something else: we often fail to look at mission from a feminine perspective… or at least the guys that dominate the missional conversation do.

The writings of theologians such as Leslie Newbigin, David Bosch and others has brought about a renewed interested in missiology. The result has brought upon the Church a fresh conviction–which is to be applauded. But one thing that continues to dominate the current imagination of missiology, and by that hampering its practical understanding for many within the Body, is its limitless attachment to masculine–even phallic–metaphors.

As a kid sitting in a pew during a Sunday evening service I remember listening to a missionary talk about the gospel “penetrating the dark heart of Africa”. Language like this has long impacted our imaginations of Church and its missional identity. In their book, Metaphors We Live By, Lakkoff and Johnson write, “[p]rimarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature.” And, “we act according to the way we conceive of things.” In regards to mission, our tendency towards what I view as “masculine” language has effected how we understand and go about the mission of the Church

When I think of mission I often begin with the Great Commission. This passage begins with the word, “Go…” This is where mission begins for most; it evokes a sense of forward motion, thrusting us into action. Much of the verbs used in regards to mission are often pro-active words such as building, going, or expanding. If using the image of a couple dancing, these types of words pose the missional church as leading the dance. But could it be that the New Testament writers intended a different kind of image? Were intended to be the partner being led? Read what George Hunsberger has to say about this in his chapter in Missional Church:

“… the grammar by which the New Testament depicts the reign of God cuts across the grain of these North American culture-bound ways of seeing things. The verbs to build and to extend are not found in the New Testament’s grammar for the reign of God. The announcement of God’s reign nowhere includes an invitation to go out and build it, nor to extend it. These are not New Testament ways of speaking about the reign of God.

The words most often used evoke quite a different spirit and therefore, a very different missional identity and engagement. The New Testament employs the words receive and enter. They come at times intertwined in the text…

The reign of God is something taken to oneself. It is a gift of God’s making, freely given. It calls for the simple, trusting act of receiving.”

For many of us, the idea of participating in the Missio Dei conjures images of leaving one place, going to another, and taking the gospel of the kingdom with us. But what this fails to recognize is that often times mission requires embracing the community we are a part of. Invitation and inclusion are radical aspects of the Gospel that are often forgotten when we continuously push forward, creating and building.

A more complete understanding of mission requires us to see that we are required to practice invitation and embrace as part of mission. When we talk about mission within a region, we cannot simply talk about going into the community and building the kingdom in the region. We need to be aware of the kingdom already at work in the city, waiting for our participation.

I have almost always seen the women in my life accomplish this kind of posture towards mission better than I. While I spend hours creating new ways to reach our neighborhood awaiting implementation, my wife, Brooke, meets people in the neighborhood, opens our home, welcomes people to our table and takes very ordinary interactions that often turn into radically redemptive stories Whenever I see this happen, I am forced to question my own intentions. Is my “building” a lack of trust in God? Sometimes, I’m certain that my wife’s trust in God and belief in the presence of the kingdom is much greater than my own. She is confident that she doesn’t need to create it, or make it happen. She knows that by simply living into the moment, God’s activity will be revealed.

Most men I know struggle with manifesting this aspect of mission. Whenever I am asked for a proposal for ministry or church planting, I wish I could simply write, “I am going to watch for the opportunities that already exist and participate in that.” I don’t think we’re ready for that yet. We need women who understand these elements more intuitively to teach us, guide us in being a missional people that know how to be missional in all ways. For the greater part of the history of the church, women have had to discover participating in God’s mission from the fringes, at home, and in the ordinary. But since we now stand at the end of Christendom and with it’s death the loss of it’s resources as well, the feminine nature of mission may have finally reached its moment.

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to Brooke and has two wonderful kids, Paige and Matt. He is currently a student at Fuller Seminary.