Well, I know that you receive more emails than I've ever thought about
having, but I had to ask you a question..
I see your work and direction as a unitive movement in Christianity to seriously engage our current world (including the cultural shifts we are experiencing in America). It seems the main thrust of your thinking asks us to transform the church into a church for-the-other--namely the world. I resonate with this direction. I've read a bit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and know that this was a theological direction for him as well.
But have you ever thought that this (considering the current position of the church--both it's past sins and links to Christendom--especially expressed through American religiosity) renewal direction just isn't enough? If it is more important that we perform the faith and only then begin to describe this performances (doctrine)...If it is more dangerous to keeping doing church without a radical break from the oppression/hegemony we have created before the world...then why don't we just shut everything down.
If deep ecclesiology happens irregardless of our institution called church then why not close the whole thing down. We can make a public statement (a confession of sorts) to the world and then go into silence. We move into something more praxis-oriented. Our need to publicize will be dropped and we will simply be 'worldly' followers of Jesus (Bonhoeffer). Maybe we could begin to first study and become people who live out of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. We would practice the arcane discipline--the discipline of the secret (another Bonhoeffer concept) in which we protect some of our most cherished treasures from profanation. We would do this not to be elite but because such treasures are (already) eroding(ed) away in meaning and significance. We would practice these treasures in secret because their purpose is to teach us how to live anyway. We would bring people into these secrets through initiation (Augustine did this with his catechism). A very special friend of mine wrote a master's thesis on this topic integrating the gospel of Mark, Bonhoeffer, and Augustine's catechism. If you would be interested I would love to ask his perrmission to send it to you.
A: I hear this question from a surprising number of people, which tells me it needs to be taken seriously. Let me offer my contrary opinions first: 1. Even if a few of us did this, the largest Christian bodies wouldn't (i.e. can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church shutting down?), which would make the shut-down appear to be another Protestant protest ... not worthless, but not the effect you're hoping for. 2. If we shut down all our institutions - colleges, denominations, mission agencies, etc. - many of them would need to be rebuilt the next day, as they fulfill important functions. 3. So many people are doing so much good through these organizations, so whatever gains might come through a shut-down would also have a high cost. 4. In many ways, what you're describing is what has launched the "restorationist" movements of Christian history (Brethren, Churches of Christ, Adventists, etc.). So far, each of these movements has not been able to deliver on the hope that inspired it, and the downsides have been considerable (along with the good that has been discovered and done).
On the other hand, I believe that many Christians can and should find ways of living the faith that are radically different - and along the lines of what you lay out in your question. If they do this in an "anti-institutional-church" mode, their influence on the institutional church will be slight; in fact, they may inspire a reaction in the institutions that take them farther in the opposite direction. But if they follow the lead of St. Patrick and St. Francis, by living in a radically new way while simultaneously speaking "blessing" to the church - the possibility is great for a lasting impact, in my opinion anyway.