My experience was that almost nothing that takes place “in church” (that should be an oxymoron) achieves this, and that any clergy/laity (or leader/follower) distinction exacerbates the problem.

Although the church I’m a member of is a (stereo?)typical large charismatic evangelical one, the leaders have (perhaps as much to their surprise as anyone’s) ‘released’ us into multifarious “Mission Shaped Communities”, where we are free to experiment with trying to be communities for others without institutional baggage. It’s a challenge, but my experience is that it’s a model that appears to have some mileage.

I.e. Can you convert this to a metaphor, possibly in contradistinction to another?

One phrase I picked up on was the church as ‘public’. At its very nature the call of the church is to be public. jesus was public in His ministry, much to the disturbance and annoyance of those around Him. Yet it was not His simple acts they felt uncomfortable with, it was their consequences in relation to the reaction of the public toward their posotions of power.

The term public to me suggests the existence of relationship. To be in public means to be in a relationship, in whatever form that takes. This reflects the existence of God as Trinity. He exists as relationship, modelling unity and holiness. As a church, we should then be modelling unity in everything we do. As individuals, we should also be modelling holiness, just as Jesus did when He was here on earth.

Whether we are in community within our groups of believers or within contemoprary society, we have a call to act out our lives of worship in response to the needs of the people around us. This reflects the traditional biblical view of worship as a political act, rather than a gathering of believers simply singing songs.

Within the institutions, it often seems to me the central issue is that individuals adopt the mores of the institution in order to gain esteem and self-justification, such that the continuity of the institution is essential to their psychological well-being. Often, too, individuals gain significant power or influence over others. Self-interest prevents the embrace of outward-looking, publicly oriented activities. The leaders who we may recognise as having authentic spiritual authority and depth are generally those who are not deriving their self-esteem from the institution. So, in conservative institutions such as churches, those who exercise true leadership either have to do so from the margins, as radicals, or somehow rise despite the institution to positions of influence. Making the same point the other way around, any leader who derives their authority on the basis of their status within the institution is automatically suspect.

Therefore the search for public presence - which I agree is vital - is naturally perceived as hostile to the interests of the institutions unless those involved adopt personal disciplines or communal disciplines that challenge the tendencies to institutional self-serving. This is always patchy but thank God such people exist, it does happen, and we all know many of them!

I think in some way places like the UK are secular enough, that for most people they are pre-christian. The Christian story means very little if nothing to them, and they encounter it no where.

Then a large number of christians are ‘post-church’ with their faith, moving into private God spaces.

So I think all these elements are situated together at present.