Update from Director Chris Backert
Bob Hyatt
April 30, 2015
I Know Who My Family Is …. And It Looks Like You

The last few years I’ve spent a lot of time with different Christian denominations. In fact, being bi-vocational, it’s one of my jobs.  Sometimes I am surprised at the places I find myself.  I’ve spoken in places where I walked in and a picture of Bishop Shelby Spong hung upon the wall and in others where they are still inclined to believe that the King James Version is the preemiment version of the Bible.  Most recently, doors have even opened among Catholics.  It is really an interesting day.

Along the way there are times when I feel more at home than others.  I always try to imagine myself “fitting” in each group I am with.  It helps me relate, communicate, and understand.  Yet, I always leave knowing – these might be my friends – but they are not my family.

I grew up with a very large extended family.  My dad had 6 brothers and sisters and most of them had an abnormally large number of children.  It was a wonderful community to grow up in.  There was a wonderful unity in our family, built around several common family traits.  Not everyone was the same by any means, and each person on the family tree had a unique role.  Yet, it was the important overlap of those uniquenesses grounded in a certain number of shared family traits that made it so easily life-giving.

Not long ago, I had three different people share with me what they perceive to be the identity of Ecclesia.  In no particular order here are some of the things they mentioned (they didn’t mention all the same things):

  • An intentional approach to discipleship
  • An openness to the mystery & activity of the Holy Spirit
  • A concern for justice filtered through the person of Jesus and the present kingdom
  • An important emphasis on community life
  • A more liturgical understanding of worship
  • A practical approach to mission locally
  • A leaning towards shared leadership and plurality
Now, not everyone has all of these traits. 

Not long ago I was with a denominational group that identifies itself as being built upon a “3-legged stool.”  An interesting conversation occurred during my time with them in which some people wanted to add a few legs to the stool.  Others were concerned that such inclusion would diminish their particular identity.  Some wanted to accent one leg.  This is no doubt a conversation that many “tribes” are having today as they wrestle with their future in light of the past.

What I love about the folks in Ecclesia is that I think they represent a sign of what the Holy Spirit is doing theologically and missiologically in our time.  There is an important collapse of our long-standing Christendom-birthed categories and a melding or fusion of something new (and previously impossible on a practical level) possible.  For instance, I’ve heard one leader in Ecclesia describe themselves as Catholic-Anabaptist.  What the heck is that?  They also happen to lean Wesleyan in terms of sanctification and are open to the work of the Spirit, but in more private than public exercise.  Someone else once told me, “I am a Free Church Anglican.”  They are also both reformed in some ways and a mystic in others.  What are we to make of all this?

I believe that while this may not look like our historical categories, communities like Ecclesia are cultivating, usually unintentionally, but by the work of the Spirit, a way forward in a new era.  If a ten-legged stool is what we need for maturity in Christ and the mission of God in our time – then bring me that stool!  I think most of you would sit there with me (even if you might personally feel most confident in 6 of those legs) and I’m glad that we could sit together.  And as we talk, pray, and work, may our collective future be built upon, but not limited to, our distinct pasts. 
-Chris Backert

Tithe.ly is Partnering with Ecclesia!

By Bob Hyatt • September 15, 2025
A New Ecclesia Network Benefit! 

An Ethical Response to Violence

By By Jim Pace • September 15, 2025
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, social media has been filled with perspectives, as is typically the case. I am reluctant to add mine as there seems to be no lack one way or the other. To be clear, this is not just about Charlie Kirk, this is about violence across the board. I did not feel led to write this because it was Charlie Kirk specifically, but rather another in a long and winding line of acts of violence, that my ministering at Va. Tech gives me a bit of personal experience with. But as I have just finished teaching two classes on Christian Ethics, and as I was encountering again the spread of responses from my Christian sisters and brothers, I felt led to look at this event through that lens. Ethics, at its base, seeks to answer the question, “What is better or worse? Good or bad?” As a follower of Jesus, this is what seems right to me… 1. We never celebrate harm. Whatever our disagreements, rejoicing at a shooting violates the bedrock claim that every person bears the imago Dei (Gen 1:27). Scripture is explicit: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Prov 24:17); “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44); “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). I don’t love blasting verses like this, but you cannot get away from them if you are reading the scriptures. 2. Moral responsibility sits with the shooter—full stop . Saying “his rhetoric got him shot” smuggles in a just-world logic that excuses violence. As a contextual theologian, I have an enormous amount of respect for the impact our various narratives have in shaping our understandings of the world around us. They are inescapable. But that is not what I am talking about here. Ideas can be wrong, harmful, or worth opposing vigorously, but vigilante ‘payback’ is never a Christian category. My primary gig is that of a consultant for churches and non-profits. Today, in my meetings and among friends, I have heard some variation of “He got what he deserved,” and “I vote for some very public justice for the shooter.” Both of these views speak of revenge; the follower of Jesus is called to lay these down as our Messiah did. Not asked to, told to. 3. Grief and outrage about gun violence are legitimate; schadenfreude is not . Channel the pain toward nonviolent, concrete action (policy advocacy, community intervention, survivor support), not dehumanization. Here are four thinkers who have had a profound impact on the Christian ethic I try to work out in this world. As I share them, three things are worthy of mention. One, I certainly do not claim to follow their guidance perfectly, and at times I do not even do it well, but they have all given me what seems like a Jesus-centered and faith-filled direction to move in. Second, I do not claim to speak for them in this particular matter; I am merely showing how my ethical lens has been formed. Third, clearly I am not dealing with all the components of our response to these types of violence, this is not a comprehensive treatment, merely the reflections in the moment. Stanley Hauerwas : “Christian nonviolence is not a strategy to rid the world of violence.” It’s part of following Jesus, not a tactic we drop when it’s inconvenient. Stanley Hauerwas, Walking with God in a Fragile World, by James Langford, editor, Leroy S. Rouner, editor N. T. Wright : “The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love.” Simply Good News: Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good. In other words, we answer evil without mirroring it. David Fitch : Our culture runs on an “enemy-making” dynamic; even “the political rally… depends on the making of an enemy. Don’t let that train your soul.” The Church of Us vs. Them. Sarah Coakley : Contemplation forms resistance, not passivity. For Coakley, sustained prayer trains perception and courage so Christians can resist abuse and give voice against violence (it’s not quietism). “Contemplation, if it is working aright, is precisely that which gives courage to resist abuse, to give voice against violence.” Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self. Coakley would say that far too often we react before we reflect. This is the problem that Fitch is getting at in much of his writing, that our culture actually runs on antagonisms, the conflict between us. We need to find a better way.