1. The Chambersburg First COG, by the virtue that it is a church, challenges the culture on a daily basis, our culture is one of no absolute truth yet that is what we profess. I know that based on the age range of my congregation there are people who continually question what the culture is doing, especially the youth of the culture. And finally, unfortunately we as the church often critique and look down upon the culture which only causes us to isolate ourselves that much more.
2. If we use the church at Antioch as our NT missional model, we can see that they were in a cross-cultural environment in the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were members. They definitely had an open mind or else they would not have allowed the Gentiles to worship with them. Paul, being the main driver for this church, continually referred back to the gospel of Jesus which was revealed to him on his journey to Damascus. In Acts we read that the believers were praising God on a regular basis (Acts 2:47, NIV). We also see in Acts how the people of the town, specifically the Jews, often stirred up the leaders against Paul and Barnabas, thereby causing them to not become too comfortable. However, in light of this many believed and were added to their numbers. All in all I would say that Hendricks' six points match up very nicely with the church at Antioch.
3. While in Iraq, I had the opportunity to attend the Gospel service one Sunday. A pastor friend of mine was the preacher, which is why I originally went, however, it was because of what I experienced that made me come back over and over again. We met in an old auditorium, so as you walked in you were at the top of the auditorium and had to walk down to the front. As soon as you entered you felt a sense of peace and love come over you. Everyone, no matter what rank or race, treated you like they had known you for ever and they loved to greet each other with hugs. Once the service started everyone there was focused on praising Jesus and giving him the glory. Due to the fact that we were all in uniform, eliminated the issue of pride over our clothes. Because the Army provided for all our needs we didn't collect an offering and so no one was worried about not giving too much or not enough. When people, myself included, got up to give their testimonies or offer some words of encouragement, you could tell that you were connecting with someone that day and that the Spirit had been apart of it and was there with you. Even though services were slated for an hour it was not unusual for us to go over on a regular basis. When you left you were truly refreshed and refilled and ready for whatever lay ahead for the coming week. I loved it very much and hope to be able to do something similar.
4. I think the Traditional model is based on the Jewish system of hierarchy and was thought as being beneficial considering, not many people were educated enough to read or understand the Bible. The Renewalist model came about because people began to get smarter and could now read and understand the Bible, so as a revolt, they no longer wanted to be told what to do, but rather tell those in charge what to do. However, in both models someone is always on top and someone is always on the bottom. In the Mission model both the congregation and the pastor are working together to influence the world. There is still a focal point, but this is merely there as a way of focusing the energy into on spot so as to have the greatest impact. Much in the way you focus sunlight through a magnifying glass in order to catch kindling on fire.
5. The only thing I disagree with is the shift from being clergy dominated to being laity oriented. I agree that more people in the church need to become more involved and not just at church but, everywhere they go and interact with non believers. How can we as Christians receive the gift of salvation and then sit idly by and not tell others? The point I don't agree upon is doing away with clergy. I think you still need to have someone who has been schooled, so as to provide credit to the work of the church. Unfortunately, people still look at titles or degrees as a basis for trusting or believing what someone has to say.
6. The group of people who meet on a regular basis, of being of like mind, in that they believe that Jesus was God's son, died on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day and also that the Bible is the living word of God, will hereby be called "the church" and will take to heart the Great Commission as set about in Matt 28:19-20. Though they are called "the church" they will in fact have no specific structure in which they meet. They will instead meet in places throughout town so as to cause non-believers to become curious about what they are doing and want to join. They will continually fellowship, pray, praise and break bread in order to deepen their sense of community, all the while encouraging and helping each other. In essence no matter where they are or what they are doing others will see "the church" in their deeds and actions.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Session 4: Tammie
Watson
Watson's recovered gospel is a gospel with teeth. It's no longer boiled down or simplified for an audience that doesn't want to hear what sinful wrecks they really are. It's a gospel with both personal and social elements. It is a gospel that returns Jesus to the center stage, where the entirety of his work and message are in focus. That Christ-centered message calls us to identify the idols in our culture as they are and remove them from their place that they will not longer represent a weak attempt at sharing God's divine status.
Ultimately, this gospel is a more enriched and full gospel than the gospel of personal salvation that has been so prevalent in recent years. It is a gospel that reminds us of God's concern for the poor and the outcast. It is also a gospel that reminds us that God's kingdom is coming and it is the role of the church now to be at work bringing that kingdom to earth just as Christ taught us.
Hall
It's significant that Hall presents moral authenticity first, as that seems to the the quest on which all the others hinge. If we do not live out the gospel in an open, holistic manner, our message often falls on deaf ears in the postmodern generation. Hall asks a profound question on page 208 when he writes, "How would Jesus speak to affluent young parents, caught between yuppiedom and genuine concern for their children's future and asking how to be 'good'?" A follow-up question might well be: Do we have the courage to speak to such seekers as Jesus spoke to the rich, young ruler in offering them the truth, no matter how difficult it may be to comprehend or, moreover, to follow?
Once moral authenticity is established, the other three quests framed by Hall can begin to find a form. The quest for community can be found in a congregation that has put away the masks and adopted a lifestyle characterized by moral authenticity. As we learn to grow in that community, we learn that we can't make it totally on our own and that we have to depend on others in some manner. Personally, the idea of the members of the community fulfilling the Pauline vision of the body with its members (as Hall describes it on 209) is intriguing. The Christian mission in the world can be greatly advanced through the creation of works of art that convey the gospel and can truly be considered works of art. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there's quite a bit of so-called Christian art that can be called kitschy at best or just dreadful, at worst.
In that community is must also be acceptable to have questions to which there are simply no answers this side of heaven, which brings us to Hall's third quest, that of the quest for transcendence and mystery. This has been a great revelation for me. When I first started working as a youth leader, I thought I needed to know all the answers and I thought the students wanted all the answers. At some point along the line, I realized that there are things about God that I simply do not know and began to be comfortable resting in those mysteries. More than that, I discovered that the students are naturally comfortable with the mystery. They are quite OK with an explanation that goes something to the effect of, "The Bible says thus and so and scholars think this or that, but in the end, only God knows." An ability to admit that we do not have all the answers connects back to the idea of moral authenticity because those to whom we are offering the gospel message can see that we, too , are still on the journey and have not arrived at some mythical destination.
The quest for meaning is fundamental to the message of the gospel. Through our mission and our congregations, we are pointing to the one who can offer meaning for our lives. In our congregations, we need to offer space for people to work through this quest for meaning and eventually come to know the One who gives our lives meaning.
West
West makes the case that the church is called, with the gospel, to confront secular pluralism with the truth claim of faith and to secular authorities with their responsibility before God. Like Europe, the United States draws on a heritage from the Enlightenment and share some of the same humanistic traits, but unlike Europe, America has its own set of special tensions and difficulties that arise from its unique history as a melting pot of different cultures. West traces the history of Christian settlement in the Americas in which the society was built in response to a living God and contends that we need to continue to rediscover various rights and freedoms in response to God, who holds all things together and brings reconciliation to all.
West then describes how, despite the prevalent pluralism in our society, there is an underlying ethos of Americans which, though hard to define, has created a tension between experience and divine revelation. In response, West calls for unity in the church which moves beyond human religion and returns the focus to Christ and his work in calling, forgiving and sanctifying.
Finally, West discusses power and the cynicism in America that it can be a vehicle for socially responsible actions. Though the church may have no pat answers on some of the questions West poses, we know that we serve a risen Lord who has brought all of these powers under his control and in him we have the hope of the restoration of all things that can become a basis for our mission in society.
Brownson
The idea that the gospel can be both local and cosmic is encouraging in the way that it appeals particularly to the postmodern generation. This generation seems to want to be part of a bigger story and this way of looking at the gospel accomplishes that. As a youth leader, I often hear the "true for you" argument. Brownson's hermeneutic was particularly helpful in bringing to the fore the way in which the New Testament canon centered on the gospel, while maintaining a local flavor to address the needs in particular locales. The same thing happens generationally (generally speaking), I believe, even in a suburban setting in which the people, for the most part, have a common history. Actually, I think it is more of a skipping generations thing. The students in my youth group often interpret Scriptures differently - perhaps through the postmodern lens - than their grandparents. Yet, both agree on the central issue of the Christian faith; that is, the saving identity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
To be honest, I never analyzed the way in which I interpret Scripture though, I could recognize some elements of that interpretative grid as I read Brownson. Unfortunately, I think for the volunteer youth leader (and others), our hermeneutic comes not from our own study or from a conscientious effort such as that presented by Brownson, but from a survival instinct in which we need to have lessons ready for a particular session and end up relying on pre-fabricated curricula that do not require a whole lot of interpretation on our part. Thankfully I recognized this failing in my own ministry and began to use these curricula as a framework upon which I build.
Dyrness
I have to say that when I got to the end of this essay, my very first thought was, "Huh?" So after more thought I realized there are many ways to apply his vernacular approach to youth ministry, but that it is in some ways already common in that field. It is hard to find a youth lesson, whether written by professionals or designed by the layperson, that does not ask a student to read a passage of Scripture and look for application to their lives and/or have the student offer an interpretation of what the passage is communicating. This has become especially true as some youth ministries incorporate such disciplines as lectio divinia which, in its essence is a vernacular approach that in the youth ministry may begin as an individual exercise, but concludes as a communal one as thoughts are shared and discussed in the group.
One thing, though, that I need to watch is the inclination to initially dismiss a student's interpretation (to clarify, that doesn't mean knocking them down with a harsh or dismissive word, but to acknowledge it and then proceed to explain what my own research and/or interpretation has uncovered). As Dyrness suggests on the last page of the essay, there may be students who are little theologians who just need the chance to be able to express themselves.
Satari
If there is one overarching distortion that the American cultural context has done to the gospel, it is that becoming a Christian means peace and prosperity without a hint of troubles - a mirror of the American desire for success as our culture defines it. It doesn't take a very detailed study of the Scriptures to find that is a horrible misconception as Jesus tells the disciples in John 16:33, for example, "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
Something about that one distortion stretches into other areas of life. For example, growing up in the church, it always seemed that the people at church had it all together and I wondered, at times, if there was something wrong with me or with my developing faith that I sometimes didn't have it all together. It seemed like there was an answer for every question, but I learned there are some questions to which there are no answers as Jesus told the disciples in Acts 1, it is not for us to know the times and dates set by the Father, to cite just one example of an unanswerable question.
Which brings me to another distortion of the gospel that I encountered as I grew up - that the gospel is intensely personal. I remember watching movies such as A Thief in the Night that scared the living daylights out of me because I thought I had accepted Jesus as my savior, but if I didn't do it right what would happen to me? I remember hearing altar call after altar call at different events. I remember hearing speakers ask what would happen if you were to die tonight. Certainly, there is a personal aspect to the gospel as no one can become a Christian through the efforts of another person, but this intense emphasis on saying a particular prayer or on end-times events and the whole, "Are you ready?" question was unnerving. Thankfully, as I grew in Christ, I found verses like James 1:27 or Isaiah 1:17 or Matthew 25 that revealed a fuller gospel.
Watson's recovered gospel is a gospel with teeth. It's no longer boiled down or simplified for an audience that doesn't want to hear what sinful wrecks they really are. It's a gospel with both personal and social elements. It is a gospel that returns Jesus to the center stage, where the entirety of his work and message are in focus. That Christ-centered message calls us to identify the idols in our culture as they are and remove them from their place that they will not longer represent a weak attempt at sharing God's divine status.
Ultimately, this gospel is a more enriched and full gospel than the gospel of personal salvation that has been so prevalent in recent years. It is a gospel that reminds us of God's concern for the poor and the outcast. It is also a gospel that reminds us that God's kingdom is coming and it is the role of the church now to be at work bringing that kingdom to earth just as Christ taught us.
Hall
It's significant that Hall presents moral authenticity first, as that seems to the the quest on which all the others hinge. If we do not live out the gospel in an open, holistic manner, our message often falls on deaf ears in the postmodern generation. Hall asks a profound question on page 208 when he writes, "How would Jesus speak to affluent young parents, caught between yuppiedom and genuine concern for their children's future and asking how to be 'good'?" A follow-up question might well be: Do we have the courage to speak to such seekers as Jesus spoke to the rich, young ruler in offering them the truth, no matter how difficult it may be to comprehend or, moreover, to follow?
Once moral authenticity is established, the other three quests framed by Hall can begin to find a form. The quest for community can be found in a congregation that has put away the masks and adopted a lifestyle characterized by moral authenticity. As we learn to grow in that community, we learn that we can't make it totally on our own and that we have to depend on others in some manner. Personally, the idea of the members of the community fulfilling the Pauline vision of the body with its members (as Hall describes it on 209) is intriguing. The Christian mission in the world can be greatly advanced through the creation of works of art that convey the gospel and can truly be considered works of art. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there's quite a bit of so-called Christian art that can be called kitschy at best or just dreadful, at worst.
In that community is must also be acceptable to have questions to which there are simply no answers this side of heaven, which brings us to Hall's third quest, that of the quest for transcendence and mystery. This has been a great revelation for me. When I first started working as a youth leader, I thought I needed to know all the answers and I thought the students wanted all the answers. At some point along the line, I realized that there are things about God that I simply do not know and began to be comfortable resting in those mysteries. More than that, I discovered that the students are naturally comfortable with the mystery. They are quite OK with an explanation that goes something to the effect of, "The Bible says thus and so and scholars think this or that, but in the end, only God knows." An ability to admit that we do not have all the answers connects back to the idea of moral authenticity because those to whom we are offering the gospel message can see that we, too , are still on the journey and have not arrived at some mythical destination.
The quest for meaning is fundamental to the message of the gospel. Through our mission and our congregations, we are pointing to the one who can offer meaning for our lives. In our congregations, we need to offer space for people to work through this quest for meaning and eventually come to know the One who gives our lives meaning.
West
West makes the case that the church is called, with the gospel, to confront secular pluralism with the truth claim of faith and to secular authorities with their responsibility before God. Like Europe, the United States draws on a heritage from the Enlightenment and share some of the same humanistic traits, but unlike Europe, America has its own set of special tensions and difficulties that arise from its unique history as a melting pot of different cultures. West traces the history of Christian settlement in the Americas in which the society was built in response to a living God and contends that we need to continue to rediscover various rights and freedoms in response to God, who holds all things together and brings reconciliation to all.
West then describes how, despite the prevalent pluralism in our society, there is an underlying ethos of Americans which, though hard to define, has created a tension between experience and divine revelation. In response, West calls for unity in the church which moves beyond human religion and returns the focus to Christ and his work in calling, forgiving and sanctifying.
Finally, West discusses power and the cynicism in America that it can be a vehicle for socially responsible actions. Though the church may have no pat answers on some of the questions West poses, we know that we serve a risen Lord who has brought all of these powers under his control and in him we have the hope of the restoration of all things that can become a basis for our mission in society.
Brownson
The idea that the gospel can be both local and cosmic is encouraging in the way that it appeals particularly to the postmodern generation. This generation seems to want to be part of a bigger story and this way of looking at the gospel accomplishes that. As a youth leader, I often hear the "true for you" argument. Brownson's hermeneutic was particularly helpful in bringing to the fore the way in which the New Testament canon centered on the gospel, while maintaining a local flavor to address the needs in particular locales. The same thing happens generationally (generally speaking), I believe, even in a suburban setting in which the people, for the most part, have a common history. Actually, I think it is more of a skipping generations thing. The students in my youth group often interpret Scriptures differently - perhaps through the postmodern lens - than their grandparents. Yet, both agree on the central issue of the Christian faith; that is, the saving identity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
To be honest, I never analyzed the way in which I interpret Scripture though, I could recognize some elements of that interpretative grid as I read Brownson. Unfortunately, I think for the volunteer youth leader (and others), our hermeneutic comes not from our own study or from a conscientious effort such as that presented by Brownson, but from a survival instinct in which we need to have lessons ready for a particular session and end up relying on pre-fabricated curricula that do not require a whole lot of interpretation on our part. Thankfully I recognized this failing in my own ministry and began to use these curricula as a framework upon which I build.
Dyrness
I have to say that when I got to the end of this essay, my very first thought was, "Huh?" So after more thought I realized there are many ways to apply his vernacular approach to youth ministry, but that it is in some ways already common in that field. It is hard to find a youth lesson, whether written by professionals or designed by the layperson, that does not ask a student to read a passage of Scripture and look for application to their lives and/or have the student offer an interpretation of what the passage is communicating. This has become especially true as some youth ministries incorporate such disciplines as lectio divinia which, in its essence is a vernacular approach that in the youth ministry may begin as an individual exercise, but concludes as a communal one as thoughts are shared and discussed in the group.
One thing, though, that I need to watch is the inclination to initially dismiss a student's interpretation (to clarify, that doesn't mean knocking them down with a harsh or dismissive word, but to acknowledge it and then proceed to explain what my own research and/or interpretation has uncovered). As Dyrness suggests on the last page of the essay, there may be students who are little theologians who just need the chance to be able to express themselves.
Satari
If there is one overarching distortion that the American cultural context has done to the gospel, it is that becoming a Christian means peace and prosperity without a hint of troubles - a mirror of the American desire for success as our culture defines it. It doesn't take a very detailed study of the Scriptures to find that is a horrible misconception as Jesus tells the disciples in John 16:33, for example, "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
Something about that one distortion stretches into other areas of life. For example, growing up in the church, it always seemed that the people at church had it all together and I wondered, at times, if there was something wrong with me or with my developing faith that I sometimes didn't have it all together. It seemed like there was an answer for every question, but I learned there are some questions to which there are no answers as Jesus told the disciples in Acts 1, it is not for us to know the times and dates set by the Father, to cite just one example of an unanswerable question.
Which brings me to another distortion of the gospel that I encountered as I grew up - that the gospel is intensely personal. I remember watching movies such as A Thief in the Night that scared the living daylights out of me because I thought I had accepted Jesus as my savior, but if I didn't do it right what would happen to me? I remember hearing altar call after altar call at different events. I remember hearing speakers ask what would happen if you were to die tonight. Certainly, there is a personal aspect to the gospel as no one can become a Christian through the efforts of another person, but this intense emphasis on saying a particular prayer or on end-times events and the whole, "Are you ready?" question was unnerving. Thankfully, as I grew in Christ, I found verses like James 1:27 or Isaiah 1:17 or Matthew 25 that revealed a fuller gospel.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Session #4
*According to Watson, what is the recovered gospel?
The recovered gospel is the whole enchilada…the past, present and future. The recovered gospel communicates the life and sacrificial death of Christ along with his resurrection as the elements of the past. It also connects to the present by making a relationship with God now possible because of the atoning death of Christ. The recovered gospel would go one step further though in being the gospel of Jesus rather that just the gospel about Jesus. This gospel of Jesus exposes the truth of a promise of good news for the poor, release for captives, sight for the blind, and freedom for the captives (Luke 4:18-19). I guess it is an assurance that one day things will be different, very, very different, and you will be a part of it. This seems to expose some sort of necessity for the church to be in constant preparation for the coming of Christ and the ultimate rule of God. There is the idea that at some point time and eternity will be fused into a glorious new creation (p. 193). I like this idea of transitioning from “Be saved!” to “Be ready!” but I am concerned will how it might be communicated. I guess I am still digesting it, but it rings with some degree of pressure and fear of an impending day to come. I think I am still struggling to digest this concept (I have only read Watson’s article, so maybe after reading the other five articles in this assignment I may get it more), but the top two full paragraphs in p. 194 have me a bit lost. Would an effective communication of the transformation of the world someday really tremendously impact the American culture? Does the American culture really care that much about tomorrow, enough to give up their small pleasures in the present for the promise of some cosmic reconciliation in the future? I’m not sure, but I am curious.
*Hall presents 4 worldly quests, how do these issues relate to the gospel, our mission, and our congregation?
I think that the quest for moral authenticity becomes the foundation and security of a congregation. It should be rooted in the truth of the gospel, and as a result the gospel should be the foundation of the congregation. I would say that during the mission, the quest for moral authenticity should be exposed. It is important to note here that moral authenticity will not necessarily be exposed through the mission of the congregation, but rather that a QUEST for that moral authenticity. There should be a genuine wrestling with the tension between the truth and demands of the gospel and where we are as Christians. In addition, I believe this genuine desire for authenticity is what attracts people to the gospel message, and should be what attracts people to the church. Even though the church isn’t perfect, in its quest for true obedience to the call of God the hope is that it will separate itself from cultural norms.
For my generation (Gen X), the desire for, and pursuit of genuine community is a tremendous draw. Not only does it inform the congregation, but there is also a desire to connect relationally with the Trinity, and as a result understand oneself so that honest interaction can exist with others. I believe that a true understanding of oneself is a crucial piece necessary to develop and sustain community. This quest also becomes a shared experience that fosters the development of deeper relationships. I agree with Paul’s use of the body to describe the church, and feel as though living as the body will draw the attention of an increasingly independent culture.
The quest for transcendence and mystery is a bit more difficult to connect. I believe it can be the intangible that woos people to the message of the gospel, the church, and to study and work at the mission. I believe it is true that we will never completely grasp the whole truth of the gospel, but rather than inhibit the pursuit of the gospel completely for many it enhances it. I do believe that for many people thoughts of transcendence and the frustration of mystery repel them from a deeper pursuit of depth. People are lazy and scared and would like everything explained for the most part. As they are a result of our cultural influences, transcendence and mystery invoke fear or apathy, but for a group it is exactly what drives them.
I think that meaning can be closely connected to the moral authenticity. People what to understand what is going on n their lives. I believe that people (whether in the church or otherwise) seek to understand what is going on in the world, and how their story fits into it. Especially today, we develop with an understanding that things can be understood. Because of many of the advances in science and technology, we expect to have something explained. The mental muscles that allows us to accept that there will be no satisfactory explanation of something have atrophied. When things can’t be explained, we just respond by desiring more thorough investigation. Someone, somewhere must know the meaning, and when we admit to the fact that that someone is God, it provides our answers.
*Describe West's thesis statement and expansion of it in his article.
West is expanding upon Newbigin’s thesis that NA has built us a degree of resistance (I paraphrase) to the gospel message which makes it more resistant than a society never exposed the gospel at all. It is as though America has been given a vaccination of the gospel message and has morphed in such a way as to build up immunities to the message of the gospel. As west assures us though, America is not without hope. America is different, but there are still ways in which the gospel can infect our society. He explores the ways in which our societal makeup actually make us vulnerable to infection by the gospel message. The fact that our political system is based upon the convictions of present society, the existence of a spiritual ethos, and hope that human power can be steered to serve the interests of God. There is hope for the gospel in out present age.
*Critique Brownson's missional hermeneutic. How does his model correspond with your current hermeneutical grid?
Okay, I have to admit that Brownson lost me a bit here, even to the point where I think I lost my location on my own hermeneutical grid. However, he finished strong, and reminded me how simple a missional hermeneutic can be. I believe that the truth of the gospel can be true the particular as well as the universal. There is inevitably going to be some sort of connection to people individually, but a string individual connection does not discount a connection to the universal. I believe it places us properly with in the greater context when we recognize that both are true simultaneously. I resonate with his conviction to speak the truth in love and to communicate the truth of the gospel message, and I am also puzzled by it. How can we interpret the gospel message in such a way that it does connect with the universal and the particular? There does need to be a move of the Spirit to draw us towards that interpretation.
*Dyrness provides a missilogical theology to the fray, how would you apply his vernacular approach to your ministry context?
I think the vernacular approach is where the gospel message must begin, but it is our responsibility as leaders within the church to make sure it doesn’t remain there for our church. Initially we must explain the gospel in such a way that it does make sense in a person’s specific situation simply because that is what they understand. However, we must not allow it to remain there, but must continue to inspire others to examine the gospel message in such a way that they gain a deeper understanding (and appreciation hopefully) to the universality of the gospel message, and their connection to humanity worldwide. In my present context it is best done when people in our congregation purposefully prepare and share their faith with others. Many times a person’s evangelistic technique in our church is simply to bring friends to a church service. This eliminates their responsibility and opportunity to deepen their understanding of the principles of the gospel message in such a way as to tweek the vernacular message of the gospel so that another might understand it without distorting the message itself. The opportunity for short term missions, and cross cultural ministry further expands that opportunity.
*Satari begins to unravel the tangled gospel. What are the tangles, barriers, and distortions that your cultural context has done to the gospel?
I think my current cultural context has neutered the intensity of the gospel because of the relative acceptance of it as a harmless option in the endless buffet of interests today. I believe the distortion that is greatest is the prevailing idea that a relationship with God will do something for you, and that God will meet you exactly where you happen to be. While I certainly believe that to be true, God is also not satisfied with us remaining there. Unfortunately, that is when discomfort enters in through what we would call spiritual growth. The difficulty here is that the relationship began with God being the ultimate source of comfort and assurance. How then can He desire for us to do something that seems to be uncomfortable? A genuine relationship with God is founded upon submission to Him and a desire to trust that we are unholy and must be drawn into a place of obedience in accordance to His desires, not our own. The tangle is that a relationship with God through Christ is all about warm-fuzzies.
The recovered gospel is the whole enchilada…the past, present and future. The recovered gospel communicates the life and sacrificial death of Christ along with his resurrection as the elements of the past. It also connects to the present by making a relationship with God now possible because of the atoning death of Christ. The recovered gospel would go one step further though in being the gospel of Jesus rather that just the gospel about Jesus. This gospel of Jesus exposes the truth of a promise of good news for the poor, release for captives, sight for the blind, and freedom for the captives (Luke 4:18-19). I guess it is an assurance that one day things will be different, very, very different, and you will be a part of it. This seems to expose some sort of necessity for the church to be in constant preparation for the coming of Christ and the ultimate rule of God. There is the idea that at some point time and eternity will be fused into a glorious new creation (p. 193). I like this idea of transitioning from “Be saved!” to “Be ready!” but I am concerned will how it might be communicated. I guess I am still digesting it, but it rings with some degree of pressure and fear of an impending day to come. I think I am still struggling to digest this concept (I have only read Watson’s article, so maybe after reading the other five articles in this assignment I may get it more), but the top two full paragraphs in p. 194 have me a bit lost. Would an effective communication of the transformation of the world someday really tremendously impact the American culture? Does the American culture really care that much about tomorrow, enough to give up their small pleasures in the present for the promise of some cosmic reconciliation in the future? I’m not sure, but I am curious.
*Hall presents 4 worldly quests, how do these issues relate to the gospel, our mission, and our congregation?
I think that the quest for moral authenticity becomes the foundation and security of a congregation. It should be rooted in the truth of the gospel, and as a result the gospel should be the foundation of the congregation. I would say that during the mission, the quest for moral authenticity should be exposed. It is important to note here that moral authenticity will not necessarily be exposed through the mission of the congregation, but rather that a QUEST for that moral authenticity. There should be a genuine wrestling with the tension between the truth and demands of the gospel and where we are as Christians. In addition, I believe this genuine desire for authenticity is what attracts people to the gospel message, and should be what attracts people to the church. Even though the church isn’t perfect, in its quest for true obedience to the call of God the hope is that it will separate itself from cultural norms.
For my generation (Gen X), the desire for, and pursuit of genuine community is a tremendous draw. Not only does it inform the congregation, but there is also a desire to connect relationally with the Trinity, and as a result understand oneself so that honest interaction can exist with others. I believe that a true understanding of oneself is a crucial piece necessary to develop and sustain community. This quest also becomes a shared experience that fosters the development of deeper relationships. I agree with Paul’s use of the body to describe the church, and feel as though living as the body will draw the attention of an increasingly independent culture.
The quest for transcendence and mystery is a bit more difficult to connect. I believe it can be the intangible that woos people to the message of the gospel, the church, and to study and work at the mission. I believe it is true that we will never completely grasp the whole truth of the gospel, but rather than inhibit the pursuit of the gospel completely for many it enhances it. I do believe that for many people thoughts of transcendence and the frustration of mystery repel them from a deeper pursuit of depth. People are lazy and scared and would like everything explained for the most part. As they are a result of our cultural influences, transcendence and mystery invoke fear or apathy, but for a group it is exactly what drives them.
I think that meaning can be closely connected to the moral authenticity. People what to understand what is going on n their lives. I believe that people (whether in the church or otherwise) seek to understand what is going on in the world, and how their story fits into it. Especially today, we develop with an understanding that things can be understood. Because of many of the advances in science and technology, we expect to have something explained. The mental muscles that allows us to accept that there will be no satisfactory explanation of something have atrophied. When things can’t be explained, we just respond by desiring more thorough investigation. Someone, somewhere must know the meaning, and when we admit to the fact that that someone is God, it provides our answers.
*Describe West's thesis statement and expansion of it in his article.
West is expanding upon Newbigin’s thesis that NA has built us a degree of resistance (I paraphrase) to the gospel message which makes it more resistant than a society never exposed the gospel at all. It is as though America has been given a vaccination of the gospel message and has morphed in such a way as to build up immunities to the message of the gospel. As west assures us though, America is not without hope. America is different, but there are still ways in which the gospel can infect our society. He explores the ways in which our societal makeup actually make us vulnerable to infection by the gospel message. The fact that our political system is based upon the convictions of present society, the existence of a spiritual ethos, and hope that human power can be steered to serve the interests of God. There is hope for the gospel in out present age.
*Critique Brownson's missional hermeneutic. How does his model correspond with your current hermeneutical grid?
Okay, I have to admit that Brownson lost me a bit here, even to the point where I think I lost my location on my own hermeneutical grid. However, he finished strong, and reminded me how simple a missional hermeneutic can be. I believe that the truth of the gospel can be true the particular as well as the universal. There is inevitably going to be some sort of connection to people individually, but a string individual connection does not discount a connection to the universal. I believe it places us properly with in the greater context when we recognize that both are true simultaneously. I resonate with his conviction to speak the truth in love and to communicate the truth of the gospel message, and I am also puzzled by it. How can we interpret the gospel message in such a way that it does connect with the universal and the particular? There does need to be a move of the Spirit to draw us towards that interpretation.
*Dyrness provides a missilogical theology to the fray, how would you apply his vernacular approach to your ministry context?
I think the vernacular approach is where the gospel message must begin, but it is our responsibility as leaders within the church to make sure it doesn’t remain there for our church. Initially we must explain the gospel in such a way that it does make sense in a person’s specific situation simply because that is what they understand. However, we must not allow it to remain there, but must continue to inspire others to examine the gospel message in such a way that they gain a deeper understanding (and appreciation hopefully) to the universality of the gospel message, and their connection to humanity worldwide. In my present context it is best done when people in our congregation purposefully prepare and share their faith with others. Many times a person’s evangelistic technique in our church is simply to bring friends to a church service. This eliminates their responsibility and opportunity to deepen their understanding of the principles of the gospel message in such a way as to tweek the vernacular message of the gospel so that another might understand it without distorting the message itself. The opportunity for short term missions, and cross cultural ministry further expands that opportunity.
*Satari begins to unravel the tangled gospel. What are the tangles, barriers, and distortions that your cultural context has done to the gospel?
I think my current cultural context has neutered the intensity of the gospel because of the relative acceptance of it as a harmless option in the endless buffet of interests today. I believe the distortion that is greatest is the prevailing idea that a relationship with God will do something for you, and that God will meet you exactly where you happen to be. While I certainly believe that to be true, God is also not satisfied with us remaining there. Unfortunately, that is when discomfort enters in through what we would call spiritual growth. The difficulty here is that the relationship began with God being the ultimate source of comfort and assurance. How then can He desire for us to do something that seems to be uncomfortable? A genuine relationship with God is founded upon submission to Him and a desire to trust that we are unholy and must be drawn into a place of obedience in accordance to His desires, not our own. The tangle is that a relationship with God through Christ is all about warm-fuzzies.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Session #4: Rock Daddy
1. According to Watson, the recovered gospel is the message of what Christ has done for us. It is the gospel "of" Jesus and not the gospel "about" Jesus.
2. Moral Authority is what people are seeking, therefore our mission should be to be able to relate the gospel which represents the ultimate Moral Authority to people. As far as our congregations go, I think it is a fine line most Christians walk between being morally authentic verses not judging others who struggle with certain aspects. Case in point is Ted Haggard. Here is someone who was doing so much good, but as soon as he reveals he is human and sins, Christians all over begin to dis him and shun him, instead of supporting him and helping him through his issues.
Meaningful Community is what I would consider the ideal in which we should strive for. Just as Hall says, "the pursuit of individual freedom and personal aggrandizement has been...driven to it absolute limits." (pg 209) Therefore, our congregations should be striving to over come those barriers by openly presenting the gospel.
Transcendence and Mystery can be seen throughout the gospel and are often the reasons people bring up to not believe the validity of the Bible. However, if we as individuals can present the gospel and then be able to relate it to something current I think we will have a better job of convincing nonbelievers.
Meaning is so ingrained in each of us as humans, that I think we are born with it. Look at how children play dress up, looking for different professions (doctor, policeman, fireman, etc.) or people to be (Superman, Batman, Robin Hood, etc.) In college, we struggle with what to major in, at least I did. Meaning is constantly at the back of our minds. But as Christians we know where our meaning comes from, Jesus. Therefore, we need to rely on that knowledge as we share the gospel with others, so we can not only tell them but also show them.
3. West's thesis is this:
"The church is therefore called, with its gospel, no to reestablish the traditional Christendom but to confront the dogmas of secular pluralism with the truth claim of faith, and the secular authorities with their responsibility before God." (pg. 215) In essence he is stating that we as Christians need to address not only the issues that face our culture but also those in power. He goes on to explain that America has become what it is by the Political covenant, ethos and the power. He explains that the political covenant has come about due to a "break in traditional Christendom." (pg. 216) The ethos he says has always been there, however, it is difficult to define due to the fact that it comes from God, but it is interpreted and defined by man, thereby creating tension amount people. He feels that because of our history we as a country have assumed the power position and therefore, believe we will always have it because of science, technology and economics.
All in all he paints a dire picture, however, he feels that if we are to over come the issues we need to merely present the truth of the gospel and behave in accordance with God's will and we will have a greater impact.
4. I liked how Brownson stated that missional hermeneutics recognizes that due to the fact we are all different individuals we will all interpret the Bible differently. I would go even further to say that based on the stage we are in, in our spiritual walk will also dictate what the Holy Spirit reveals to us when we read scripture. Since I have started seminary, I have found numerous passages that seem so alive and new to me, yet I know I've read them many times in the past.
I did not agree with him when he stated that as individuals we read a passage, interpret it and as we discuss it with someone else we realize we were wrong in our interpretation. I find this contradicts what he said earlier when he said that as individuals we will each interpret the Bible differently. I guess where I draw the line is if someone is strictly taking verses out of context and not looking at any of the background for the verse, then yes they are incorrectly interpreting the Bible. However, if someone has put the time and effort into studying what was being said then, I think that it is possible for the scripture to speak differently to them verses someone else.
At this stage in my Christian walk I welcome others interpretation of scripture and I love to discuss what people think or feel about scripture, however, I am very quick to shy away from a discussion with someone who is not open minded to my or others interpretation and only want s to present their own. "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." Just as in 1 Cor 12:12, I believe there is one word of God , but many ways in how it impacts us.
5. I feel that Dyrness' vernacular theology could easily be applied to my ministry context. I say this because I have a strong sense that God is calling me to be a missionary here in the United States. Based on all we have read Dyrness' three aspects: communal; created by beliefs/practices/context; point of view of the community are what I am going to need in order to be able to connect and relate to those I am trying to reach.
6. The culture I was raised in definitely tainted or skewed how I viewed the gospel. Being raised in the Church of Christ, we never had any musical instruments. This was based on scriptures such as Mark 14:26, 1 Cor 14:15, Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16. All of which refer to singing, not playing instruments while praising God. We also had communion every week, based on Acts 2:42. The irony I now see is that as a church we had merely been following only certain passages instead of taking it all as one. I think the challenge we face when we have small groups is that unless we intentionally intermingle denominations, we will always resort back to what we initially learned or were taught. As an example, I know that the men's group I attend on Wednesday morning is much more stimulating due to the fact that there are at least four different denominations present, verses the men's group I attend on Wednesday nights at my home church which is made solely of COG members. I think that by staying with what we know we subconsciously limit ourselves from seeking/pushing/asking others. We assume everyone is on the same page. But by integrating different philosophies we, again subconsciously, force ourselves to seek/push/ask others so we can understand where they are coming from.
2. Moral Authority is what people are seeking, therefore our mission should be to be able to relate the gospel which represents the ultimate Moral Authority to people. As far as our congregations go, I think it is a fine line most Christians walk between being morally authentic verses not judging others who struggle with certain aspects. Case in point is Ted Haggard. Here is someone who was doing so much good, but as soon as he reveals he is human and sins, Christians all over begin to dis him and shun him, instead of supporting him and helping him through his issues.
Meaningful Community is what I would consider the ideal in which we should strive for. Just as Hall says, "the pursuit of individual freedom and personal aggrandizement has been...driven to it absolute limits." (pg 209) Therefore, our congregations should be striving to over come those barriers by openly presenting the gospel.
Transcendence and Mystery can be seen throughout the gospel and are often the reasons people bring up to not believe the validity of the Bible. However, if we as individuals can present the gospel and then be able to relate it to something current I think we will have a better job of convincing nonbelievers.
Meaning is so ingrained in each of us as humans, that I think we are born with it. Look at how children play dress up, looking for different professions (doctor, policeman, fireman, etc.) or people to be (Superman, Batman, Robin Hood, etc.) In college, we struggle with what to major in, at least I did. Meaning is constantly at the back of our minds. But as Christians we know where our meaning comes from, Jesus. Therefore, we need to rely on that knowledge as we share the gospel with others, so we can not only tell them but also show them.
3. West's thesis is this:
"The church is therefore called, with its gospel, no to reestablish the traditional Christendom but to confront the dogmas of secular pluralism with the truth claim of faith, and the secular authorities with their responsibility before God." (pg. 215) In essence he is stating that we as Christians need to address not only the issues that face our culture but also those in power. He goes on to explain that America has become what it is by the Political covenant, ethos and the power. He explains that the political covenant has come about due to a "break in traditional Christendom." (pg. 216) The ethos he says has always been there, however, it is difficult to define due to the fact that it comes from God, but it is interpreted and defined by man, thereby creating tension amount people. He feels that because of our history we as a country have assumed the power position and therefore, believe we will always have it because of science, technology and economics.
All in all he paints a dire picture, however, he feels that if we are to over come the issues we need to merely present the truth of the gospel and behave in accordance with God's will and we will have a greater impact.
4. I liked how Brownson stated that missional hermeneutics recognizes that due to the fact we are all different individuals we will all interpret the Bible differently. I would go even further to say that based on the stage we are in, in our spiritual walk will also dictate what the Holy Spirit reveals to us when we read scripture. Since I have started seminary, I have found numerous passages that seem so alive and new to me, yet I know I've read them many times in the past.
I did not agree with him when he stated that as individuals we read a passage, interpret it and as we discuss it with someone else we realize we were wrong in our interpretation. I find this contradicts what he said earlier when he said that as individuals we will each interpret the Bible differently. I guess where I draw the line is if someone is strictly taking verses out of context and not looking at any of the background for the verse, then yes they are incorrectly interpreting the Bible. However, if someone has put the time and effort into studying what was being said then, I think that it is possible for the scripture to speak differently to them verses someone else.
At this stage in my Christian walk I welcome others interpretation of scripture and I love to discuss what people think or feel about scripture, however, I am very quick to shy away from a discussion with someone who is not open minded to my or others interpretation and only want s to present their own. "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." Just as in 1 Cor 12:12, I believe there is one word of God , but many ways in how it impacts us.
5. I feel that Dyrness' vernacular theology could easily be applied to my ministry context. I say this because I have a strong sense that God is calling me to be a missionary here in the United States. Based on all we have read Dyrness' three aspects: communal; created by beliefs/practices/context; point of view of the community are what I am going to need in order to be able to connect and relate to those I am trying to reach.
6. The culture I was raised in definitely tainted or skewed how I viewed the gospel. Being raised in the Church of Christ, we never had any musical instruments. This was based on scriptures such as Mark 14:26, 1 Cor 14:15, Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16. All of which refer to singing, not playing instruments while praising God. We also had communion every week, based on Acts 2:42. The irony I now see is that as a church we had merely been following only certain passages instead of taking it all as one. I think the challenge we face when we have small groups is that unless we intentionally intermingle denominations, we will always resort back to what we initially learned or were taught. As an example, I know that the men's group I attend on Wednesday morning is much more stimulating due to the fact that there are at least four different denominations present, verses the men's group I attend on Wednesday nights at my home church which is made solely of COG members. I think that by staying with what we know we subconsciously limit ourselves from seeking/pushing/asking others. We assume everyone is on the same page. But by integrating different philosophies we, again subconsciously, force ourselves to seek/push/ask others so we can understand where they are coming from.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Session #2: Jon
*Analyze the church you attend in terms of Van Gelder's typology of churches in American Life.
Van Gelser’s 5 rules (pg. 57) seem like something I need to present at out next congregational meeting. In response to Van Gelder’s typology of churches, the church in which I serve is a combination of the village (reflective of when it was founded:1835) with a lingering Seekers centers approach that has remained as a result of a significant growth period of the church. Since that growth period in the 80’s the church has split and decreased in numbers to about half. We are a long established church that is hovering around 100 in attendance. Although I would like to read more than just the chart on page 66 to learn about the village church, because we could just as likely be the family suburban church. Our church is very family centered, but hasn’t reaped the benefits of the generational expansion in recent years. It does seem as though we have a number of families that have a connection to our church, and that there is always one person or couple that is involved in the life of our church. Meanwhile the rest of their family is connected, but much of their loyalty it to the family, and not the church (or the Lord for that matter).
*What is your response to Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional?
I have a difficult time understanding to what the term “Christendom” specifically refers. As a result is it difficult to agree or disagree with this statement completely. I would agree with the statement that the church as a whole has lost its missional focus overall, but I also believe that is because we may have a limited view of what it means to be missional. I think traditionally we think of missional as presenting the truth of the Gospel with people that have never heard it before. Today, everyone has heard it, and it is the church’s responsibility to explain and possibly re-educate people about the truth in Christ. The difficulty here is that mere words don’t work. Anyone can say anything, but people won’t believe until they experience it today. As a result there is a stronger emphasis on welcoming others into a community (by some churches). The difficult thing here is to distinguise between the churches that are truly missional and desire to connect with culture in such a way as to help express themselves, and the ones that draw a line around their church and expect visitors to behave a certain way once they cross it. So, I would agree that thc church is not as missional as it once was, but that in order for a chuch to be missional it may need to be very different from traditional definitions of missional.
*Discuss your reflection on Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture.
Okay, Kaiser’s essay was solid, but a bit tough to swallow. I appreciate his development of the definitions of secularization and how it has evolved in western culture, but in relation to the question here, I believe we cannot determine the future trends conclusively. I believe it is very safe to say that the world is in constant flux and that the idea that our culture’s current relationship with God will remain as it is indefinitely will not continue indefinitely. We can look back at history and see that different cultures’ relationships with the supernatural ebb and flow. I believe ours is the same, and as Christians we can be a part of determining the ebb and/or flow.
*Flowing with Van Gelder's discussion of Postmodernism, how do we participate in God's mission in our current culture? What is the worldview of the gospel? Premodern, Modern, or Postmodern? How does conversion relate to postmodern deconversion?
I love this, because it is such an easy thing to say, but such a difficult thing to do. Similar to Van Gelder’s comments (p. 55) that it is a lot easier to say the church must critique its cultural context, than it is to actually conduct such a critique. Following along his comments on p. 137, I think we need to (1) establish an historical/cross-cultural perspective in our churches, (2) present a perspective of life that has depth and substance mediated through an integrated understanding of thought, experience and place, and (3) live and model unity within the Body of Christ in order to participate in God’s mission in our current culture. Basically we need to lead people through the difficult process of transitioning from a worldview shaped by the postmodern culture into a Christian/Biblical worldview. It is there, we just need to teach and model it.
*Hiebert provides a systems grid to analyze our culture. What is the mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual?
In stealing from H. Richard Niebuhr (Christ and Culture), I believe the mission of the church is to be transformative of the cultural systems that exist. I believe the first step of this is involvement in these systems, followed by careful analysis (because not all societal structures are evil p. 156) and we need to be engaged enough in these systems to diagnose them. The next step is to work towards being an agent of transformation in these systems. This could result in a lifetime of frustration and agony (and apparent failure), but I believe it is how we are called to engage. I do believe there are times in which a person will need to remove themselves and re-engage with these systems, and that there are also people that are called by God to teach and encourage those that are more directly involved, but I believe the ultimate goal of Christians should be to transform the culture in which they exist.
*Reflect on the symbols you encounter in your culture, local church, and the gospel. Discuss their meaning and identity in your life. For example, I come from Amish background; a horse & buggy symbolize a worldview and lifestyle that means faith and faithfulness for me. Today, my DeRosa bicycle, contemplative pottery and candles, and Taize music symbolize some similar values, identity & worldview as an Anabaptist "Resident Alien."
I have adopted a new technique recently in reading people, and myself for that matter. Take a look at the desktop on someone’s computer. As people are becoming more and more reliant upon their personal computers in the home and at work, they offer a revealing glimpse into people’s lives. What image do people have as a background on their desktop? What icons do they have on the desktop? How are those icons arranged? I think it is also accurate to look at a person’s checkbook registry and see what they spend their money on to read a person, but with credit cards, debit cards as well as the fact that it is pretty intrusive to look at someone’s checkbook, a glance at their desktop can be revealing. For example, I have a photograph of a sunrise in my backyard as my background image. I only have one icon on the desktop, but a number of icons across the bottom of the screen (Mac user). With the many competing commitments in my life, I have a strong desire for peacefulness and simplicity. I believe my desktop reveals this. When I think of some of the modern symbols in our society I also think of the cell-phone, and clothing people wear. The cell phone is becoming very individualized with colors and functions varying tremendously. One of the teens at church even glued plastic gems on the outside of her phone to be unique. One of the best questions I can ask teens today is “What does your cell phone tell me about you?” That is followed by a half hour of sharing compared to asking a teen to tell me about themselves or how things are going. I also think clothing (specifically labels and brands of clothes) are symbols as well. First clothes are important, and second they communicate something about the wearer.
Van Gelser’s 5 rules (pg. 57) seem like something I need to present at out next congregational meeting. In response to Van Gelder’s typology of churches, the church in which I serve is a combination of the village (reflective of when it was founded:1835) with a lingering Seekers centers approach that has remained as a result of a significant growth period of the church. Since that growth period in the 80’s the church has split and decreased in numbers to about half. We are a long established church that is hovering around 100 in attendance. Although I would like to read more than just the chart on page 66 to learn about the village church, because we could just as likely be the family suburban church. Our church is very family centered, but hasn’t reaped the benefits of the generational expansion in recent years. It does seem as though we have a number of families that have a connection to our church, and that there is always one person or couple that is involved in the life of our church. Meanwhile the rest of their family is connected, but much of their loyalty it to the family, and not the church (or the Lord for that matter).
*What is your response to Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional?
I have a difficult time understanding to what the term “Christendom” specifically refers. As a result is it difficult to agree or disagree with this statement completely. I would agree with the statement that the church as a whole has lost its missional focus overall, but I also believe that is because we may have a limited view of what it means to be missional. I think traditionally we think of missional as presenting the truth of the Gospel with people that have never heard it before. Today, everyone has heard it, and it is the church’s responsibility to explain and possibly re-educate people about the truth in Christ. The difficulty here is that mere words don’t work. Anyone can say anything, but people won’t believe until they experience it today. As a result there is a stronger emphasis on welcoming others into a community (by some churches). The difficult thing here is to distinguise between the churches that are truly missional and desire to connect with culture in such a way as to help express themselves, and the ones that draw a line around their church and expect visitors to behave a certain way once they cross it. So, I would agree that thc church is not as missional as it once was, but that in order for a chuch to be missional it may need to be very different from traditional definitions of missional.
*Discuss your reflection on Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture.
Okay, Kaiser’s essay was solid, but a bit tough to swallow. I appreciate his development of the definitions of secularization and how it has evolved in western culture, but in relation to the question here, I believe we cannot determine the future trends conclusively. I believe it is very safe to say that the world is in constant flux and that the idea that our culture’s current relationship with God will remain as it is indefinitely will not continue indefinitely. We can look back at history and see that different cultures’ relationships with the supernatural ebb and flow. I believe ours is the same, and as Christians we can be a part of determining the ebb and/or flow.
*Flowing with Van Gelder's discussion of Postmodernism, how do we participate in God's mission in our current culture? What is the worldview of the gospel? Premodern, Modern, or Postmodern? How does conversion relate to postmodern deconversion?
I love this, because it is such an easy thing to say, but such a difficult thing to do. Similar to Van Gelder’s comments (p. 55) that it is a lot easier to say the church must critique its cultural context, than it is to actually conduct such a critique. Following along his comments on p. 137, I think we need to (1) establish an historical/cross-cultural perspective in our churches, (2) present a perspective of life that has depth and substance mediated through an integrated understanding of thought, experience and place, and (3) live and model unity within the Body of Christ in order to participate in God’s mission in our current culture. Basically we need to lead people through the difficult process of transitioning from a worldview shaped by the postmodern culture into a Christian/Biblical worldview. It is there, we just need to teach and model it.
*Hiebert provides a systems grid to analyze our culture. What is the mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual?
In stealing from H. Richard Niebuhr (Christ and Culture), I believe the mission of the church is to be transformative of the cultural systems that exist. I believe the first step of this is involvement in these systems, followed by careful analysis (because not all societal structures are evil p. 156) and we need to be engaged enough in these systems to diagnose them. The next step is to work towards being an agent of transformation in these systems. This could result in a lifetime of frustration and agony (and apparent failure), but I believe it is how we are called to engage. I do believe there are times in which a person will need to remove themselves and re-engage with these systems, and that there are also people that are called by God to teach and encourage those that are more directly involved, but I believe the ultimate goal of Christians should be to transform the culture in which they exist.
*Reflect on the symbols you encounter in your culture, local church, and the gospel. Discuss their meaning and identity in your life. For example, I come from Amish background; a horse & buggy symbolize a worldview and lifestyle that means faith and faithfulness for me. Today, my DeRosa bicycle, contemplative pottery and candles, and Taize music symbolize some similar values, identity & worldview as an Anabaptist "Resident Alien."
I have adopted a new technique recently in reading people, and myself for that matter. Take a look at the desktop on someone’s computer. As people are becoming more and more reliant upon their personal computers in the home and at work, they offer a revealing glimpse into people’s lives. What image do people have as a background on their desktop? What icons do they have on the desktop? How are those icons arranged? I think it is also accurate to look at a person’s checkbook registry and see what they spend their money on to read a person, but with credit cards, debit cards as well as the fact that it is pretty intrusive to look at someone’s checkbook, a glance at their desktop can be revealing. For example, I have a photograph of a sunrise in my backyard as my background image. I only have one icon on the desktop, but a number of icons across the bottom of the screen (Mac user). With the many competing commitments in my life, I have a strong desire for peacefulness and simplicity. I believe my desktop reveals this. When I think of some of the modern symbols in our society I also think of the cell-phone, and clothing people wear. The cell phone is becoming very individualized with colors and functions varying tremendously. One of the teens at church even glued plastic gems on the outside of her phone to be unique. One of the best questions I can ask teens today is “What does your cell phone tell me about you?” That is followed by a half hour of sharing compared to asking a teen to tell me about themselves or how things are going. I also think clothing (specifically labels and brands of clothes) are symbols as well. First clothes are important, and second they communicate something about the wearer.
Field Research: Jon
My interviews revolved around these three questions basically.
What are your top three priorities for the next year?
What thing impacts your decision making process the most?
What is the connection between Jesus and your relationships with others?
With the people that I knew, I asked them to get together for coffee, or a meal so they could help me with a class project. It allowed the conversation to continue and for much longer answers. For the mall people, I stopped asking mall shoppers because of their short and hurried answers and asked people that were working there that weren’t busy. It was much easier to get some thoughtful answers, and I got some free coffee.
I would say that people are very focused on themselves, or at least their family. Generally, people’s top priorities for the year revolve around themselves and some level of self-improvement. I think a lot of this has to do with the timing of the question and an immediate association to New Years resolutions. I didn’t use the phrase “New Year’s Resolutions”, but even the use of next year, or 2007 brings people to the familiar new year’s resolution. Anyway, most of them revolved around some level of self-improvement. Many seemed to be issues that had been nagging them for some time i.e. get in better shape, finish some project they have been putting off, or actually following through with a transition (new job/relationship). Most of the people I interviewed had some sort of family/relational commitment that informed their priorities as well. They weren’t very measurable, but rather more qualitative such as improve my relationship with my Mom, brother, etc. Just out of curiosity’s sake I followed this question by asking how the other person thought about the relational situation, and how that relationship would be different if it were “better” or they had “gotten closer”. Most were followed by blank stares which led me to believe that when they shared that family/friends were a priority it was mostly because it sounded good or that is what others might say.
As far as the decision making process was concerned, again I could see a strong egocentrism revealing itself. People really saw their own feelings and their experiences as the authority by which to make future decisions. Most of them seemed to connect with who they thought they were or who they wanted to be. After a bit of discussion there became an obvious connection between who they thought they were and their connection to some sort of family/or friendship relational connection. No one shared that they were impacted by a larger sense of calling or cosmic responsibility of some sort. The answers were seemingly small minded and strongly connected to their immediate surroundings.
The connection to Jesus and their present relationships was the question that fell to the floor the quickest. People were generally pretty defensive, and had little response. One thing that did surprise me was this guilt-ridden realization that confessed that they never really thought about Jesus, and certainly in the context of their relationships. Usually is came in the form of “I guess there isn’t a connection?” None of the people I interviewed considered themselves “active Christians”, but there was still some level of guilt by all but one guy who looked at me like it was the stupidest question he had ever heard. Two of the people I didn’t know wanted to know my agenda when I asked the Jesus question. I think they were afraid I was going to try to save them in the next question (I had withheld the fact that I was a pastor and a seminary student until this point when two of them asked).
What are your top three priorities for the next year?
What thing impacts your decision making process the most?
What is the connection between Jesus and your relationships with others?
With the people that I knew, I asked them to get together for coffee, or a meal so they could help me with a class project. It allowed the conversation to continue and for much longer answers. For the mall people, I stopped asking mall shoppers because of their short and hurried answers and asked people that were working there that weren’t busy. It was much easier to get some thoughtful answers, and I got some free coffee.
I would say that people are very focused on themselves, or at least their family. Generally, people’s top priorities for the year revolve around themselves and some level of self-improvement. I think a lot of this has to do with the timing of the question and an immediate association to New Years resolutions. I didn’t use the phrase “New Year’s Resolutions”, but even the use of next year, or 2007 brings people to the familiar new year’s resolution. Anyway, most of them revolved around some level of self-improvement. Many seemed to be issues that had been nagging them for some time i.e. get in better shape, finish some project they have been putting off, or actually following through with a transition (new job/relationship). Most of the people I interviewed had some sort of family/relational commitment that informed their priorities as well. They weren’t very measurable, but rather more qualitative such as improve my relationship with my Mom, brother, etc. Just out of curiosity’s sake I followed this question by asking how the other person thought about the relational situation, and how that relationship would be different if it were “better” or they had “gotten closer”. Most were followed by blank stares which led me to believe that when they shared that family/friends were a priority it was mostly because it sounded good or that is what others might say.
As far as the decision making process was concerned, again I could see a strong egocentrism revealing itself. People really saw their own feelings and their experiences as the authority by which to make future decisions. Most of them seemed to connect with who they thought they were or who they wanted to be. After a bit of discussion there became an obvious connection between who they thought they were and their connection to some sort of family/or friendship relational connection. No one shared that they were impacted by a larger sense of calling or cosmic responsibility of some sort. The answers were seemingly small minded and strongly connected to their immediate surroundings.
The connection to Jesus and their present relationships was the question that fell to the floor the quickest. People were generally pretty defensive, and had little response. One thing that did surprise me was this guilt-ridden realization that confessed that they never really thought about Jesus, and certainly in the context of their relationships. Usually is came in the form of “I guess there isn’t a connection?” None of the people I interviewed considered themselves “active Christians”, but there was still some level of guilt by all but one guy who looked at me like it was the stupidest question he had ever heard. Two of the people I didn’t know wanted to know my agenda when I asked the Jesus question. I think they were afraid I was going to try to save them in the next question (I had withheld the fact that I was a pastor and a seminary student until this point when two of them asked).
Article Review: Jon
I reviewed Donald Troost’s article “Re-Imagining Congregational Ministry”. I thought it was a solid article and it was one of the only times I read a “church article” when I wished it was longer. Typically, especially I must confess in the text we have read for this class, I feel bogged down by the depth and complexity of an article. I still have waded through them, but this article is short and has a very strait forward approach to things that need to be altered in Congregational ministry. While I don’t think it is a complete list of all the transitions that a congregation might need to be led through, it is certainly a great start, and possibly enough to keep leadership in a church busy for decades. Here are his five points:
• The church now lives in a post-Christian era
• Congregations will recover a missional character
• Congregations will come to terms with a pluralist society
• While living in a consumer culture, a missional congregation will move beyond consumerism
• A missional congregational will cultivate the future
Because the author is so brief, I just want to cut and paste the article. I would recommend that you read it. It will only take a few minutes and t fits well with our readings. It seems as though the article is notes from a conference in which George Hunsberger (Professor of missiology at Western Theological Seminary) spoke. I like where he started because in order to lead co congregation through any sort of transition, they must first face reality. I believe he accurately identifies the first three points that we do exist in a post-Christian era, we are not a missional church traditionally or historically, and we do live in a pluralistic society. I look at that and even though I might hear hundreds of comments and complaints about how “things are different now-a-days” during any given month, it might still take months to convince the body in which I serve the truth of these three points. Only after convincing them of these three truths could we possible begin to dive into the fourth point and address some degree of transcending the current cultural trends. Many in our congregation might just keep denying reality because admitting it means admitting they should do something about it. For many, that is someone else’s job. Others in our congregation like things the way that they are, both in society and church. The current situation provided a comfortable double standard in which they can behave the way they want to. This may sound harsh, but I find people very willing to complain about a situation, and at the same time unwilling to admit their connection to it or their responsibility to address it. Finally, I like the way he finishes by saying that this is not going to be some grand restructuring project that we can get done and them move on from. Instead, this is the beginning of a continual process of the church allowing itself to be regenerated or reformed (semper reformanda) by the Word of God.
• The church now lives in a post-Christian era
• Congregations will recover a missional character
• Congregations will come to terms with a pluralist society
• While living in a consumer culture, a missional congregation will move beyond consumerism
• A missional congregational will cultivate the future
Because the author is so brief, I just want to cut and paste the article. I would recommend that you read it. It will only take a few minutes and t fits well with our readings. It seems as though the article is notes from a conference in which George Hunsberger (Professor of missiology at Western Theological Seminary) spoke. I like where he started because in order to lead co congregation through any sort of transition, they must first face reality. I believe he accurately identifies the first three points that we do exist in a post-Christian era, we are not a missional church traditionally or historically, and we do live in a pluralistic society. I look at that and even though I might hear hundreds of comments and complaints about how “things are different now-a-days” during any given month, it might still take months to convince the body in which I serve the truth of these three points. Only after convincing them of these three truths could we possible begin to dive into the fourth point and address some degree of transcending the current cultural trends. Many in our congregation might just keep denying reality because admitting it means admitting they should do something about it. For many, that is someone else’s job. Others in our congregation like things the way that they are, both in society and church. The current situation provided a comfortable double standard in which they can behave the way they want to. This may sound harsh, but I find people very willing to complain about a situation, and at the same time unwilling to admit their connection to it or their responsibility to address it. Finally, I like the way he finishes by saying that this is not going to be some grand restructuring project that we can get done and them move on from. Instead, this is the beginning of a continual process of the church allowing itself to be regenerated or reformed (semper reformanda) by the Word of God.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Article Review: Tammie
Brian Cole, in his article Whenever You Enter a House: Reflections on Mark 6:7-13, confronts an attitude in proclaiming the gospel marked by individualism and self-sufficiency. Cole maintains that our own proclivities are often intermingled with the gospel message and offers a corrective by examining the passage in Mark in which Christ sends out a rather motley, ill-prepared crew to proclaim the good news. Despite their personal shortcomings, the missionary effort is apparently a successful endeavor. From this passage, Cole suggests that the missionary go out as the vulnerable ones on a mission thus putting them into a position to accept the hospitality of the stranger as crucial to the success of the mission. As a result, "strangers and minor characters" become critical to the spread of the gospel.
Cole's thesis here is intriguing, inviting in certain ways and, ultimately, a bit scary for one considering missions. It flies in the face of the self-sufficiency that's bred into the average American. It smacks of an uncertainty that our culture finds baffling. To depend on people you don't even know for your survival? Not a typical American attitude.
The article reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a representative of Campus Crusade. We were talking about the various opportunities the organization offers, how placement works, what sort of work is done and more. I think I talked to him for well over half an hour. During that conversation, I mentioned that one of the things that hold me back from really looking into work with a group such as Campus Crusade is the idea of raising support. I'd find it difficult to ask for money, but, putting that aside, there's a part of me that is afraid the money wouldn't come through and I would be stuck having quit one job without means of support in a new one. The representative then told me something that has stuck with me ever since. He said that God wouldn't bring you this far, make you so certain in your call, only to step back and say, "Go! You're on your own now."
That kind of stepping out in faith is ultimately what Cole is calling for here. Go without knowing exactly how things will work out. Rather than coming to a community that needs to hear the gospel with all the answers and all your needs met, come to them with needs. Show them your vulnerability. Let them help you and, in the topsy-turvy way that the kingdom of God sometimes works, a door is opened for you to share the gospel with them.
Cole's thesis here is intriguing, inviting in certain ways and, ultimately, a bit scary for one considering missions. It flies in the face of the self-sufficiency that's bred into the average American. It smacks of an uncertainty that our culture finds baffling. To depend on people you don't even know for your survival? Not a typical American attitude.
The article reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a representative of Campus Crusade. We were talking about the various opportunities the organization offers, how placement works, what sort of work is done and more. I think I talked to him for well over half an hour. During that conversation, I mentioned that one of the things that hold me back from really looking into work with a group such as Campus Crusade is the idea of raising support. I'd find it difficult to ask for money, but, putting that aside, there's a part of me that is afraid the money wouldn't come through and I would be stuck having quit one job without means of support in a new one. The representative then told me something that has stuck with me ever since. He said that God wouldn't bring you this far, make you so certain in your call, only to step back and say, "Go! You're on your own now."
That kind of stepping out in faith is ultimately what Cole is calling for here. Go without knowing exactly how things will work out. Rather than coming to a community that needs to hear the gospel with all the answers and all your needs met, come to them with needs. Show them your vulnerability. Let them help you and, in the topsy-turvy way that the kingdom of God sometimes works, a door is opened for you to share the gospel with them.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Field Research: Rock Daddy
For question #1 - I had have of the people I asked tell me that families and family values were an important issue that needed to be addressed and the other half spoke of health care issues.
For question #2 - All but one of the interviewees stated that family was a part of what made up their value system and because of their families it impacted how they live and interact in their own families, now as adults. I had one interviewee that was very bitter about her family and did not have many kinds words to say about them.
For question #3 - The story about Jesus everyone agreed means what others said about him. The stories and such. Whereas the story of Jesus pertains to what he said and how he wants us to act and behave.
I thought that the first two questions were general enough that people wouldn't be too taken aback, but thought for sure the third question would raise some defenses. However, I found that once I got to the third question people seemed to open up more and put more thought into it. It was truly pleased with the responses I received.
For question #2 - All but one of the interviewees stated that family was a part of what made up their value system and because of their families it impacted how they live and interact in their own families, now as adults. I had one interviewee that was very bitter about her family and did not have many kinds words to say about them.
For question #3 - The story about Jesus everyone agreed means what others said about him. The stories and such. Whereas the story of Jesus pertains to what he said and how he wants us to act and behave.
I thought that the first two questions were general enough that people wouldn't be too taken aback, but thought for sure the third question would raise some defenses. However, I found that once I got to the third question people seemed to open up more and put more thought into it. It was truly pleased with the responses I received.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Article Review by Rock Daddy
I read the article titled, "The Gospel in Postmodernity: Finding a Center", by William Stacy Johnson. I found his article to be very interesting. He states that Postmodernity (PM) is not some passing fad, but rather a shift in our culture. Which in turn means that we as the church must learn to face these shifts and learn how to deal with them and overcome them in order to be able to effectively present the gospel. He tells us that unfortunately to over come the PM mindset is not an easy task due to the fact that PM's don't accept only one answer, but rather look for multiple answers, which in turn creates a sense of no real boundaries or basis to be able to make any argument. He states in PM, there is no foundation. This will truly create a struggle for those of us in the church that are from earlier generations, because we are so used to dealing with a foundation and now have to be able to relate to those who don't have one.
He goes on to say that a foundation is not always the answer. He states that by having a foundation and a desire to search for the truth, it has in turn caused us to become more uncertain about the truth than when we first began. He feels that PM creates a sense of open mindedness in the person and therefore allows for them to be able to discern the truth more clearly. The fear in the church is then, that PM's will merely drift away from the church and God for that matter since there can not be only one way to heaven. This is a reality, however, due to the fact that society is shifting from modernism to postmodernism creates an opportunity for the gospel to be heard anew. Johnson cites that in the past momentous cultural changes have provided pivotal occasions.
He goes on to suggest that in this day and age traditional churches will not be able to reach out to the PM, but rather a church that is willing to enter into their world and embodies the grace of the living God. A church that does not try to corral God but rather allows God to be God and call us to him any way possible.
I strongly agree with much of what Johnson said in his article.
He goes on to say that a foundation is not always the answer. He states that by having a foundation and a desire to search for the truth, it has in turn caused us to become more uncertain about the truth than when we first began. He feels that PM creates a sense of open mindedness in the person and therefore allows for them to be able to discern the truth more clearly. The fear in the church is then, that PM's will merely drift away from the church and God for that matter since there can not be only one way to heaven. This is a reality, however, due to the fact that society is shifting from modernism to postmodernism creates an opportunity for the gospel to be heard anew. Johnson cites that in the past momentous cultural changes have provided pivotal occasions.
He goes on to suggest that in this day and age traditional churches will not be able to reach out to the PM, but rather a church that is willing to enter into their world and embodies the grace of the living God. A church that does not try to corral God but rather allows God to be God and call us to him any way possible.
I strongly agree with much of what Johnson said in his article.
Session #5, Part 4, Defining the Church
*Hunsberger drives home the point that we, the church, are to be grasped by the gospel in such a way that we challenge, question, and critique the culture (p. 295). How does your church accomplish this task?
*Hendrick describes 6 points to consider in designing a missionary church. How does this model contrast with or match a NT missional model?
*Junkin gets at the heart of the issue, the church as community is quite a contrast from the institutionalized/programmatic model that looks/feels/acts more like an enterprise or business than a kingdom community. He is describing a cell-based church that we need to have a different taxonomy since 9-11, how about an "f-4 community" (fellowship, fun, faith, & function-->missio Dei) that we see demonstrated in Acts 2:37-47. Have you experienced koinonia in an f-4 community?
*Roxburgh provides helpful insights on church leadership. Reflect upon his diagrams (p. 329), what think ye of these 3 models of pastoral leadership?
*Hunsberger (pp. 344-345) lists 5 practical shifts for transitioning a church from vendor to mission. Critique his list, what would you add or delete from the list?
*Dietterich does not soft-pedal her points, she prophetically declares the need for a theological mandate that addresses the disengagement of the church from the society. Lots of subtle nuances here in this article. This is a fitting conclusion to a work that never ends for the people of God. Craft a Magna Carta for the church to be the people of God in the world engaged in mission with theological/social/spiritual membranes that welcomes all people while being centered in Christ and His Word.
*Hendrick describes 6 points to consider in designing a missionary church. How does this model contrast with or match a NT missional model?
*Junkin gets at the heart of the issue, the church as community is quite a contrast from the institutionalized/programmatic model that looks/feels/acts more like an enterprise or business than a kingdom community. He is describing a cell-based church that we need to have a different taxonomy since 9-11, how about an "f-4 community" (fellowship, fun, faith, & function-->missio Dei) that we see demonstrated in Acts 2:37-47. Have you experienced koinonia in an f-4 community?
*Roxburgh provides helpful insights on church leadership. Reflect upon his diagrams (p. 329), what think ye of these 3 models of pastoral leadership?
*Hunsberger (pp. 344-345) lists 5 practical shifts for transitioning a church from vendor to mission. Critique his list, what would you add or delete from the list?
*Dietterich does not soft-pedal her points, she prophetically declares the need for a theological mandate that addresses the disengagement of the church from the society. Lots of subtle nuances here in this article. This is a fitting conclusion to a work that never ends for the people of God. Craft a Magna Carta for the church to be the people of God in the world engaged in mission with theological/social/spiritual membranes that welcomes all people while being centered in Christ and His Word.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Session #2: Tammie
*Analyze the church you attend in terms of Van Gelder's typology of churches in American Life.
Analyzing my church in terms of Van Gelder's typology is an interesting exercise in that I can see influences from more than one of the typologies at work.
Looking at the typologies, it seems the ministry center model of the 1970s/1980s is the closest match as we offer ministries much as one would expect in a congregation based on meeting needs. There's a women's group, youth group (separated into junior and senior high), senior citizen group and Wednesday night clubs for children. There are Sunday School classes for most ages. It is often said at our church that we have classes for all ages, but I would have to respectfully disagree as I have yet to see a class developed for college/young adults.
Yet, as the church was established over 100 years ago, I see traces of the institutionalism that would characterize the Old First typology.
At the same time, I sense - and have talked with others who have the sense that the church is on the verge of something new. Curiously, none of us are entirely sure what direction that something new might be.
*What is your response to Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional?
Shenk raises valid points in his thesis. After all, if Christianity is the accepted norm in society, there would have been no perceived need for missional thinking. Soon, as we have seen in the history of the church, complacency replaces the tension that existed in the earliest centuries of the church as it lived outside the "acceptable" roles of society. Church as an institution had no vision to live incarnationally as a means of winning people over to Christ because it was assumed everyone was already there. That created the potential that exists to this day for people to live in the margins, to exist as square pegs trying to fit into the round holes of the institutional church in North America. That attitude is changing, however, as more and more churches are latching onto the idea of being missional, rather than relying on traditional means of evangelism which seem to be based in an 'if you build it, they will come' principle. For example, there are people like those at The Simple Way in Philadelphia who live in one a known bad neighborhood and do such things as create community gardens, help children with homework after school and stand with the homeless when the city enforces various laws against them. (Information in example is as I recall it from a book called The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne.)
*Discuss your reflection on Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture.
Reading through Kaiser's outline proved one thing - culture is dynamic with subtle and not so subtle shifts in one era giving rise to wholesale cultural change in the following generation. On this basis alone, Kaiser is likely correct in his thesis that secularism can not stand as no worldview seems to have persisted throughout the centuries.
I found it striking that something seemingly insignificant or routine in one era would contribute to a more pervasive cultural change in a later time. For example, the factory systems of the 1900s seemed a model of efficiency in their ability to mass produce the commodities that kept (and still keep) America running. It never occurred to me that the mechanistic way of thinking necessary to the operations of such a system could be a contributor to the tendency people of our own day have to think about their everyday live separately from God rather than to see Him as central to their every waking moment.
That makes the question of what follows after secularism even more interesting to me. If this separation of work and faith rose from an industrial society, what happens to faith as we evolve into a technologically-oriented, post-industrial society in which the work force is becoming increasingly service-oriented?
*Flowing with Van Gelder's discussion of Postmodernism, how do we participate in God's mission in our current culture? What is the worldview of the gospel? Premodern, Modern, or Postmodern? How does conversion relate to postmodern deconversion?
Participating in God's mission in our current culture means understanding the culture and finding ways to translate the gospel message in way that is relevant to postmoderns. For example, Van Gelder describes the postmodern culture as being prone to imagery without substance - a contention I find curious because in my work with youth, I find an equal number of students who crave depth along with the imagery. That is the challenge we face. Yes, the postmodern may value imagery, but we don't have to give them empty imagery. We can give them imagery full of meaning and depth as we communicate the gospel.
Personally, I think it is impossible to categorize the gospel as premodern, postmodern or just plain modern. Each of the eras that have preceded us have been able to communicate the gospel message through the lens of their culture and, after much thought and much frustration (perhaps), we in the postmodern era will find ways to communicate the gospel in a meaningful fashion as well. As I thought about this question, I was reminded about something one of the students in my Sunday School class said last week. We were doing an exercise on Colossians 1:15-17 (NIV):
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
It was a lectio divina sort of exercise in which the students read the verse and picked out a word that stood out to them and explained why. One of my students picked out what may be the most overlooked word in that verse. She picked out the word "is" because it reminds her that the work of Christ is timeless.
Communicating that timelessness to a fractured worldview is the crux of the relationship between conversion and postmodern deconversion. If deconversion can be described as the relativism and fragmentation we see in the postmodern worldview, then conversion would mean not just believing in Christ on an intellectual level, but also allowing a gospel-based worldview to transform the way life is lived, creating a holistic and integrated life.
*Hiebert provides a systems grid to analyze our culture. What is the mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual?
Whether we are looking at a modern or postmodern view, we need to be aware of how that view affects our culture and society as well as our churches. For example, Hiebert examines how the postmodern mind is not centered on history but on what's happening in the news as it is present-minded. In this context, perhaps, it is the role of the church to recognize this and to help to connect the postmodern to the story of God in history, the way He is working in the present and what His word says about the future.
To take an example from the modern viewpoint, one of the more powerful critiques Hiebert offers is that of individualism which saw the linguistic shift from soul to self and the shift in the church from a covenant community to a spectator sport. This is something that has become all too familiar in our churches. In my reading of blogs and talking with others, it seems that many churches are just a place to which many people go or belong, but hold no stake in its function as evidenced by the fact that a core group of people are usually the ones filling needed volunteer ministry positions.
In sum, we are called to be salt and light, so we need to understand the our society and culture to know where and how that salt and light can best be used to bring others into the kingdom.
*Reflect on the symbols you encounter in your culture, local church, and the gospel ...
Some of the symbols encountered in the culture, church and the gospel have become such a part of my life by this time that it is hard to think of them in individual settings. And, certainly there are cultural symbols that mean nothing to me, such as hip-hop clothing styles, fancy cars or golf clubs, to name a few.
Symbols in my life denote a desire for communication whether it is communication from God to me, me to God or God to culture through me. For example, there's always a Bible, one form of God's communication to his people, in my possession whether it is on my Palm PDA (another symbol?) or in actual book form. Just as often, there's a laptop computer or the already-mentioned PDA or a journal - all of which can be used to capture reflections on what I have read or maybe something that has crossed my mind as a drive to work or a passing thought that might make an interesting blog post or lesson for the youth group.
A desire to communicate is also found in my life, and in the life of most of the universe these days, in the ever-present mp3 players or cell phones. Music serving as a communicator of all types of messages depending on what might be playing at any given time.
As far as the local church, like Jason, our church has a simple cross at the front. There are always two candles lit and a Bible placed on the altar. It is interesting to me that the same symbols can be found in my home, but are used in such a different way. For example, the Bible on the altar at church is rather decorative; mine is for everyday use. The candles on the altar are just two simple taper candles, but I use numerous candles in my personal devotions from time to time. And, setting up a prayer area similar to one that I might personally use caused an unexpected reaction from some in my church who did not read them in the same manner, symbolically speaking.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Session #4, Discerning the Gospel
*According to Watson, what is the recovered gospel?
*Hall presents 4 worldly quests, how do these issues relate to the gospel, our mission, and our congregation?
*Describe West's thesis statement and expansion of it in his article.
*Critique Brownson's missional hermeneutic. How does his model correspond with your current hermeneutical grid?
*Dyrness provides a missilogical theology to the fray, how would you apply his vernacular approach to your ministry context?
*Satari begins to unravel the tangled gospel. What are the tangles, barriers, and distortions that your cultural context has done to the gospel? (This is getting down to the bottom line of the course as we lay the foundation with this textbook.) Please utilize the Scriptures to answer this question. I am presently teaching a Small Group Bible Study on Colossians at the church plant satelite that we attend. My goal is utilize this study to help us rediscover the gospel. It is interesting to observe each year we are becoming more like the "mother church" we left. I wonder if we will be back to where we started in 7.5 years, which is my thesis of the NA church planting enterprise. So instead of going back to the future, we revitalize and go back to the past. Church planting is the most effective missional activity in NA, and yet it requires constant pruning back to the "vine"!
*Hall presents 4 worldly quests, how do these issues relate to the gospel, our mission, and our congregation?
*Describe West's thesis statement and expansion of it in his article.
*Critique Brownson's missional hermeneutic. How does his model correspond with your current hermeneutical grid?
*Dyrness provides a missilogical theology to the fray, how would you apply his vernacular approach to your ministry context?
*Satari begins to unravel the tangled gospel. What are the tangles, barriers, and distortions that your cultural context has done to the gospel? (This is getting down to the bottom line of the course as we lay the foundation with this textbook.) Please utilize the Scriptures to answer this question. I am presently teaching a Small Group Bible Study on Colossians at the church plant satelite that we attend. My goal is utilize this study to help us rediscover the gospel. It is interesting to observe each year we are becoming more like the "mother church" we left. I wonder if we will be back to where we started in 7.5 years, which is my thesis of the NA church planting enterprise. So instead of going back to the future, we revitalize and go back to the past. Church planting is the most effective missional activity in NA, and yet it requires constant pruning back to the "vine"!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Session #3, Field Research & Article Review
* Field Research, interview 3 unchurched friends and 3 mall shoppers. Several questions that emerge from our readings and reflections could be in these areas:
1) What issues for you seem to be the most important that need to be addressed in our culture? Explain your answer. (Some examples are social justice, relationships in families & marriages, poverty, education, or medical care.)
2) Describe the source, basis, and structure of your life's value system. How has it impacted your life journey?
3) What is the difference between the gospel about Jesus and the gospel of Jesus? What is the connection between Jesus and your relationships with people.
Write a one-page summary of your interviews, please do not use names of interviewees in your report, search for themes and nuances in their answers. Please post your report on our blog.
* Article Review, write one-page summary of an article that is compelling for you to review and critique located at: http://www.gocn.org/articles/index.cfm , please post your review on our blog.
(You may e-mail me with questions as they arise.)
1) What issues for you seem to be the most important that need to be addressed in our culture? Explain your answer. (Some examples are social justice, relationships in families & marriages, poverty, education, or medical care.)
2) Describe the source, basis, and structure of your life's value system. How has it impacted your life journey?
3) What is the difference between the gospel about Jesus and the gospel of Jesus? What is the connection between Jesus and your relationships with people.
Write a one-page summary of your interviews, please do not use names of interviewees in your report, search for themes and nuances in their answers. Please post your report on our blog.
* Article Review, write one-page summary of an article that is compelling for you to review and critique located at: http://www.gocn.org/articles/index.cfm , please post your review on our blog.
(You may e-mail me with questions as they arise.)
Session #2 by Rock Daddy
In terms of Van Gelder's typology of churches, I would say that my church is rooted in the Ministry centers model, however, they are trying to change to a Seekers Center model. This is evident by the fact that we just hired a new Associate pastor who has been a part of the Saddleback Church and is trying to bring some of that philosophy to our church. Our church is building a new building right next to a new community so, I also see our Senior Pastor trying to reach out to that community in several ways.
I agree with Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional, in that the church fails to reach out to those around them. I think that as a church if we were to have a missionary come and present their presentation about where they are going (outside the US), what they will be doing (helping a third world country) and how they need our help (financial and prayers) we are quick to support them any way we can. However, if a congregational member comes before the Administrative Board and requests money so that they can make tapes of their piano playing so they can leave them as gifts when they go into retirement homes and play, there is debate and discussion about whether or not this is really worth while. This blindness to our own plight is not just in the church, it is rampant throughout the US. How many people, not necessarily Christians donate to world agencies to help with hunger or other issues, yet walk or drive by the homeless person on the side of the road and mumble something less encouraging about them?
Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture can be explained using the pendulum theory. This theory states that views or beliefs are on a pendulum and that just as a pendulum swings from one side to the other so will the beliefs or ideas. So, just as we saw the church being prominent in society at one point and then it went away from it, we see that society is beginning to swing back toward it again. This can be said of secularism. As prominent as it is now, it will eventually swing the other way. The downside to this theory is that society is constantly shifting and changing and as much as we would want it to equalize out and stay in the middle it won't.
We participate in God's mission in our current culture by creating bridges of continuity between the gospel and the current culture. We must over come the urge to stay aloof from nonbelievers and actually get down on their level in order to bring them the Good News. But, this has to be more than just telling them about it or beating them up about things they do or don't do. It must be demonstrated in our actions so as to prove that we are sincere about it.
The worldview of the gospel is that it is inherently contextual. Meaning that it, truly did happen and that there is a meaning behind it.
Conversion relates to PM deconversion in that as PM's look at the world and therefore conversion, they realize that their negative reaction to it is caused by their basic values, which were created out of modernism. So, by deconverting, they are in essence merely stripping away the facade or excess in order to get down to the foundation.
The mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual is to teach and to create action. The church is to make know the wisdom of God and cause people to act based on it.
The symbols I encounter in my culture are cars, cellphones and clothes to name a few. The underlying meaning that all of those have is power or wealth. I currently have no desire for the latest car or cellphone or electronic gadget. And I am just as happy wearing my jeans with frays on the pockets as to having to have a new pair. People now a days place so much emphasis on material things that it really makes me wonder where it will all end.
In my local church I see the symbols of the Cross in our sanctuary, the religious pictures that hang on our walls and our name. My church has a very simple yet powerful cross at the front of the sanctuary. The pictures that adorn our walls are all pointing to God and the different aspects of him. And finally, our name says who we are. As I mentioned earlier we are moving into a new church later on this year, and are looking at changing our name. The reasons are because we feel we have the opportunity to bring more nonbelievers or non church goers into our church if we simply removed the denomination from our sign. That is not to say that we are leaving our denomination, Church of God, but rather not placing preconceived connotations into peoples minds. This is a touchy subject for some and in fact we are having a Congregational meeting this Sunday to discuss it and then we will vote as a Congregation the following week. I will be interested to see how things turn out.
In the gospel, I see the symbols of Jesus, the cross and in John 21:11 the number 153. Jesus of course represents life, death, power, glory, resurrection and many more things. I truly see him as the Perfect Liaison between myself and God, which is the only way I will ever be able to face him. The cross is a symbol that for me stands for Jesus and all that he did. When I was in college a girl I was dating gave me a cross necklace. It happened to be a Catholic cross, in that it has the figure of Jesus on the cross. And though I was raised Church of Christ I saw it for what it meant. I still have that cross and always wear it. The last symbol I want to comment on, comes from when I was attending my Old Testament class with Dr. Gary Staats. During our class near the end of the week we were visited by a Rabbi from Colorado who shared with our class the meaning of that number. He told us that the sea represents the people groups or groups of people scattered to the nations. The net the disciples cast is the Torah and that the 153 fish they catch are the sons of the living God, which are the Gentiles that would hear the original text in it original language. Well it just so happens that my class got to hear the Bible in Hebrew that entire week. It really made us feel honored even more so.
I agree with Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional, in that the church fails to reach out to those around them. I think that as a church if we were to have a missionary come and present their presentation about where they are going (outside the US), what they will be doing (helping a third world country) and how they need our help (financial and prayers) we are quick to support them any way we can. However, if a congregational member comes before the Administrative Board and requests money so that they can make tapes of their piano playing so they can leave them as gifts when they go into retirement homes and play, there is debate and discussion about whether or not this is really worth while. This blindness to our own plight is not just in the church, it is rampant throughout the US. How many people, not necessarily Christians donate to world agencies to help with hunger or other issues, yet walk or drive by the homeless person on the side of the road and mumble something less encouraging about them?
Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture can be explained using the pendulum theory. This theory states that views or beliefs are on a pendulum and that just as a pendulum swings from one side to the other so will the beliefs or ideas. So, just as we saw the church being prominent in society at one point and then it went away from it, we see that society is beginning to swing back toward it again. This can be said of secularism. As prominent as it is now, it will eventually swing the other way. The downside to this theory is that society is constantly shifting and changing and as much as we would want it to equalize out and stay in the middle it won't.
We participate in God's mission in our current culture by creating bridges of continuity between the gospel and the current culture. We must over come the urge to stay aloof from nonbelievers and actually get down on their level in order to bring them the Good News. But, this has to be more than just telling them about it or beating them up about things they do or don't do. It must be demonstrated in our actions so as to prove that we are sincere about it.
The worldview of the gospel is that it is inherently contextual. Meaning that it, truly did happen and that there is a meaning behind it.
Conversion relates to PM deconversion in that as PM's look at the world and therefore conversion, they realize that their negative reaction to it is caused by their basic values, which were created out of modernism. So, by deconverting, they are in essence merely stripping away the facade or excess in order to get down to the foundation.
The mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual is to teach and to create action. The church is to make know the wisdom of God and cause people to act based on it.
The symbols I encounter in my culture are cars, cellphones and clothes to name a few. The underlying meaning that all of those have is power or wealth. I currently have no desire for the latest car or cellphone or electronic gadget. And I am just as happy wearing my jeans with frays on the pockets as to having to have a new pair. People now a days place so much emphasis on material things that it really makes me wonder where it will all end.
In my local church I see the symbols of the Cross in our sanctuary, the religious pictures that hang on our walls and our name. My church has a very simple yet powerful cross at the front of the sanctuary. The pictures that adorn our walls are all pointing to God and the different aspects of him. And finally, our name says who we are. As I mentioned earlier we are moving into a new church later on this year, and are looking at changing our name. The reasons are because we feel we have the opportunity to bring more nonbelievers or non church goers into our church if we simply removed the denomination from our sign. That is not to say that we are leaving our denomination, Church of God, but rather not placing preconceived connotations into peoples minds. This is a touchy subject for some and in fact we are having a Congregational meeting this Sunday to discuss it and then we will vote as a Congregation the following week. I will be interested to see how things turn out.
In the gospel, I see the symbols of Jesus, the cross and in John 21:11 the number 153. Jesus of course represents life, death, power, glory, resurrection and many more things. I truly see him as the Perfect Liaison between myself and God, which is the only way I will ever be able to face him. The cross is a symbol that for me stands for Jesus and all that he did. When I was in college a girl I was dating gave me a cross necklace. It happened to be a Catholic cross, in that it has the figure of Jesus on the cross. And though I was raised Church of Christ I saw it for what it meant. I still have that cross and always wear it. The last symbol I want to comment on, comes from when I was attending my Old Testament class with Dr. Gary Staats. During our class near the end of the week we were visited by a Rabbi from Colorado who shared with our class the meaning of that number. He told us that the sea represents the people groups or groups of people scattered to the nations. The net the disciples cast is the Torah and that the 153 fish they catch are the sons of the living God, which are the Gentiles that would hear the original text in it original language. Well it just so happens that my class got to hear the Bible in Hebrew that entire week. It really made us feel honored even more so.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Weekly Reflection Worksheet #1
(Posted for Jon Cavanagh by Dr. J.) Hunsberger & Van Gelder, parts 1-2
The other day a friend e-mailed me a link to a clip on youtube.com. The clip showed some people in Portland, OR trying to drive in the snow (search Portland drivers in the snow on youtube.com). The video shot from the balcony of an apartment or office shows these drivers careening out of control and sliding all over the road. Although you can’t really tell from the above angle, it seems as though the drivers must be on some sort of incline which is covered in snow and ice making driving, especially braking nearly impossible. While reading Newbigin’s article and especially his triangle on p. 9 I thought of this clip. I guess I would make a comparison between the church and the driver, the gospel and the car, and the snow-covered road is culture. It certainly isn’t a perfect comparison, but it does make me thing about the importance of understanding and recognizing culture. It is important to be able to understand culture and how it relates to both the Gospel message and the church. The condition of the culture dictates how and by whom the gospel might be presented so that it is understood properly. Now don’t get carried away, I am in no way suggesting that the message of the Gospel should be altered in any way so that it might be more agreeable. Instead, I am suggesting that the way in which it is delivered, and the person whom delivers it can be adjusted to fit the cultural context. If the Gospel message is the car, then look at as if you were choosing which car to drive in snowy conditions. The basics are the same whether you are driving a car, or 4WD truck, but there are some differences. They both have engines, are gas powered, operate roughly the same, but the differences make all the difference. In addition, I wouldn’t put my mom behind the wheel of a 4WD truck in the snow and feel like everything would be okay. I would want to put someone behind the wheel of the 4WD truck that would be better at driving it (sorry Mom). I believe it is similar to a specific church having the personality makeup that fits ministering in a certain area. I believe that the match of the three is key. Just think of the right driver, behind the wheel 4WD drive, in difficult driving conditions. In the same way a specific body of the church, when understanding the conditions of the road accurately, will understand how best to communicate the truth of the Gospel in a way that it is understood.
Part 2, Van Gelder discusses 18 issues facing the NA Church. This is a buffet line of missiological issues. It can be overwhelming. Let's boil this down a bit. What is the center of the NA Church? What are its boundaries? We will discuss centered and bounded sets after your posts. This is missiological jargon that helps to analyze global dynamics of the church. You may want to step back to develop a bigger picture of missiology, and you may reflect upon several universal questions. What is the missiology of the Church? What is the missiology of the NA Church? Your congregation?
After just finishing up digesting Van Gelder’s “Defining the Center-Finding the Boundaries” I am exhausted. First, he packs a ton of information into this essay. Second, it seems as though the church in which I am serving has a number of challenges in front of it. I think how I’m feeling right now represents how a number of our church members feel; overwhelmed, unprepared and discouraged. While many of our members (myself included) certainly would not be able to express all 18 of these points the way Van Gelder did, I think if we put the cookies on the bottom shelf many would agree. I think our church isn’t different than many of the other churches out there that are facing frustrating levels of failure, but an inability to change their approach to church because they have been clinging to that approach and not to God. We have clung to the method and the routine so that we might be able to digest it. Managing a church makes sense. Following God through this changing world does not always make sense in the traditional fashion. I’m not sure about the center and boundaries, but I do recognize that people within out church have been shaped spiritually primarily by something else (including how our church was 20 years ago). As a result, much of the effort and input surrounds recapturing these methods that were effective for them at a certain point and time. People cling to these traditions and the impact they have had on their lives even though they have left those traditions. Even though they may have left a tradition, they still cling to it because it is what they know. They don’t have the energy of desire to continually learn new methods and would rather spend their energy fondly remembering how things were. They haven’t made the transition in thinking that the church needs to be a more mobile, adaptive, and flexible group that can adjust the constant evolving challenges in culture. They would rather just draw a line (our church property, or their homes) and wait for them to show up. I think a cognitive boundary that the church faces is the recognition that it must allow those that do not know God to set many of the rules and standards about how the Gospel will be communicated. How can good, God fearing Christians, allow someone else to make these decisions by their behavior? As a result, I believe the combination of a cleaving to the known and a refusing to go has turned a number of churches into forts for God. They may send their best out on an expedition once in a while, but for the most part the physical church building is where the ministry happens, and it is where we are allowed to call the shots. When you come into our house you follow our mysterious rules.
Now there are certainly many ministries that have a totally different mentality, and would stack up much better against Van Gelder’s list of 18. I simply don’t happen to be in one of them. In addition, the longer we refuse to recognize the way the world has changed around us, the more difficult it becomes. Denial is a powerful thing. Our church seems to live to avoid crisis and discomfort. As a result it is same old, same old. My attempts to communicate this have been ineffective up to this point, and it is bitter sweet to read through Van Gelder’s list. On one hand it confirms that I’m not going crazy, but on the other hand it grieves me to see this happening and be unable to do anything about it.
The other day a friend e-mailed me a link to a clip on youtube.com. The clip showed some people in Portland, OR trying to drive in the snow (search Portland drivers in the snow on youtube.com). The video shot from the balcony of an apartment or office shows these drivers careening out of control and sliding all over the road. Although you can’t really tell from the above angle, it seems as though the drivers must be on some sort of incline which is covered in snow and ice making driving, especially braking nearly impossible. While reading Newbigin’s article and especially his triangle on p. 9 I thought of this clip. I guess I would make a comparison between the church and the driver, the gospel and the car, and the snow-covered road is culture. It certainly isn’t a perfect comparison, but it does make me thing about the importance of understanding and recognizing culture. It is important to be able to understand culture and how it relates to both the Gospel message and the church. The condition of the culture dictates how and by whom the gospel might be presented so that it is understood properly. Now don’t get carried away, I am in no way suggesting that the message of the Gospel should be altered in any way so that it might be more agreeable. Instead, I am suggesting that the way in which it is delivered, and the person whom delivers it can be adjusted to fit the cultural context. If the Gospel message is the car, then look at as if you were choosing which car to drive in snowy conditions. The basics are the same whether you are driving a car, or 4WD truck, but there are some differences. They both have engines, are gas powered, operate roughly the same, but the differences make all the difference. In addition, I wouldn’t put my mom behind the wheel of a 4WD truck in the snow and feel like everything would be okay. I would want to put someone behind the wheel of the 4WD truck that would be better at driving it (sorry Mom). I believe it is similar to a specific church having the personality makeup that fits ministering in a certain area. I believe that the match of the three is key. Just think of the right driver, behind the wheel 4WD drive, in difficult driving conditions. In the same way a specific body of the church, when understanding the conditions of the road accurately, will understand how best to communicate the truth of the Gospel in a way that it is understood.
Part 2, Van Gelder discusses 18 issues facing the NA Church. This is a buffet line of missiological issues. It can be overwhelming. Let's boil this down a bit. What is the center of the NA Church? What are its boundaries? We will discuss centered and bounded sets after your posts. This is missiological jargon that helps to analyze global dynamics of the church. You may want to step back to develop a bigger picture of missiology, and you may reflect upon several universal questions. What is the missiology of the Church? What is the missiology of the NA Church? Your congregation?
After just finishing up digesting Van Gelder’s “Defining the Center-Finding the Boundaries” I am exhausted. First, he packs a ton of information into this essay. Second, it seems as though the church in which I am serving has a number of challenges in front of it. I think how I’m feeling right now represents how a number of our church members feel; overwhelmed, unprepared and discouraged. While many of our members (myself included) certainly would not be able to express all 18 of these points the way Van Gelder did, I think if we put the cookies on the bottom shelf many would agree. I think our church isn’t different than many of the other churches out there that are facing frustrating levels of failure, but an inability to change their approach to church because they have been clinging to that approach and not to God. We have clung to the method and the routine so that we might be able to digest it. Managing a church makes sense. Following God through this changing world does not always make sense in the traditional fashion. I’m not sure about the center and boundaries, but I do recognize that people within out church have been shaped spiritually primarily by something else (including how our church was 20 years ago). As a result, much of the effort and input surrounds recapturing these methods that were effective for them at a certain point and time. People cling to these traditions and the impact they have had on their lives even though they have left those traditions. Even though they may have left a tradition, they still cling to it because it is what they know. They don’t have the energy of desire to continually learn new methods and would rather spend their energy fondly remembering how things were. They haven’t made the transition in thinking that the church needs to be a more mobile, adaptive, and flexible group that can adjust the constant evolving challenges in culture. They would rather just draw a line (our church property, or their homes) and wait for them to show up. I think a cognitive boundary that the church faces is the recognition that it must allow those that do not know God to set many of the rules and standards about how the Gospel will be communicated. How can good, God fearing Christians, allow someone else to make these decisions by their behavior? As a result, I believe the combination of a cleaving to the known and a refusing to go has turned a number of churches into forts for God. They may send their best out on an expedition once in a while, but for the most part the physical church building is where the ministry happens, and it is where we are allowed to call the shots. When you come into our house you follow our mysterious rules.
Now there are certainly many ministries that have a totally different mentality, and would stack up much better against Van Gelder’s list of 18. I simply don’t happen to be in one of them. In addition, the longer we refuse to recognize the way the world has changed around us, the more difficult it becomes. Denial is a powerful thing. Our church seems to live to avoid crisis and discomfort. As a result it is same old, same old. My attempts to communicate this have been ineffective up to this point, and it is bitter sweet to read through Van Gelder’s list. On one hand it confirms that I’m not going crazy, but on the other hand it grieves me to see this happening and be unable to do anything about it.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Part 2
Overarching all the issues presented by Van Gelder is the concept of bringing the gospel to the people in the world in which we find ourselves. Each of the 18 issues he then presents show how we have to change fundamental thought patterns to reach out to a world that is quickly abandoning modernity.
Part of the problem is that this missiology is still developing. We are still exploring what it means to be a church that recognizes that Christian people don't have their lives together any more than secularists and, from that point, figure out what it means to reach out to that fragmented world. We still have to figure out how to embrace diversity as a gift from God. We have to figure out what it means to be the ones in the minority and how we give a public face to the gospel as those in the minority status. We have to learn how to reach beyond denominational lines in order to work together to bring make the kingdom of God real in our communities.
If these changes are difficult to process on as grand a scale as North America, it is even more difficult on the local church level where such changes aren't just theories or ideas in a book written by a theologian or by a pastor who runs a megachurch that boasts a few thousand in attendance at a single service. The local church is where the rubber meets the road on missiologial issues. We can talk about reaching out to broken people, but what happens when the homeless guy shows up at Sunday morning worship with bags carrying all his possessions in tow? As Jason expressed in his example, what happens when people from a different cultural background show up at the door? Are the people in our churches willing to reach out to its community not as Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of God-ers and Brethren in Christ, but as followers of Christ, plain and simple?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
