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.