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.

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"!

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.)

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.

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.

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?

Comments

I like your suggestion Tammie, here goes a test.