1. Hunsberger.
I guess I would not ask how our church accomplishes this task, but IF it does. From a fairly critical perspective I think this is a fundamental challenge facing our congregation. Although there is ample criticism of some of the more extreme examples of godlessness in our culture (sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) our focus can often be on living holier lives than these extreme examples. As a result of comparing ourselves to the worst in society, it seems that there is a reluctance to admit sin, but rather rationalize it. “At least we’re not as bad as those people.” I believe this reluctance to admit sin eliminates our need for the gospel, or at least changes it. Instead of worshipping God and his holiness and being properly convicted of our sins and subsequently driven to our knees in repentance, we just try not to be as bad as THOSE people. Unfortunately, this transforms the ethos of the church from sinners at the foot of the cross (grasped by the gospel), to a group of people with similar upbringings and religious backgrounds that are seeking a happy, comfortable medium where they are just trying to be better than most of those godless crazies out there. I think many times we can’t criticize our own culture because that would mean criticizing and questioning ourselves and our loved ones and our skin isn’t thick enough to do it. We are too scared to really look in the mirror or allow the truth of the gospel message to engage us. We avoid. All the time we avoid.
2. Hendrick
The first century church needed to distinguish itself from Judaism. One of the ways this was made easy is that Judaism in the first century was more easily defined. There were hundreds of rules that defined behavior and in some sense distinguished Judaism from culture. Early Christianity needed to work hard to redefine itself, and it did so by breaking away from (behaviorally) many of the clearly defined traditions of Judaism. The NA church has a similar task, but I believe it is more difficult because the church in NA is not as clearly defined in our culture. Under the umbrella of the Church in NA there are thousands of differences. As a result we cannot just redefine ourselves as compared to whomever, but must define ourselves in contrast to our constantly changing culture. I like the six points that Hendricks brings up and agree that the most important thing is to recognize the truth of who the church is in the eyes of our culture. Points #1 and #5 revolve around a recognition of the present reality of the church. I think this was easy for the NT missional model because in some ways it was starting from scratch. In some ways it wasn’t. We can see throughout the book of Galatians the discussion Paul has trying to get his audience to recognize that they don’t need to be both Jews and Christ followers. In points #2 and #3 there is an introduction of a process or activity in which the truth of the reality of the church in NA might be discovered if not understood already. I think this was a necessary part of the NT missional church because it recognized its situation (#1, and #5) already. In the NA church I think there would be some ah-ha moments for people in engaging in #2 and #3. Finally, I see #4 and #6 as the mission/purpose statement that was the backbone of the NT church, and could be ours as well.
3. Junkin
The closest I have been to this is the community I had as a student in College living in the dorms, and then also as a Resident Director (person in charge of the dorm). These experiences were both at Christian liberal arts colleges, and because the students had quite a bit in common before coming, it made the transition to a godly community possible. There was also the healthy tradition of strong community and relationships coming into the college dorm experience as well as the defined structure of the college life. Essentially the university administration had created an atmosphere that made it easier to develop and deepen Christian community. I think one of the strongest elements that led to the successful development of genuine Christian community was the understanding that people had BEFORE committing of college. Part of this is the understanding and expectation of transition and transformation. These students and their parents planned for this transition, were spending a lot of money, and expecting to be changed. It was an entire life transition and transformation.
The second element was the quantity of time spent with one another. Many of these guys ate every meal, studied, slept, exercised, hung out, essentially did everything with one another for months at a time. In addition, they traveled together, met each others families, worshipped together, prayed for each other, and discussed everything under the sun. There is no substitution for time spent in the development and deepening of community. I believe to this day it is the closest I have ever been to genuine Christian community.
4. Roxburgh
I love these models, but I can see how it might prove difficult to get a congregation to agree with it. There is a battle against the “that’s what we pay you to do” mentality that can be prevalent in today’s churches. I can see in our church how there is a tension between people that support the first or the second model and see those as the only two options. I like the third the most, but can also see how some Pastors might not like this model because it does give up some control of the execution of the church programs. For the most part I think it comes down to communication of the structure and making sure the properly gifted people are in the right places. It is difficult though because the Pastor is getting paid and there must be something (for the sake of the congregation) that separates him from the volunteer staff. The community will determine what that is that should separate their pastor and that is usually how the Pastor’s job description is formed. Unfortunately, sometimes that is just a list of what no one else wants to do, or it can be a select list of things the congregation defines as “real ministry”. Looks great on paper, but it would prove to be a tough sell for some congregations.
5. Hunsberger
Okay, let’s get this straight, I am serving in a church that is more like a vendor of religious services. It is missional, but mostly it supports other people to be missional without actually being very missional itself. I am racking my brain to think of how I might even begin a conversation about this subject with our Senior Pastor, much less our church leadership. I am also thinking of how to discern the differences between people’s attitudes towards church being either missional or just vendor of religious services. In the first shift I can see it is completely up to the participant to determine whether a program or activity is one or the other. I believe we address the importance of the application to our teachings, etc., but whether people actually do apply these things is ultimately up to them. I like the shift from committee to team, but wonder how people would feel about being less informed and having less control/input in how things are done. Sadly enough, I think some people might miss the opportunity to be the center of attention and have a voice amongst a group of people. I’m not sure if people would be able to give that up for the sake of others’ salvation. I know it sounds awful, but for some it might be hard to break because their identity is so entangled in it. The third one looks at a Pastor as a catalyst within a congregation to spur them on. I can see how this could be very exhausting, especially if that is not really why the congregation the pastor. Next, how necessary is a pastor to motivate and inspire in a church that desires to hire a pastor that will motivate and inspire them. Aren’t they well on their way already. I feel like the shift from recruitment to missions is kind of semantics. One is going out, and the other is bringing in, but isn’t that just because in mission going out is the first step to bring in? Besides “giving the gospel away”, isn’t our best hope of that an exposure to genuine Christian community lived out. That isn’t something that can just be handed out on the street corner. It really must be a blend of both pursuit, as well as welcome and invitation. The last one is also informed by a leader’s inspiration and motivation. Yes an entrepreneur might even be more focused upon reaching out to new people (gaining market share/being missional), than the missionary leader who is one who “forms community”. That sounds like quite a bit of work with the insiders and not outreach. I think this reading has gotten a bit muddled in my brain.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Session #5: Rock Daddy
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.
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.
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).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
