Filed under: Book Review, Missional Church | Tags: Christianity, God, gospel, Jesus, Missional, Missional Church
Don’t know why this didn’t publish, but I just found it in my draft file.
I’ve been devouring Darrell Guder’s (and others) foundational book, Missional Church:A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. First published in 1998 this prophetic call for change is both affirming and wrecking many of my ideas and convictions of living as an incarnational community. Two things amaze me. First, is the fact that I am just reading this book now, and second is that, for the most part, this book seems to be completely ignored by most church leaders. I’ve found myself getting so into reading that I actually have to go back and re-read whole sections because there is so much good stuff in here. The writers do a great job of pointing out the fact that the church must be open to change in order to respond not only to the culture surrounding it, but also to what God is doing in that culture. Followers of Jesus must recapture the idea that living as a “church” is not about a building, or offering programs, or even having a weekly time of worship and teaching (as good as those things may or may not be). Following Jesus is, first and foremost, about living together as a sent people: a people on mission to proclaim and demonstrate the in-breaking of the reign (kingdom) of God.
Guder writes (you may have to read this a few times to get the full effect of it):
“It is not hard to see that at many times in the church’s history this central affirmation of good
news [the kingdom of God is at hand] has suffered a pattern of omission or ‘eclipse’. Two tendencies
in the long history of Christendom help to explain this troublesome pattern. First, the church has
tended to separate the news of the reign of God from God’s provision for humanity’s salvation. This
separation has made salvation a private event by dividing ‘my personal salvation’ from the advent of
God’s healing reign over all the world. Second, the church has also tended to envision itself in a
variety of ways unconnected to what must be fundamental for it–its relation to the reign of God.
If it was Jesus’ announcement of the reign of God that first gathered the fledgling church into a
community, and if that church grew and matured around the way that reign found meaning and hope
in His death and resurrection, then the church must always seek its definition with the reign of God
in Jesus as its crucial reference point.”
The question then becomes, what does it mean for a community of God’s people (the local church) to be defined by the fact that “the Kingdom (reign) of God is at hand. How does one as an individual and as part of an intimate community live that out so it is “good news” for the actual community that we live in? I’d love to hear your thoughts and answers, and maybe I’ll post some of mine later.
Filed under: Bible, Institutional Church, Missional Church, Quotes | Tags: Andrew Jones, Christianity, context, contextualization, gospel, Institutional Church, Jesus, John MacArthur, Love, missions
I was planning on posting a book review today, but I read something last night that I figured I should post. Apparently there is an argument going on in some circles of Christianity about the biblical basis of contextualization. For those of us without theology degrees, that basically means sharing the good news of what God is doing and has done in the world in a way that speaks relevantly to the culture you are in. For example, when missionaries originally went into Africa to share the gospel they brought pipe organs to teach people to worship, European clothes for converts, and only instructed people in English. That is not contextualizing the gospel. On the other hand, someone who learns the language, customs, taboos, idioms, and culture of a group of people in order to more effectively share God’s love with them, contextualizes the gospel of God in the new culture.
Here is a part of a post on Andrew Jones blog. I not a regular reader of his, but this one pulled me over to check out his site.
Context. Does it matter?
When John MacArthur reportedly said a few weeks ago at the Shepherds Conference that “contextualization is a curse” and “the apostles went out with a complete disdain for context”
. . . I said nothing.
When his sidekick Phil Johnson followed it up with “Regarding contextualization, Paul did not adapt his message to the values and beliefs of the culture the Athenians lived in”
. . . I went on pilgrimage to my inner monastery and renewed my vow of silence.
When Phil added a few days ago that Paul used NONE of the strategies of postmodern missional ministry [culture, contextualization, conversation, and charitableness]
. . . I stuck my teenage son’s smelly sock down my throat so that i could not speak and then smeared raspberry jam on my keyboard so that i could not blog.
But when a commenter on Phil’s blog responded with “I never thought that ANYONE would see Paul’s evangelism to the Athenians as “contextualisation”!
. . well . . . I could contain myself no longer. The sock popped from my mouth and nearly knocked my ‘Perspectives’ off the bookshelf, and the raspberry jam magically dissolved, presenting me with a bright and shiny set of keys to tap out some response.
A quick recap:
Phil over at Pyromaniacs has a big post called “Paul on Mars Hill: Part 1″. which is worth reading just to see how people can read the same story and come up with opposite conclusions. His second part “Paul in Athens” got posted today and is consistent with his argument.
But I find his argument hard to swallow.
Phil’s says:
“People who are enthralled with style-driven missional strategies almost always single out this famous account. “Paul blended into the culture,” they say. “He adopted the world view and communications style of his hearers. He observed their religion and listened to their beliefs and learned from them before he tried to teach them. And he didn’t step on their toes by refuting what they believed. Instead, he took their idea of the unknown god, embraced that, and used it as the starting point for his message about Christ. And there you have some of the major elements of postmodern missional ministry: culture, contextualization, conversation, and charitableness.” Phil 1:1 (Phil’s first main point, in the first installment of his series)
Well, its true that I do see the need for some cultural sensitivity to both our own culture and the culture to which we are sent.
When some missionaries went to Africa with complete disdain for contextualization, they brought pipe-organs with them so the natives could worship God properly, without their nuances of culture.
When some missionaries went to North America with complete disdain for contextualization, they took away their native dances and forced the converts to learn English so that they could worship God properly, in the correct language, and without their nuances of culture.
Where is Gary Larson when we need him?
WE WERE BLIND TO OUR COLONIAL ABUSE BECAUSE WE WERE BLIND TO THE IMPACT OF OUR OWN CULTURE ON THE GOSPEL WE CARRIED.
For the rest of the rant go here
Andrew ends with this:
BTW – I have a lot [lot lot lot lot . . . LOT] of respect for both John MacArthur and Phil Johnson. Phil and I almost had a cup of coffee together a month ago in London but we had to put it off for another day. Both are godly men who love God and the Scriptures and I look forward to meeting them in person one day.
Bottom line. I believe that the Apostle Paul listened and conversed and looked for the redemptive analogies that would help him convincingly and prophetically shed light on the good news of Christ. The next generation are finding their own mythologies that will influence how they understand concepts of redemption, salvation, blood sacrifice and other theological concepts. They will need eye openers. They already have stored away a few redemptive analogies from the poets and writers of their own day and will draw on them to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom. Some of those stories are helpful and some will need to be corrected. But we do need to be aware of them.
And thats why you might find me in the cinema watching Harry Potter.
Honestly I can’t even believe there is an argument.
Isn’t LOVE always contextualized in any relationship? Wether in marriage, parenthood, friendship, or even spirituality?
Oh how I wish (hope? pray?) that followers of Jesus would be know by that (How well we love) instead of for what we are against. Isn’t it time I (we) (they) started living that way?
To quote a remarkable man from Grand Rapids, “LOVE WINS!”
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this whole thing.
