Glocal Christianity

What is missional?

Just been reading Scot McKnight's summary of the Three Central Missional Conversations according to Alan Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren. My transliteration:

Conversation 1: Understanding the West is now a mission field

Conversation 2: Rethinking the gospel in terms of God's mission

Conversation 3: Recasting the church as a contrast community

And Scot's addition:

Conversation 4: It's home brewed nature

Personally I think this summary has a lot going for it, especially Conversation 1. Because if you don't get that you're not going to get any of it.

An (ana)Baptist explores Deep Church and wonders

Over the weekend I've been devouring Jim Belcher's new book "Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional", which I won't be reviewing today, but will be reviewing shortly. Instead, today is for processing, for reexamining my own engagement with the emerging church conversation. The question: how would I describe my own ministry?

You see, in many ways my entire journey has been beyond emerging and traditional, whilst being immersed in both. Of the three streams Belcher refers to - relevants, reconstructionists, revisionists - I clearly swim with the "reconstructionists". Yes, I tend to be influenced by Anabaptist "resident aliens" perspectives, and yes, I am actively exploring postConstantinian (note,  contra Belcher I would not say preConstantinian) church models. But I am doing so from within a semi-traditional, sem-contemporary church, so what does that mean? How do my 'reconstructionist' tendancies manifest in my traditional church activity?

Well, since moving into the role of Ministry Leader for Mission and Evangelism late last year I think it's been most obvious in my insistance that all ministries need to become more missional, that my calling is to equip the church for mission, to lead the church into mission, not to do all the mission. It's been in my efforts to help our "Kid's ministry" events to become more missional in preference to running separate "Evangelism ministry" events (which is a way of saying mission and cultural engagement is unavoidable, not a "special" thing for some). It's been in my pushing for ministry meetings to be opened up so different ministies can work together (which is a way of saying worship and witnessing should be explored in more holistic, less fragmented ways). Unlike the "relevants" I seek more than stylistic change, I seek structural change, and I am actively working for it.

But I am not seeking structural change through the founding of house church networks or new monastic communities as some within the reconstructionist stream strongly advocate. Not only is this not so practical for me, not being a recognised minister and all, but I am not so sure church planting is the only way forward anyway. Many reconstructionist leaders have spoken as if all we should do is plant new missional churches and wait for the old unmissional ones to die. Given church planting receives little support in established suburbs, yet established suburbs still need missional churches, I ask, why not consider church transformation as a valid option for some of us? After all, this insistance on planting good, transition bad, could that not be a subtle manifestation of the consumerism reconstructionists might otherwise protest against?

So in summary, I think there's a place for opening up traditionals to "resident alien" perspectives, for exploring third ways. Or is it a third way? No, I'm getting ahead of myself, I'll leave that for the review.

Blackstump, McLaren and the Sines

Ok, so I am finally sitting down to write about Blackstump 2009, or at least my experience of it. For those of you who don’t live in Australia, Blackstump is the down under equivalent of Greenbelt, a four day festival of Christian music, art and teaching.

I wasn’t there for four days though, just last Saturday, but what a packed Saturday it was. In the morning it was a Bible study with Brian McLaren. McLaren spoke on the barriers that divide us and had some interesting insights into the gospel of Matthew that I hadn’t picked up on before. He explored the confronting encounter between Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman, but then linked this to the second feeding incident and Deuteronomy 7. His synopsis? If we resist the temptation to water down the text, we can see how, in overcoming his own barriers, Jesus models this for us. My synopsis? I give a thumbs up to anyone who can surprise me and get me wrestling with scripture in new ways.

After this I caught up with friends, Lucy and Andrew (HT for photo), who had organized a small, informal gathering over at the Genesis Lounge for people interested in missional arts and dancing. Good conversation.

After this, I caught some electives, the most inspiring of which was a talk by Andy Flannagan on Just Worship. Andy affirmed poets and artists as worship leaders, encouraged us to explore all of God’s character in worship, and inspired me to delve deeper into how I can lead others into poetic worship through my own.

Then some dinner with Simeon and Rosemary, friends from my Mind Body Spirit Festival days, and down to Mars Hill Café, where I joined a conversation with Tom and Christine Sine, Dean Tregenza, Ben Weatley, and a few others. Four or five hours later … after the lights were turned out on us … I turned into a pumpkin.

In the process though, I accepted an invite from Dean to be on the Sacred Space team next year. Keep posted.

Keep posted also because one of the things I haven’t mentioned previously, but may as well now, is that Tom and Christine Sine will be joining us for dinner in Pendle Hill towards the end of October before returning to America. One of the things I appreciate about Tom and Christine is that they seem to have more appreciation than most for the diversity in the emerging / missional conversation. I’ll be keen to see how their experiences here shapes that.

Top 10 reasons the church planting movement in North America is in trouble

Back in August Brad Boyson posted his list of the Top 10 reasons the church planting movement in North America is in trouble. Very good list. Number 4 and 5 pick up on some of my own recent complaints about insular teaching and practice. Number 6 on consultants got me thinking too. Now I am wondering if there is anything i would add.

Beyond tribalism

The problem with most churches is not that they're uncontextual, its that they're too contextual for too narrow a segment of our culture. They are contextual for the tribe of white, aspirational, family-orientated people who like to play life safe. And consequently, not so contextual for people who are not. This segment is a significant segment of our culture, but only a segment.

The alt-tribal church

Now, one solution that has been suggested by the missional crowd is more tribal churches. To shift from a geographic focus to a demographic focus. But I have found geography has not been rendered irrelevant by globalization. Place still matters. Tribal churches greater chance of success where geography and demographics reinforce one another. For example, Goth friendly gatherings have more chance of success in dingy inner city suburbs than in leafy outer suburbs. Pagan friendly gatherings have more chance of success in Salem and Nimbin. Café churches have more chance of success in Café strips. Place still matters. When people wish to gather offline and not merely online, when people start bringing families and not just themselves, they don't want to migrate half a city away every week. Even when they belong to the tribe, the tribal church may be too distant for more than an occasional visit. Place still matters. So tribal church is only half a solution.

The multi-tribal church

The other half of the solution, as I see it, is multi-tribal church. Genuine multi-tribal and not just white, aspirational mono-tribal masquerading as multi-tribal in their rhetoric. Multi-tribal needs to be modelled at every level, beginning with the leadership level. Multi-tribal needs to celebrate, and not just tollerate, tribal diversity. But when you have genuinely multi-tribal church, everybody, even the tribless, are in a cross-cultural situation ... together.

Our church

It's this latter approach that I see as necessary for my context. We live in one of the most multicultural suburbs in Sydney, which is one of the most multicultural cities in the Southern Hemisphere. We have over 50 languages spoken in some of the schools in our area. We have only a bit over a hundred people in our church. Even if we dispanded the church and sent out every man, woman and child in pairs we would not have enough to send someone to every tribe. And of course, not everyone is a gifted apostle or evangelist, so this is a rediculous expectation. What we can do though is learn how to be more embracing of any and every tribe. And be missional amongst whoever God places in our path.

But don't think these approaches are unrelated. They are the two extremes of a broad spectrum. And contextualization is needed along the whole spectrum. Where is your place?

Are gospels and Acts our primary texts for missiology?

Janet has suggested, as a topic for debate, we discuss whether the gospels and Acts are our primary texts for missiology. I've decided to respond in the negative and counter with, the New Testament is our primary text for missiology.

Yes, of course Acts is an obvious place to begin, as are the gospels. But I want to suggest that, if we truly affirm God as a missional God, then we need to be open to understanding all of God's word as missional.

The Old Testament

Indeed, if we affirm the YHWH of the Old Testament and the Father of the New Testament as the same, we should also be open to what the Old Testament has to say. The gospel of John suggests we be open to reading Genesis 1 more Christologically, and thus missiologically, and missionaries have long seen missional significance in the calling and sending forth of Abraham. And then we also have the story of Jonah, which deconstructs any suggestion that God cares only for those under the covenant. And then we also have the new covenant prophecies.

The New Testament

But, that being said, I am wary of over emphasizing the Old Testament. For just as Jesus is superior to Moses, so the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament, thus I think its important we keep a Christological focus when discussing mission. But given that all the New Testament was written in the aftermath of the resurrection and the sending of the apostles, I think all of the New Testament is pretty primary.

Revelation and the Letters

For instance, my missiology is heavily shaped by Revelation, by the vision of the extraordinary breaking into the ordinary world, by the vision of the conqueror as the vulnerable one, by the vision of a renewed earth and resurrected community, by the warning that the state is Babylon, by the call to come. Where is mission without vision?
My missiology is also heavily shaped by that extraordinary missionary, the apostle Paul. Where would my understanding of multicultural mission be without Paul's letter to the Galatians? And hey, are there any Calvinists out there? I expect you'd agree Romans shouldn't be underestimated in missiological / evangelistic importance either.

The Good News

Which brings us, of course, to the good news itself. The messiah spread the good news of the kingdom. The apostles spread the good news of the king. How can we understand how the two messages are one message without exploring how the gospels, Acts, letters and Revelation mutually interrelate?

So, without seeking to minimise the importance of the gospels and Acts for missiology, I say, without the letters and Revelation our reading of the gospels and Acts will be lopsided.

Propositional Truth in Missional Situations

A discussion over at NeoBaptist on crafting belief statements has led to an interesting discussion the place of propositional truth in missional evangelism and discipleship. More recently I commented: 

Joe, as is hopefully becoming clearer, I tend to see ANY imbalance as problematic, so I don't disagree with the counter examples you raise. I see hypercalvinism and hyperliberalism as equally dangerous. If I emphasize here the errors that may be attributable to hypercalvinism, its because I want to highlight the necessity of being "in the world". But let me assure you that amongst Emergent deconstructionists I have been at equal pains to highlight the necessity of not being "of the world". Close to my heart is the instruction, "So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left." (Deuteronomy 5:32) I tend to see both sectarianism and syncretism as falling away. In advocating contextualization I am rejecting both. I have drawn a diagram here that I think fleshes it out more.

My basic argument is that propositional statments have their place in missional situations, but that place is not necessarily a leading one. See what you think.

Missional Prayer

When you hear the phrase, missional prayer, what do you think it is?

What makes prayer missional or unmissional?

Here are a few thoughts I have. Firstly, as with David Augsburger and Richard Foster, I would say there are three dimensions to Christian spirituality: moving upwards in worship (God focus), moving inwards in confession (self focus), moving outwards in intercession (other focus). And I would say this three dimentional perspective necessarily leads to some related questions, which are: What is missional worship? What is missional confession? What is missional intercession? So to expand...

Prayers of worship. Prayer, when missional, begins with the recognition that our God is a missional God, a self sending God. Before we speak of God, we should listen to God, and the God who speaks through scripture is a sending (and sent) God. This is the God we worship. When our master taught us how to pray, he left no gap between "Our heavenly Father, holy is your name" and "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Neither should we. God is not passive, God is active.

Prayers of confession. Prayer, when missional, includes recognition that what is wrong with the world begins with us, with I. Changing the world begins with changing the self. Changing society begins with changing the church … and we are the church … so it begins with our own confession and inner transformation, as individuals and as a community. We cannot expect any missional success whilever the church, whilever we, remain introspective and arrogant.

Prayers of intercession. Prayer, when missional, includes recognition that God saved us whilst we were all enemies of God. Intercession should therefore include prayers for forgiveness of our enemies, that as we have come to know the ways of faith and love, so they would come to to know the ways of faith and love. Intercessory prayer, when missional, does not involve the demonization of enemies, whatever gods they worship. Demonization is of the devil.

So, what happens for you inside, reading this? Are you draw to it? Do you object violently? Are you left with questions or uneasy feelings? I would like to hear, even if you don't normally comment.

Resurrection and the Missional Impulse

Sunday, a day for remembering. Here are some thoughts on the missional implications of the resurrection of Jesus for some other bloggers I've stumbled across.

Robert C. Tannehill points out that the resurrection narrative in Luke 24 has a chiastic structure that highlights mission.

Brian Russell makes some similar observations about Luke 24 and adds, “The proclamation of the Resurrection is received with skepticism (24:11). This is worth pondering. Sometimes we think that the ancients were gullible and believed anything.” Resurrection was as anti-intuitive then as it is now.

Tod Bolsinger asks, "If Jesus is risen, then what does that have to do with me?  Is it only something about Jesus or about the "afterlife"? Or does the resurrection mean something that has to do with this world and this life?"

 

Is it missional to speak of missional?

Is it missional to speak of "missional"? Particularly in public, which it inevitably is when we are communicating via the blogosphere? Isn't it ironic that missional conversations can sometimes be even more impenetrable to non-Christians than fundamentalist conversations? Sometimes I wonder if Pete Rollins should write a sequel, "How (Not) to Speak of Missional".

Why is the missional church NOT producing much literature for new Christians?

This is a huge question for me. As an observer of new religious movements I am very conscious of how much of NRM literature is aimed at newbies. When it comes to Emergent and Missional books though, by and large they are aimed at either (a) missional leaders or (b) post-evangelical Christians looking for new kinds of Christianity. There is so little out there for new Christians that from time to time I contemplate writing something myself out of shere frustration. The body language is very disturbing if one chooses to look.

Contextualization is often misunderstood

Are we sure we understand contextualization? This afternoon I stumbled across an article on Reclaiming Contextualization by Dr David Sills, a Professor of Christian Missions and Cultural Anthropology.

David comes from a much more conservative background than myself, so our sensitivities differ somewhat, but I really appreciated some of his comments on contextualization which struck me as very thoughtful and balanced. Here is a sample.

"When someone argues that Paul never contextualized the gospel and so they do not either, it is obvious that someone has redefined the term contextualization."

"The problem is not the practice of contextualization; it is a misunderstanding of what the word means."

"...contextualization is simply the process of making the gospel understood."

"The only reason to utilize filthy language or to reference explicit sexual behavior would be if the local culture communicated used filthy language in every conversation so much that no message would make sense without it. Television programs without such language would require subtitles for them, as they would not understand the message without filthy language and sexual anecdotes. Of course, this is not the case. In fact, much of what many call contextualization is simply an effort to be trendy and edgy. It may be effective, it may attract a hearing, it may not be offensive to the hearers, but that is not contextualization; that is marketing."

"Because no missionary or preacher would ever want to change the gospel message in any way [Ed: there are subtleties to this that require reflection], many shrink back from the hard work of contextualization. However, if you do not contextualize, you are doing just that—changing the gospel. You become a modern-day Judaizer."

"The term glocalization refers to the ways that multinational corporations carry on the same business in many countries but with subtly nuanced changes. McDonalds still sells hamburgers in Malaysia but the girls behind the counter wear their little paper hats on top of their head-coverings and they call their product “beefburgers,” not hamburgers, to avoid offending the Muslims who would never eat ham. We don’t eat ham on our burgers either, but the culturally offensive name prevents Muslims from getting near enough to find that out. It is the exact same product but clothed in a culturally sensitive form. Contextualization is essential, not simply trendy or stylish, and it does not water down Christ’s message."

Critical contextualization provides the needed balance. On one hand, failure to contextualize at all adds extrabiblical requirements to salvation. On the other hand, allowing the culture to contextualize with no theological or biblical limits results in syncretism and aberrant expressions of Christianity.

This is where the hermeneutical community brings the needed balance. As the believers in a culture have come to know the Lord, they join the preacher in studying the Bible to know how to contextualize it among them.

When the preacher or missionary does not understand the culture, language, or rules of the game in a society, his presentation of the gospel is often offensive for all the wrong reasons. When hearers reject the cultural misfit who does not understand them or their cultural heritage, they also reject the gospel without even knowing it.

Of course, we must contextualize the gospel message so that our hearers can properly understand it. Shame on us if we ever debate that. The current debate may be over marketing techniques but let us never sacrifice the necessity of critical contextualization.

I recommend you read the rest of the article, but I will leave you with this thought: how much of what you call contextualization is just marketing? This article prompts me to ask that of myself once again. Part of the reason it is called critical contextualization is because we are called to critique ourselves. Before we throw stones at Driscoll or his detractors or anyone else, have we examined our own practice?

Morling College Church Planting Summit

In commenting on the Anglican Church financial crisis, the issue came up about insitutional support for lay initiatives or lack thereof. The upcoming Church Planting Summit that Morling College has organised for the end of June is a perfect example. When is it held? During work hours!

That is just so typical of the institutional church isn't it? And it is not as if Morling College is overly hierachial. On the contrary, Morling College has a theological commitment to the priesthood of all believers and is more open than many institutions, so if anything it can be even worse elsewhere. But here is the thing, if you were really interested in investing in lay leadership would you hold such an "open" event like this for "teams" during work hours? At the end of the financial year no less! As it is, it pretty much screams paid ministers or professional students only.

Now if this was only a one off occurence I would have much to say, but I frequently have to pass up opportunities offered by Morling College and others because I am unable to attend during work hours and no alternatives are offered. Some of these events, believe it or not, were explicit emerging church events. So much for the flat structures cited by Gibbs and Bolger.

Missional Resources

The Question of Other Religions

Wiccans and Christians - Some Mutual Challenges
Energy Healing - A Christian Theological Appraisal
New religions and irreligious spiritualities
Lausanne statement on spiritual warfare

The Diversity of the Church

Just to explain ... hopefully
Multicultural Mission
Christian Diversity
List of Missional Churches
A Primer on Today's Missional Church
More missional, emerging and alt worship resources
Glocalization, Social Networks and the Church
Lausanne Covenant

We're all missional!

Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.

The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL missional!

The Crowd: Yes! We're all missional!

Brian: You're all different!

The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!

Man in crowd: I'm not...

The Crowd: Sch!