This stone pomegranate might be the only surviving artifact from Solomon’s Temple. Pretty cool.
Month: December 2008
Missional?
This is from the newsletter of Dave Dunbar, President of Biblical Seminary. I think it’s great.
Following Jesus into the World
A recent issue of Leadership magazine carries a brief article by Alan Hirsch that cuts through some of the fog surrounding the term “missional.” He first clarifies what missional does not mean. It is not synonymous with emerging, or evangelistic, or seeker-sensitive. It is not simply another way to talk about church growth or social justice programs.[1]
The need for such clarification, fully a decade after the publication of the landmark book Missional Church, is symptomatic of at least two problems.
First is the linguistic fact that the meaning of words is fluid over time. As more people incorporate a word into their vocabulary, its meaning changes depending on the context. Think back to what happened to the words “born again” after the election of Jimmy Carter. This is happening with “missional”–more people are hearing it and using it, and this creates some ambiguity. While it is encouraging that more folks are getting comfortable with the word and using it positively, I share Hirsch’s concern with the loss of precision.
The second problem troubles me more. I fear that those of us in the missional movement have not communicated clearly and concretely. In other words, we must take some ownership for the confusion that exists. My purpose here is to take another run at a simple definition.
At the end of a recent conversation on this very topic, one of the trustees of Biblical Seminary observed, “Isn’t this whole missional thing really just about following Jesus into the world?” Now summarizing a decade of scholarly and popular discussion with one sentence could seem dismissive or belittling of what some of us feel is an incredibly important set of issues. However, the comment was not made with any negative intent and, as I have reflected on it, I’ve become convinced that it may be a very valuable handle for grasping the missional concern.
Following Jesus into the WorldThese words provide a concrete image of the church’s call to mission. The disciple is to be like the teacher. As the Father sent the Son into the world, the resurrected Jesus now sends his followers (John 20:21). The death and resurrection of Jesus is the life-transforming and world-transforming event that empowers the disciples to go, and insures that their going will not be in vain. Like their master, the disciples go forth with word and deed–they announce the good news and they do good works (the works of the kingdom).
Now if you are on board with this, you may be tempted to say, “What’s new about that? This is what I’ve always thought!” Or perhaps, “This is what our church has always done!” Yes, well . . . maybe, but not so fast. The fact is that most of the churches I know are not missional in the sense I have just described. So perhaps your church is different . . . perhaps!
Let me point out some differences between this vision of the church’s mission and what I most frequently observe.
1. The missional vision is outward-facing rather than inward-facing. My experience of church has been of groups that were largely inwardly focused. The primary concern and expenditure of energy was for the internal community of believers. We gave our attention to questions like: How can we improve the worship experience? How can we better care for the congregation? How can we increase the number of people in small groups? How can we provide discipleship for our children and young people? How can we increase attendance and grow the membership?
I am not suggesting that most churches have no concern for non-Christians or strangers–many do. But even where such concern exists, it often appears as an after-thought or as something important that we will get to after we take care of what is really important–edifying the congregation and performing church in a particular place. Is this one of the reasons most churches see very little conversion growth?By contrast, the missional congregation follows Jesus outside of the church. It walks with him through the community. It visits with people who no longer feel comfortable coming to church, either because they feel unwelcome, unacceptable, or unsure. The missional congregation recognizes that some of its most important ministry will take place outside the church. It asks, “How is the Holy Spirit moving in our community and how might we be “workers together” with God?”
2. The missional vision is confident rather than fearful. Following Jesus into the world means we travel with the One who has authority over wind and waves and evil spirits, who heals the sick, feeds the hungry, speaks forgiveness to sinners, and raises the dead.
But much of Western Christianity today is fearful. Our churches have become places of retreat, bastions of intellectual and spiritual timidity. Sundays are times to convince ourselves that what we believe is true even though it seems to have little bearing on the other six days of life in the big bad world.
I am not suggesting that retreat is always wrong or that the world is not a dangerous place. It’s just that hunkering down in a foxhole is not a good tactic if we are serious about following Jesus. He best understood the dangers for himself and for us. “I am sending you out like lambs among wolves!” (Luke 10:3). The church that follows Jesus into the world will chose confident vulnerability over fortressed security.
3. The missional vision is incarnational. I have written about this in earlier articles, but it bears repeating. Following Jesus means that we are disciples of the God who became flesh and walked among us, who combined words and deeds in announcing the good news that God’s Kingdom was at hand. The Kingdom is the coming reign of God who is now setting the world to rights (to borrow N.T. Wright’s fine phrase). All is to be restored, and the ministry of Jesus is the sign and foretaste of what the new creation will ultimately be.
The churches I have experienced focused primarily on words. We stressed the importance of teaching and preaching the gospel clearly–most of it within the church and for the church. Good works were encouraged as a response to the gospel and as a way of saying “thank you” to God for his mercy.
What this perspective lacks is an incarnational understanding of discipleship. The power of the Lord’s ministry is that he not only proclaimed the kingdom, he enacted it. And this is what the missional church has understood: the gospel not only needs to be announced, it needs to be performed. Where? In church? Well, yes, that’s important (though most of our congregations aren’t doing too well on this, right?).
If we are serious about following Jesus into the world, isn’t it equally important for us to “perform the gospel” in the world? When Paul tells the Ephesian Christians that “we are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10) he is not speaking about private spirituality but about the signs of the new creation that God has prepared for us to enact as witnesses to the gospel.What specific good works are in view? A local congregation can only answer this question by prayerfully following Jesus into the “world” (i.e. their local neighborhood). Such a congregation might ask the question, “How would this community be different if the Kingdom arrived in power today?” The answer would offer a helpful clue to the kind of good works God has prepared for them.
So there you have it. A simple idea but, like many simple ideas, profound. The missional church movement is an attempt by Western Christians to reclaim our identity as disciples–people learning to be like Jesus and ready to follow him into our world.
Scot McKnight is writing about a “third way” between “conservative” and “liberal” Christian faith. Today’s post is on the nature of scripture — something I’ve been studying and thinking about quite a bit lately. I think I’ve read most of the recent books on the nature of scripture. Here are my thoughts:
(a) any Christian formulation of what scripture is must acknowledge that all scripture is inspired by God; (b) any Christian formulation of what scripture is must be consistent with the completely truthful, loving, and gracious character of God as the one who inspired scripture; (c) if the God who inspired scripture is a God of truth, then any Chrisitan formulation of what scritpure is must be completely truthful and honest about the phenomena of scripture (meaning it must take scripture as we find it, with all of its marks of humanity, and not as we ideally would like it to be); (d) if the God who inspired scripture is a God of truth, then any Christian formulation of what scripture is must not stifle or react defensively to the search for truth in any discipline of study and must not cause Christians to fear any truth wherever it is found; (e) any Christian formulation of what scripture is must locate scripture in relation to God’s revelation in Christ and in connection with scripture’s overarching purposes in God’s plan of redemption (this implies the role of the Holy Spirit); and (f) and Christian formulation of what scripture is must locate scripture within a coherent and satisfying Christian epistemology. As an addendum to all this, I think we need to remember that any creedal / doctrinal statement about the nature of scripture is not scripture itself; scripture might be infallible, but our statements about scripture are never infallible. Also, we need to say something about the canon.
Taking all these things into consideration, in my very humble opinion, the “conservative” evangelical approach to scripture, rooted in Warfield and summed up in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, misses the mark. However, “progressive” evangelical approaches to scritpure, in my view, sometimes seem weak on (b) and (e) — if “conservative” approaches can seem docetic, “progressive” approaches can seem adoptionist.
So as a very tentative first cut at a summary: “Scripture is the true and trustworthy record of God’s plan of redemption in Christ. It is to be cherished, studied, and heard with reverent humility in the community of God’s people through the ages and under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Each follower of Jesus is responsible before God to seek to understand and live out the story of redemption revealed in the scriptures and summarized in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.”
I picked up A Faith and Culture Devotional: Daily Readings on Art, Science and Life, by Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington, with high expectations. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the same old evangelical-fundamental half-baked stuff.
Take this from Kullberg’s introdution: “How did [the Bible’s] ancient writers know that electromagnetic energy preceded visible light (Genesis), or that “darkness” resided somewhere (Job) as physicists are now pondering….” Um, earth to Kelly: they didn’t know anything at all about electromagnetic energy or dark energy / matter, and its just silly to read the Bible as if they did.
And so, on and on go the rationalistic arguments, such as Walter Kaiser’s eye-popping “if Sodom was not razed, could it be that our faith is also in vain?” (P. 44). Well, historical referent in the OT narratives is a tricky and interesting question, but if you’re stuck asking this kind of question, and if this is your idea of what belongs in a “faith and culture devotional,” I’d submit you have some big problems on your hands.
Can we get an evangelical-oriented devotional on faith and culture that isn’t just mostly a thinly veiled apologia for inerrancy as it was understood by Francis Schaeffer? Please?
Hauerwas on Matthew on Kingdom
“Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'” — Matthew 3:1-2.
John [the Baptist] was not offering a better way to live, though a beter way to live was entailed by the kingdom that he proclaimed was near. But it is the proclamation of the “kingdom of heaven” that creates the urgency of John’s ministry. Such a kingdom does not come through our tryin gto be better people. Rather, the knigdom comes, making imperative our repentance. John’s call for Israel to repent is not a prophetic call for those who repent to change the world, but rather he calls for repentance because the world is being and will be changed by the one whom John knows is to come. To live differently, moreover, means that the status quo can be challenged because now a people are the difference.
Stanley Hauerwas, Commentary on Matthew, Ch. 3.
“The Christian does not pretend to know all the answers to life’s questions, but he does claim to know some of the answers to the final questions, those that determine the direction of one’s eternal destiny. Yet he makes this claim not on the basis of his own ingenuity or intelligence but on the basis of God’s revelation in the Scriptures. Moreoever, he does not boast that he ‘possesses’ these answers, for they reside in the mind of Christ which is made available to him time and again by the Spirit.”
Donald Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty, at p. 76.
“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the Magi.” Matthew 3:16.
Herods must be resisted, but we must also not forget that the fear that possessed Herod’s life is not absent from our own lives. “All Jerusalem” was also frightened by the news of this child’s birth. And the same fear continues to possess cultures — our culture — that believe they have no time or energy for children. Abortion is one of the names for the fear of time that children make real. Children rightly frighten us, pulling us as they do into the unknown future. But that pull is the lure of love that moves the sun and the stars, the same love that overwhelmed the wise men with joy. It is the love that makes the church an alternative to the world that fears the child.
Hauerwas, Commentary on Matthew, Chapter 2.
“The movement that Jesus begins is constituted by people who believe that they have all the time in the world, made possible by God’s patience, to challenge the world’s impatient violence by cross and resurrection.” — Hauerwas, Commentary on Matthew Chapter 2.
For a contemporary evangelical theological perspective that is rooted in scripture and the great tradition but is not captive to modernism, it’s hard to do better than Donald Bloesch. Recently I’ve been reading Bloesch’s Essentials of Evangelical Theology. Maybe Bloesch is a little too harsh on human reason, but there are many gems like this one:
In calling for a rediscovery of evangelical distinctives, we need to be aware of heresies on the right: perfectionism, dispensationalism, religious enthusiasm, and hyperfundamentalism. The great evangelical doctrines of sola Scriptura, solus Christus, and sola gratia contradict the synergism and anthropocentrism in conservative Christianity as well as in liberalism. Even the doctrine of sola Scriptura, understood in the Reformation sense, exists in tension with the current evangelical stress on personal religious experience as well as the fundamentalist appeal to arguments from reason and science is support of total biblical reliability.
Some “third way” folks won’t like Bloesch’s strong Calvinism (I happen to appreciate it, for the most part), but his effort to develop a method that is essentially pre-modern seems spot-on.
Michael Bird at Euangelion reviews a recent book on theological education. Bird’s comments here caught my eye:
in the more conservative circles in which I move, certain theologians are given to constructing a doctrine of Scripture that contains many a priori assumptions about how they think God should have given us Scripture, and then you end up with a doctrine of Scripture that will not survive contact with the phenomenon of the text (i.e its origin, transmission, reception, and interpretation). Or else, it is demanded of us biblical scholars that we re-write or even invent a history of the text to line up with theological articulation of what Scripture is, how it came into being, and how it relates to its own context by some theological magisterium. Third, meaning is arguably created by fusing together the horizons of author-text-reader which justifies a modest reader-response hermeneutic in my mind…