I am currently working on developing a few interviews with key people who work in missions related to the changes that are occuring in missions due to changed financial realities as well as changing shifts in the perspectives of the current generation of youth. I hope to be posting these on this blog in a few weeks. My personal perspective is that although demoninational organizations are having to readjust how they approach the financing of missions, there is a very large interest in missions on the part of youth and college students. The interesting dynamic is that the current generation seems to have a passion for people and for living as a Christian witness to parts of society previously marginalized by many Christians. The following clip is an interesting overview of Urbana 2009 which is currently underway that reflects this shift.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Invictus
Last night I got free tickets to see the preshowing of Invictus. Although I know nothing about rugby, the story line of Nelson Mandela and the incredible spirit of forgiveness that he demonstrated is overwhelming. The following is a piece from the movie:
Invictus Poem – 1867 By William Ernest Henley (was also the poem kept by President Nelson Mandela in his cell) Invictus is Latin and means unconquered.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank God for
my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Law of Love
One of the greatest experiences of my life was my friendship with the late Bruno Radi. What made it great was not that we agreed about everything. In reality, there were probably more things that we disagreed about than what we agreed on. I remember on one occasion Bruno was introducing me at a conference in South America and he said, “I have never known someone with whom I disagree more, and yet is one of my best friends”. The reason for that friendship was that we both were driven by a common, Christian love which overrode any possible disagreement.
There is a well known story about when John Wesley and one of his preachers were once taking lunch with a gentleman whose daughter had been greatly impressed by Wesley's preaching. The itinerant, a man of very plain manners and little tact, was conversing with the young lady, who was remarkable for her beauty. He noticed that she wore a number of rings, and taking hold of her hand, he raised it, and called Wesley's attention to the sparkling gems. "What do you think of this, sir," said he, "for a Methodist's hand?" The girl turned crimson, and the question was awkward for Wesley, whose aversion to all display of jewelry was so well known. But the aged evangelist showed a tact Chesterfield might have envied. With a quiet, benevolent smile he looked up, and simply said, "The hand is very beautiful."
Bruno often told me that it was possible to be right about something and yet not be in the right (it works better in Spanish). What he meant by that was very similar to what Wesley expressed. The law of love always overrides the law.
We live in a time in which people try to prove that they are right by being hateful toward other people that they disagree with. In my opinion, this is a case of being right, and yet not being in the right. Those who engage in this are not from just one part of society, but include the spectrum of atheists to fundamentalists from Muslims to Christians, and every sector of society. Perhaps, we could learn from my friend Bruno and from Wesley. The law of love is what distinguishes us more than anything else. I never thought that I would use Mormons as an example, but after discussion in class related to the missio Dei and homosexuality, a student sent me an article from USA Today that gives a good example of people who are trying to find a balance between the law of love and their faith in addressing the complex issue of homosexuality. I do not know if this is the right answer to a complex issue, and I do not know if the Mormon’s motives are pure motives. I do know, however, that we live in a time in which love which reflects the nature of God is in short supply. The following is the article:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake City laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's ballot measure that barred such unions.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday's action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80% of lawmakers and the governor are church members.
"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."
But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
It's strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.
Since then, however, Utah's gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.
"I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City," said Larabee, adding that the discussions have "shifted her perspective of what's possible" and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.
But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."
Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.
"In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations," Otterson said Tuesday .
Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.
And although this was the church's first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.
*to see this article in context go to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-11-utah-gayrights_N.htm?csp=34#uslPageReturn
There is a well known story about when John Wesley and one of his preachers were once taking lunch with a gentleman whose daughter had been greatly impressed by Wesley's preaching. The itinerant, a man of very plain manners and little tact, was conversing with the young lady, who was remarkable for her beauty. He noticed that she wore a number of rings, and taking hold of her hand, he raised it, and called Wesley's attention to the sparkling gems. "What do you think of this, sir," said he, "for a Methodist's hand?" The girl turned crimson, and the question was awkward for Wesley, whose aversion to all display of jewelry was so well known. But the aged evangelist showed a tact Chesterfield might have envied. With a quiet, benevolent smile he looked up, and simply said, "The hand is very beautiful."
Bruno often told me that it was possible to be right about something and yet not be in the right (it works better in Spanish). What he meant by that was very similar to what Wesley expressed. The law of love always overrides the law.
We live in a time in which people try to prove that they are right by being hateful toward other people that they disagree with. In my opinion, this is a case of being right, and yet not being in the right. Those who engage in this are not from just one part of society, but include the spectrum of atheists to fundamentalists from Muslims to Christians, and every sector of society. Perhaps, we could learn from my friend Bruno and from Wesley. The law of love is what distinguishes us more than anything else. I never thought that I would use Mormons as an example, but after discussion in class related to the missio Dei and homosexuality, a student sent me an article from USA Today that gives a good example of people who are trying to find a balance between the law of love and their faith in addressing the complex issue of homosexuality. I do not know if this is the right answer to a complex issue, and I do not know if the Mormon’s motives are pure motives. I do know, however, that we live in a time in which love which reflects the nature of God is in short supply. The following is the article:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake City laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's ballot measure that barred such unions.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday's action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80% of lawmakers and the governor are church members.
"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."
But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
It's strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.
Since then, however, Utah's gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.
"I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City," said Larabee, adding that the discussions have "shifted her perspective of what's possible" and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.
But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."
Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.
"In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations," Otterson said Tuesday .
Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.
And although this was the church's first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.
*to see this article in context go to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-11-utah-gayrights_N.htm?csp=34#uslPageReturn
Monday, November 09, 2009
The Majority World and the missio Dei
What difference does it make if we live into the missio Dei?
This weekend as I finished a presentation in Washington State about what would mean for the church to share God’s missional DNA, I opened the time for discussion, which is always interesting because it is the real test of whether you are communicating what you hope to communicate. A man raised his hand to make a comment, and after pausing he said, “This is so much harder than just giving money to a mission purpose in the church.” He was right, it is harder because it demands that we enter into real relationship with those whom God has chosen to serve. For some reason, those real relationships are always more difficult than giving to an organization that in turn sends someone else to do it. I believe that we are called to give and support those who are going, but living into the missio Dei does not stop there, it means that the whole body of Christ is sent. The following is a clip that brings that reality into focus and just as the clip related to the missio Dei and homosexuality brought difficult issues to the surface which cannot be resolved with reductionist answers, this clip is equally difficult to wrestle with. I would enjoy your open discussion with me about how the realities of the majority world affect how the Church lives into the missio Dei.
This weekend as I finished a presentation in Washington State about what would mean for the church to share God’s missional DNA, I opened the time for discussion, which is always interesting because it is the real test of whether you are communicating what you hope to communicate. A man raised his hand to make a comment, and after pausing he said, “This is so much harder than just giving money to a mission purpose in the church.” He was right, it is harder because it demands that we enter into real relationship with those whom God has chosen to serve. For some reason, those real relationships are always more difficult than giving to an organization that in turn sends someone else to do it. I believe that we are called to give and support those who are going, but living into the missio Dei does not stop there, it means that the whole body of Christ is sent. The following is a clip that brings that reality into focus and just as the clip related to the missio Dei and homosexuality brought difficult issues to the surface which cannot be resolved with reductionist answers, this clip is equally difficult to wrestle with. I would enjoy your open discussion with me about how the realities of the majority world affect how the Church lives into the missio Dei.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Statistic Lust
An article written by Christian Smith and published in Christianity Today (Jan.2007) expresses a concern that I have had for some time. The opening paragraph of his article is:
American evangelicals, who profess to be committed to Truth, are among the worst abusers of simple descriptive statistics, which claim to represent the truth about reality, of any group I have ever seen. At stake in this misuse are evangelicals' own integrity, credibility with outsiders, and effectiveness in the world.
Statistics are too often crafted to raise support, or to show a partial truth to gain support of donors for other causes. As long as I can remember, people have joked about how pastors count people on Sunday morning, or how a DS tells a prospective pastor the statistics of a church. I have often wondered what is really gained by inflating statistics. A good friend of mine made the observation that in reality most people in the world don’t notice and don’t really care about the statistics. He asked “Why are we so afraid of revealing more accurate numbers? Who do we imagine we will upset? It seems the administrative 'in-group' (and those intimately connected to them by power) would be the only ones who would see the difference. And, funny enough, most of them already know the lies! So, again, who are we protecting?”
As a missionary I often was involved in areas where there had been a time of rapid growth and then an equally rapid decline. I remember one particular district that showed statistics of about 5000 members and a large number of churches. In the district, however, I could only find three small churches with about 15-20 people each since there had been considerable decline after the initial growth. The people on the district told me that they felt “dirty” to report such statistics every year, but since the church (general church) would only allow them to take off a maximum of 10% per year, it would be a long time before the statistics met reality. There was always great fear of showing statistics that indicated a decline in numbers. Again, what did we really have to gain by inflating statistics? Other statistics in the church are just “slippery”. An example is found on the website for the Jesus Film Partnership which relies heavily on donor support. The page that states the statistics and goals of JFP says the following at the top: “These numbers reflect the ministry of JESUS Film Harvest Partners”, at the bottom of the page it says “*JESUS Film and other tools”. In other words, one would think the statistics are all about the Jesus Film, but in reality, these statistics are for all of the ministries (even those that have nothing to do with the Jesus Film) in all of the regions. Before I sound like the Grinch of the church, anyone who knows me knows that I am deeply committed to the church and I am deeply committed to God’s mission of restoring broken lives that have been devastated by sin, and giving people a reason for hope. I do not think, however, that using methods of an immoral society in order to gain statistical goals is consistent with the Gospel that has transformed our lives and in which we live.
On the flip side of this, are the alarmists who use statistics to show the darkest side of reality. Many have stated that the Christian church in the U.S. is dead, based on some research that has been done counting church membership and people who sit on pews. An interesting argument to much of this is by sociologist, Robert Wuthnow in his book Boundless Faith (see book of the month a couple of months ago). Wuthnow points out that we use the same statistical methods of years ago (measuring church membership, Sunday morning statistics, etc) to measure a church which is very different. He points out that the church in the U.S. is very interested in global ministry, but in ways that are very different than earlier generations. My own observations are that in many places, churches seem to lack a vibrant life. In other places, however, I see students and people in churches who are hungry for an authentic expression of faith, rather than building a bigger machine. If the students that I interact with daily are any indication of the future of the church, the future will not be driven by bigger buildings and inflated statistics, but rather by people who are in search of an authentic faith that is expressed in community more than bricks and numbers. This is exciting! This also means that Christianity in the U.S. is not as dead as some would claim. Rather, an authentic expression of faith is emerging that cannot (or should not) be measured with the old statistical methods.
I have probably gotten myself into “deep doo” with this post, but let me just say that I believe that the church should be about the mission of God and about being a people who live the mission of God as they interact with broken society. We should use appropriate means in order to do that. If raising funds to support those methods means operating in a way that is contrary to our nature, however, we have become hypocritical and our actions deny the very faith we profess. Our primary calling is not to make a bigger machine in which the ends justify the means. Our vocation is to BE a missional people and to BE Christian. To do so, we will have to sacrifice our lust for statistics in order for God to do something new in us as well as through us. What do we really have to lose?
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Missional Leadership
Ed Stetzer does a very good job in this video of presenting missional leadership. This has many things in common with the perspectives of GOCN (Gospel in our Culture Network), and yet has some different nuances as well. There are very few things that have the potential of awakening the church to it's true nature as a clear understanding of our identity as a missional church. I would enjoy dialoging with you about this video.
Missional Leadership from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
"No Man is an Island"
This morning I spoke at a church for a mission emphasis Sunday. Besides being a mission emphasis Sunday, November 1st also has significance in the church calendar. Although not a tradition normally recognized in churches that I have been a part of, I was also reminded in an email I received from my pastor that yesterday was a day western Christianity celebrates what is called “all saints day”. My first exposure to All Saints Day was when we lived in Costa Rica and the Catholic Churches would always shoot off what sounded like cannons on this day. There is, however, a much deeper significance to this day that I have been thinking about this weekend.
If you have ever seen the movie Amistad, there is a very moving scene where the principle character who has endured incredible hardship is facing trial that will determine the freedom of him and others who have been taken as slaves from Africa. After months of not understanding what is being said in the court, the primary character stands and says that he has summoned the spirit of his ancestors. He states that his life was not his own but rather the culmination of generation after generation of his ancestors. “My life” said the actor, “is the reason for their existence”.
All Saints Day remembers those generations who have gone before us, and who have--in scriptural language--fought the good fight and finished the race (II Timothy 4:7). We also remember that we are not isolated islands but that we are the summation of those who have gone before us.
In relation to missions, we often find ourselves criticizing mission methods of the past that were too colonialisitic or paternalistic in nature. While this is true in many cases, we must also realize that the reason that we are now seeing worldwide expansion of the Gospel is because there were generations of missionaries who were willing to leave everything, many even packed their belongings in coffins, indicating that they were planning on staying on the mission field until they died. I have seen some of the graves of these missionaries, and I am awed at their complete trust in God. I am also reminded of generation after generation of Christians who have sacrificed incredibly to live as an authentic witness to the Gospel.
The following are the words of my pastor, Glen Shoup:
Sometimes, we're inclined to forget that this business of living Christian didn't start with us (or our parents or grandparents). For 2000 years fellow human beings have been walking and leaving footprints as they followed after the Christ. And while occasionally we're inclined to think that those who lived 1000 or 1500 years ago were so much less sophisticated and informed than we are with our laptops and IPhones, upon closer review and investigation we most often find quite the opposite is true. Those who lived closer to the time of Jesus, often give us perspective that is far more clarified and uncluttered than our own. So when we re-member (meaning "put back together again") the awareness of those who have walked the path of Christ-following before us, we gain encouragement, definition and correction for us to continue to walk the path of discipleship faithfully
I am soberly reminded that the faith that I confess is not just my personal confession. I confess my faith with the community of believers with whom I worship, but I am also joined with those who have gone before me and who have formed a chain of which I am but one of the links.
The following is from A Diary of Private Prayer by John Baille:
God of my forefathers... I thank Thee
that this Christian way whereon I walk
is not untried or uncharted road,
but a road beaten hard by the footsteps
of saints, apostles, prophets, and martyrs.
I thank Thee for the finger-posts and danger-signals
with which it is marked at every turning.
Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith...Consider Him, who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart (Hebrews 12:1-3).
If you have ever seen the movie Amistad, there is a very moving scene where the principle character who has endured incredible hardship is facing trial that will determine the freedom of him and others who have been taken as slaves from Africa. After months of not understanding what is being said in the court, the primary character stands and says that he has summoned the spirit of his ancestors. He states that his life was not his own but rather the culmination of generation after generation of his ancestors. “My life” said the actor, “is the reason for their existence”.
All Saints Day remembers those generations who have gone before us, and who have--in scriptural language--fought the good fight and finished the race (II Timothy 4:7). We also remember that we are not isolated islands but that we are the summation of those who have gone before us.
In relation to missions, we often find ourselves criticizing mission methods of the past that were too colonialisitic or paternalistic in nature. While this is true in many cases, we must also realize that the reason that we are now seeing worldwide expansion of the Gospel is because there were generations of missionaries who were willing to leave everything, many even packed their belongings in coffins, indicating that they were planning on staying on the mission field until they died. I have seen some of the graves of these missionaries, and I am awed at their complete trust in God. I am also reminded of generation after generation of Christians who have sacrificed incredibly to live as an authentic witness to the Gospel.
The following are the words of my pastor, Glen Shoup:
Sometimes, we're inclined to forget that this business of living Christian didn't start with us (or our parents or grandparents). For 2000 years fellow human beings have been walking and leaving footprints as they followed after the Christ. And while occasionally we're inclined to think that those who lived 1000 or 1500 years ago were so much less sophisticated and informed than we are with our laptops and IPhones, upon closer review and investigation we most often find quite the opposite is true. Those who lived closer to the time of Jesus, often give us perspective that is far more clarified and uncluttered than our own. So when we re-member (meaning "put back together again") the awareness of those who have walked the path of Christ-following before us, we gain encouragement, definition and correction for us to continue to walk the path of discipleship faithfully
I am soberly reminded that the faith that I confess is not just my personal confession. I confess my faith with the community of believers with whom I worship, but I am also joined with those who have gone before me and who have formed a chain of which I am but one of the links.
The following is from A Diary of Private Prayer by John Baille:
God of my forefathers... I thank Thee
that this Christian way whereon I walk
is not untried or uncharted road,
but a road beaten hard by the footsteps
of saints, apostles, prophets, and martyrs.
I thank Thee for the finger-posts and danger-signals
with which it is marked at every turning.
Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith...Consider Him, who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart (Hebrews 12:1-3).
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The missio Dei and Homosexuality
A couple of months ago I watched the movie “Milk”. If you saw the movie, you will probably agree with me that it is not an easy movie to watch. Even though some of the explicit homosexual scenes were awkward for me to watch, the most difficult part for me to watch was the reaction of the “Christian community.” I was fairly young when all of this happened, but I recall Anita Bryant and other who didn’t know how to react to homosexuality, so they just decided to attack. Evangelical churches as a whole had the same reaction. More recently we have seen other prominant Evangelicals declaring that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. As a result, nearly anyone could go into a church and find acceptance and healing. For the homosexual, however, there was nothing more than condemnation.
I struggle with this. I have friends who are homosexual and I know that the last place they think that they could find love is in a church. If the church is to live into the missio Dei, we have to ask ourselves some difficult questions about the nature of the church and how it reacts to people who have differing perspectives and even lifestyles. I know what scripture says about homosexuality, and I am not trying to make light of that. I wish I had some easy answers to this, but I do not have easy answers to this discussion. I do know that we are to be the body of Christ and I know that the church is meant to be a redemptive community. I have attached an interesting video clip from a conservative Christian who struggles with these same issues. This clip is primarily a promotion for his book, but I invite you to watch it and give me your constructive ideas about the Church, the missio Dei, and ‘others’.
I struggle with this. I have friends who are homosexual and I know that the last place they think that they could find love is in a church. If the church is to live into the missio Dei, we have to ask ourselves some difficult questions about the nature of the church and how it reacts to people who have differing perspectives and even lifestyles. I know what scripture says about homosexuality, and I am not trying to make light of that. I wish I had some easy answers to this, but I do not have easy answers to this discussion. I do know that we are to be the body of Christ and I know that the church is meant to be a redemptive community. I have attached an interesting video clip from a conservative Christian who struggles with these same issues. This clip is primarily a promotion for his book, but I invite you to watch it and give me your constructive ideas about the Church, the missio Dei, and ‘others’.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Photo Sensitivity
This has been R&R week at NTS. For some R&R means rest and relaxation, for others it means reading and research. I am in the latter group. I have spent this week trying to get caught up on PhD projects (the key word here is “trying”).
Some of the reading that I have been doing is related to short-term missions. Many of the initial research initiatives related to short-term missions have evaluated the growing phenomenon in relation to the self perceived outcomes of STM from the perspective of the short-termer them self. There is a very interesting body of literature which deals with how people experience short-term mission trips.
Interestingly, most people buy tickets and spend considerable money to go across the world, and then spend a high percentage of their time experiencing the new location through the lens of a camera or on the computer, blogging about the location. Many people find that the picture represents reality more than reality itself. The end result is that people have great pictures and great blog sites, but have very few real relationships with people since they have been treated like objects to be observed instead of people to know. The following are a few guidelines that may help those who want to experience real people and who also want to get good pictures:
1) Take time to see people as friends and not as objects to be photographed. Make it a point to learn about families, and culture before even using a camera. As this relationship builds, you may find it more natural to take pictures just as you would take pictures of your own family.
2) Find a way to ask if it is alright to take pictures that gives people the opportunity to say “no”. This may be tricky in some places since saying “no” is seen as offensive. A good rule of thumb is to ask a missionary or person who understands the culture well. Normally, however, if you have built a real friendship, people enjoy having pictures taken.
3) If you have to choose between taking pictures and spending time with people, there is no choice. Forget the pictures. If a camera can be used in a way that builds friendships, then go for it. At the end of the day, God’s mission is people, and respecting them as individuals created in God’s image.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Missional Church and Global Missions
The comments on Stetzer’s article were interesting and I would just like to make a few comments of my own. Several of you who commented noted the problems of imbalance in seeing missions as either global or local, and I would completely agree with those comments. Stetzer’s critique of emergent and missional movements is a concern that I share and a concern that we must address. As a Wesleyan, there are some nuances of Stetzer’s proposal, however, that I would not share.
In an earlier post, I wrote about the church as missionary or a missional ecclesiology. If we understand the church as those who are a sent community to be the people of the triune God who are primarily identified by mission, our very nature reflects the missio Dei (God’s mission). With this understanding, the missio Dei is not geographically limited. Throughout scripture, God is a missionary God who is concerned for “the nations” or “ethne”. He is constantly moving to restore the broken relationships in humanity as well as creation. If we are those “who reflect God’s glory”, then we too must share God’s desire for transformation, justice and restoration (wherever that may be). My understanding of a missional ecclesiology is that the entire church body is sent. As a body we all have different gifts and callings within that “sentness”, but we all are sent. Some are sent to be a Christian witness to cultures which require language learning and lifelong study of culture, others are sent to be a Christian witness and learn cultures of post modern friends and neighbors. I believe that God gives the church people who have gifts in each of these areas. The fallacy is when we assume that some are sent and others send. We all are sent and we all are involved in sending. Within the body of Christ, there has never been a category for spectators. We are mission or we are not the Church.
As Wesleyans, we find ourselves in the “via media”. We cannot say that we are primarily concerned about evangelism or only that which leads to evangelism. We can say that our Christian vocation is to be a holy people who reflect God’s holiness and God’s nature of mission. We are called to BE a Christian witness.
I know that this is thinking completely outside of some of our normal boxes of understanding, and is radical if correctly understood. I hear many people say that the U.S. should start receiving missionaries from other places, and to a degree that is already happening. If, however, the church in the U.S. grasped hold of the idea that we are the missionary, and if the members of congregations began to function as missionaries who are the church in our communities instead of waiting for communities to come into the church building, we would see a movement of God which is not measured by church growth statistics, but rather by relationship in the life of the Triune God.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why Missional Churches Don't Do Global Missions
David Wesley
An interesting characteristic of the missional and emerging church is that there is very little if any emphasis on global missions. This is surprising to me since the primary understanding of missio Dei is for the church to share God's passion for redemptive change in the world. The following is an article written by Ed Stetzer which addresses this same issue. I must say that I don't agree with all of Stetzer's perspctives related to missional church, but this particular article raises an issue that we must engage. I invite your comments/reactions:
I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I would share them with you.
First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)
Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.
Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my hosts-- one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the author explained, "I'm particularly interested in attracting young missional church planters here."
Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself "missional" that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help their people "be missionaries right here."
All this provokes me to ask, "Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God's global mission?" As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?
There are five reasons I think this has happened:
1) In rediscovering God's mission, many have only discovered its personal dimensions.
I don't mean they have somehow localized mission into their interior, "private" life-- that would make little sense. Rather, the encouragement for each person to be on mission (to be "missional") has trended toward a personal obligation to personal settings, rather than toward a global obligation to advance God's kingdom among all the nations.
"Missional" has merged with privatized Christianity to serve as the reason for personal projects carried out in personal spheres. This is not bad, necessarily. But when the missional impulse is not expanded to include God's global mission, it results in believers moved only to minister in their own Jerusalems with no mind toward their Judeas, Samarias, and uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8).
2) In responding to God's mission, many have wanted to be more mission-shaped and have therefore made everything "mission."
Missions historian Stephen Neil, responding to a similar surge in mission interest (the missio dei movement of the 1950s and following), explained it this way: "If everything is mission then nothing is mission." Neil's fear was that the focus would shift from global evangelization (often called "missions") to societal transformation (often called "mission"). He was right.
Recently John Piper echoed these same concerns, differentiating between evangelism and missions. He reminded us that when "Every Christian is a missionary" equals "missional," then we have diluted the need for and specialness of missionaries to foreign lands. (Although I would want to nuance John's language a bit, I agree with his point.)
One American church's website recently identified their ministry as missional, which they proceeded to define as "reaching out to the community to invite them to come" see what is happening in the church. Another's young adult community service project consisted of landscaping the church grounds. Inviting people to church and cleaning up the church are noble endeavors, but passing them for "missional" and "service" is ministerial naïveté at best. It demonstrates the fuzziness that creeps in when labels become catch-alls. And as the outer edges of the missional label gets fuzzy so does mission to the outer edges of the world.
3) In relating God's mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost.
One only needs to watch the videos to see the emphases: global orphan projects, eradicating AIDS, Christmas shoeboxes, etc. All of these causes now have advocacy groups, and rightly so, as they are important. However, their vocabulary and frames of reference do not frequently make room for evangelizing the very people they touch. The message of world evangelism, actually, seems more common in legacy/traditional churches than in missional churches. Missional churches seem to speak more of unserved peoples rather than unreached peoples. As we engage to deliver justice, we must also deliver the gospel regardless of anyone's status in a culture.
4) In refocusing on God's mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news.
St. Francis allegedly said,"Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." Interestingly enough, Francis never actually said this, nor would he have done so due to his membership in a preaching order. But it is a pithy quote tossed into mission statements and vision sermons in missional churches all around my country. Why? It seems that many in the missional conversation place a higher value on serving the global hurting rather than evangelizing the global lost. Or perhaps it is just easier.
I am not urging a dichotomy here, only noting that one already exists. It is ironic, though, that as many missional Christians have sought to "embody" the gospel, they have chosen to forsake one member of Christ's body; the mouth.
5) In reiterating God's mission, many lose the context of the church's global mission and needed global presence.
For whatever reason-- the admirable one of commitment to the local church or the ignoble one of commitment to personalized consumeristic Christianity-- we have lost the grand scope of the entire family of God. While Christ calls people from all tongues, tribes, and nations, we have become content with our own tongue, tribe, and nation. Many churches are wonderfully embracing the missional imperative, but as they seek to "own" the mission by adapting their church into a missional movement in their local community, some inadvertently localize God's mission itself and lose the vital connection all believers share together. A hyper-focus on our own community results in a, have lost vision for the communion of the saints.
So how do we fully embrace missional without losing the mission? The Mission Exchange (formerly the Evangelical Foreign Mission Society) asked me to talk to their global leaders on the topic "How to Put 'Missions' Back into Missional." In my talk, I proposed four principles we needed to consider:
First, recognize it is God's mission, and we need to be passionate about the mission as He describes it. We don't own mission and it is not ours to define. A church vision statement is fine, but God's mission is better and bigger. Our first task is to submit to God's mission.
Secondly, evangelicals have understated the call to serve the poor and the hurting and need a stronger engagement in social justice. This sounds counterintuitive if we are seeking to remedy the loss of concern for articulated evangelism. But social engagement entails relational engagement, and relational engagement entails opportunities to share the gospel. The successes and experiences in our communities should awaken hearts and minds to global needs. We just need to maintain the reason for social justice: the glory of God in the worship of Jesus.
Third, share God's deep concern about His mission to the nations-- that His name be praised from the lips of men and women from every corner of the globe. Feel the Great Commission in your bones. Ask God to turn your heart to those you cannot see. As Paul did, develop ways to "struggle personally" (Colossians 2:1) for those far away.
Fourthly, churches that are serious about joining God on his mission will obey his commands to disciple the nations. The end product of missional endeavors should be a thriving Christian ready to produce more thriving Christians.
It appears to me that many missional churches are missing the Great Commission in the name of being missional. That makes zero sense. It is a huge (but historically common) mistake.
If we are truly interested in being missional-- in joining God on His mission-- our efforts should actually reflect His stated mission. We are bound to the Great Commandment as the fullest human expression of God's love. But the Commandment is not hermetically sealed off from the Great Commission. Rather, the Great Commission provides the what of mission, while the Great Commandment provides part of the how. Answering the age-old question of "Who is my neighbor?" should result in the desire to "make disciples of all nations."
- note: the source for Stetzer's article is
http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2009/09/five-reasons-missional-churche.html
An interesting characteristic of the missional and emerging church is that there is very little if any emphasis on global missions. This is surprising to me since the primary understanding of missio Dei is for the church to share God's passion for redemptive change in the world. The following is an article written by Ed Stetzer which addresses this same issue. I must say that I don't agree with all of Stetzer's perspctives related to missional church, but this particular article raises an issue that we must engage. I invite your comments/reactions:
I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I would share them with you.
First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)
Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.
Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my hosts-- one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the author explained, "I'm particularly interested in attracting young missional church planters here."
Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself "missional" that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help their people "be missionaries right here."
All this provokes me to ask, "Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God's global mission?" As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?
There are five reasons I think this has happened:
1) In rediscovering God's mission, many have only discovered its personal dimensions.
I don't mean they have somehow localized mission into their interior, "private" life-- that would make little sense. Rather, the encouragement for each person to be on mission (to be "missional") has trended toward a personal obligation to personal settings, rather than toward a global obligation to advance God's kingdom among all the nations.
"Missional" has merged with privatized Christianity to serve as the reason for personal projects carried out in personal spheres. This is not bad, necessarily. But when the missional impulse is not expanded to include God's global mission, it results in believers moved only to minister in their own Jerusalems with no mind toward their Judeas, Samarias, and uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8).
2) In responding to God's mission, many have wanted to be more mission-shaped and have therefore made everything "mission."
Missions historian Stephen Neil, responding to a similar surge in mission interest (the missio dei movement of the 1950s and following), explained it this way: "If everything is mission then nothing is mission." Neil's fear was that the focus would shift from global evangelization (often called "missions") to societal transformation (often called "mission"). He was right.
Recently John Piper echoed these same concerns, differentiating between evangelism and missions. He reminded us that when "Every Christian is a missionary" equals "missional," then we have diluted the need for and specialness of missionaries to foreign lands. (Although I would want to nuance John's language a bit, I agree with his point.)
One American church's website recently identified their ministry as missional, which they proceeded to define as "reaching out to the community to invite them to come" see what is happening in the church. Another's young adult community service project consisted of landscaping the church grounds. Inviting people to church and cleaning up the church are noble endeavors, but passing them for "missional" and "service" is ministerial naïveté at best. It demonstrates the fuzziness that creeps in when labels become catch-alls. And as the outer edges of the missional label gets fuzzy so does mission to the outer edges of the world.
3) In relating God's mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost.
One only needs to watch the videos to see the emphases: global orphan projects, eradicating AIDS, Christmas shoeboxes, etc. All of these causes now have advocacy groups, and rightly so, as they are important. However, their vocabulary and frames of reference do not frequently make room for evangelizing the very people they touch. The message of world evangelism, actually, seems more common in legacy/traditional churches than in missional churches. Missional churches seem to speak more of unserved peoples rather than unreached peoples. As we engage to deliver justice, we must also deliver the gospel regardless of anyone's status in a culture.
4) In refocusing on God's mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news.
St. Francis allegedly said,"Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." Interestingly enough, Francis never actually said this, nor would he have done so due to his membership in a preaching order. But it is a pithy quote tossed into mission statements and vision sermons in missional churches all around my country. Why? It seems that many in the missional conversation place a higher value on serving the global hurting rather than evangelizing the global lost. Or perhaps it is just easier.
I am not urging a dichotomy here, only noting that one already exists. It is ironic, though, that as many missional Christians have sought to "embody" the gospel, they have chosen to forsake one member of Christ's body; the mouth.
5) In reiterating God's mission, many lose the context of the church's global mission and needed global presence.
For whatever reason-- the admirable one of commitment to the local church or the ignoble one of commitment to personalized consumeristic Christianity-- we have lost the grand scope of the entire family of God. While Christ calls people from all tongues, tribes, and nations, we have become content with our own tongue, tribe, and nation. Many churches are wonderfully embracing the missional imperative, but as they seek to "own" the mission by adapting their church into a missional movement in their local community, some inadvertently localize God's mission itself and lose the vital connection all believers share together. A hyper-focus on our own community results in a, have lost vision for the communion of the saints.
So how do we fully embrace missional without losing the mission? The Mission Exchange (formerly the Evangelical Foreign Mission Society) asked me to talk to their global leaders on the topic "How to Put 'Missions' Back into Missional." In my talk, I proposed four principles we needed to consider:
First, recognize it is God's mission, and we need to be passionate about the mission as He describes it. We don't own mission and it is not ours to define. A church vision statement is fine, but God's mission is better and bigger. Our first task is to submit to God's mission.
Secondly, evangelicals have understated the call to serve the poor and the hurting and need a stronger engagement in social justice. This sounds counterintuitive if we are seeking to remedy the loss of concern for articulated evangelism. But social engagement entails relational engagement, and relational engagement entails opportunities to share the gospel. The successes and experiences in our communities should awaken hearts and minds to global needs. We just need to maintain the reason for social justice: the glory of God in the worship of Jesus.
Third, share God's deep concern about His mission to the nations-- that His name be praised from the lips of men and women from every corner of the globe. Feel the Great Commission in your bones. Ask God to turn your heart to those you cannot see. As Paul did, develop ways to "struggle personally" (Colossians 2:1) for those far away.
Fourthly, churches that are serious about joining God on his mission will obey his commands to disciple the nations. The end product of missional endeavors should be a thriving Christian ready to produce more thriving Christians.
It appears to me that many missional churches are missing the Great Commission in the name of being missional. That makes zero sense. It is a huge (but historically common) mistake.
If we are truly interested in being missional-- in joining God on His mission-- our efforts should actually reflect His stated mission. We are bound to the Great Commandment as the fullest human expression of God's love. But the Commandment is not hermetically sealed off from the Great Commission. Rather, the Great Commission provides the what of mission, while the Great Commandment provides part of the how. Answering the age-old question of "Who is my neighbor?" should result in the desire to "make disciples of all nations."
- note: the source for Stetzer's article is
http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2009/09/five-reasons-missional-churche.html
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Something to think about....
::: Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007. The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time approximately two thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
After 3 minutes:
A middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.
4 minutes later:
The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.
6 minutes:
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.
10 minutes:
A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children.. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.
45 minutes:
The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.
1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities. The questions raised: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?
One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made..... How many other things are we missing?
After 3 minutes:
A middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.
4 minutes later:
The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.
6 minutes:
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.
10 minutes:
A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children.. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.
45 minutes:
The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.
1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities. The questions raised: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?
One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made..... How many other things are we missing?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Spiritual State of Taiwan
This is a fascinating video with Phil Nickolson, OMF Director and Ed Stetzer who share about the spiritual state of Taiwan.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Book of the Month
I am beginning a new part of this blog in which I will post a "book of the month" which will be a book that I am either reading at the moment, or a book that I have read and want to share with others. If you read the same book and would like to dialog about the book on this site, I would enjoy it. Right now the bulk of my reading is in the area of globalization, short-term missions and related bodies of literature. The first book that I am including is a book which came out about three months ago. The author of the book is renowned American sociologist, Robert Wuthnow who teaches at Princeton. In this book, Robert Wuthnow challenges three common assumptions about American Christianity that are prevalent in non-religious as well as religious literature and understanding. The first assumption is that since Christianity is flourishing in many parts of the world beyond the United States, Christian churches in the U.S. are drawing inward, and are withdrawing involvement from global activity. The second assumption that Wuthnow challenges is that local churches in the U.S. focus inwardly with little or no interest in their communities or the global context. The third assumption is that churches in the U.S. influence U.S. policies related to military action and free trade.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
God's Mission
I recently read a book which was just published a few months ago by Sociologist, Robert Wuthnow titled "Boundless Faith: The Global Outreach of American Churches" in which he describes the changing global dynamic, but also describes the place that all Christians have in God's global mission. As we look at how we are to be Christian and how we are to be a Christian witness in our world, it is challenging. The following video is by Dr. David Livermore which addresses this same theme.
Global Mission: The Local Church's Response from Derek Rottman on Vimeo.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Short-Term Mission Debate
Short-Term missions is one of the greatest paradigm changes in missions in the past 10-15 years. I have spoken to many people who say that a short-term missions trip transformed their life or the life of someone they know. Just this past weekend I was with a group of youth from a Reformed church in Michigan who were serving in an urban short-term mission project on the west side of Chicago. Most of the 16-17 year old participants had been on many trips and told me that the trips opened their eyes to the world and had made a change in their lives. To the contrary, other people have done research that indicates that short-term mission has very little long lasting impact on the participants or on those who receive the participants. I am currently doing research related to this with the goal of understanding short-term missions better and also to find ways to be a positive part of what God is doing in the world. The following is a video clip that describes some of the debate. I would love to have your input on this whether you disagree or agree with the perspectives of those who made the video:
the Debate over Short Term Missions from Chuck Holton on Vimeo.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Church as The Missionary
by David Wesley
Mission is the most identifiable aspect of the body of Christ. Mission is not a program or plan of the church, neither is it a slogan or mission statement which gives administrative direction. Mission is the very nature of the church. It flows directly from God. A living relationship with the God of mission is what distinguishes the Church as a living organism as opposed to a mechanical (secular) organization. It is also the reason why it is possible to say that the church does not support a program of missions, but that the church is the missionary.
Words often change and adapt in popular understanding. Few words have changed more in recent history than the word missionary. Currently, the word missionary is open to a wide range of definition and interpretation. Uninformed media coverage and popular novels portray missionaries as colonialist destroyers of culture . As a result the word missionary is not a positive term in many parts of the world. In other places, a missionary is defined as any Christian who does anything in any part of the world for any reason. A third perspective is a missionary defined in professional terms. An example of this in Church of the Nazarene is the large number of volunteers and professionals who minister in another culture through their occupation. Some of these are even sent from a local church for this specific purpose. Yet, the manual of the Church of the Nazarene, only defines a missionary as “a member of the clergy or a layperson who has been appointed by the General Board to minister for the church.” Such competing definitions show how mission-related terms are changing. It also emphasizes why there is a need to focus on a clear understanding of mission as God’s mission if we are to find a way forward.
My purpose is to offer a solution that is both true to our perspective of scripture as well as true to our theological identity within the larger Christian body. Nazarene missiologist Paul Orjala was years ahead of the church when, in 1984, he wrote a simple missionary book titled, God’s Mission is my Mission. In that book, Dr. Orjala began to wrestle with some themes which had been the subject of mission conferences of the World Council of Churches since 1952, and were being discussed in academic circles by authors such as David Bosch and Lesslie Newbigin, but had not yet been popularized to the larger Christian church. These themes definitely were not on the radar screen of the Church of the Nazarene at that time. Although Orjala didn’t completely develop a missional theology in this missionary reading book, he did establish a basis for understanding mission as God’s mission first and foremost. The term that was being used for this understanding was missio Dei which is the Latin term for “God’s Mission”.
The groundbreaking idea behind “God’s mission” or missio Dei is the understanding that mission always has its source in God. Missiologist David Bosch said that mission is God’s nature. Mission is not a program of the church that we do just on special Sundays or highlight occasionally at district mission events. In every part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, it is clear that God is a missionary God. God’s love for “the nations” and the desire that his people share in His passion is not a secondary issue, but is at the very center of who God is and who God expects the Church to be. In the New Testament, the church sends apostles to people of varied ethnic groups, the church, however, did not limit mission to just a program of the church to “the ends of the earth”. The Church didn’t just have missionaries; the Church itself was the missionary in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria as well as to the ends of the earth. Another way to put this is to say that the church is not just a sending church, but it is rather a sent church. This understanding has enormous implications for the Church of the Nazarene as it works together with the greater Christian body at this point of time in history.
A great example of a sent church is described by Lesslie Newbigin. He served as a missionary in India and developed a plan for building the church, educating leaders, and developing churches with a perspective of them being a sent community. When Newbigin would confirm and receive people into full communion with the Church, he would announce: “Now you are the Body of Christ in this village. You are God’s apostles here. Through you they are to be saved. I will be in touch with you. I will pray for you. I will visit you. If you want my help I will try to help you. But you are now the mission”. Newbigin commented that when this was the statement that was made from the first day onward – that being a Christian community is about living as a sent community – then the Gospel spreads. If one denies this responsibility to the young church, then it does the Church “irreparable harm.”
Newbigin’s paradigm was not only concerned about local participation in mission; he was also concerned about participation in mission “to the ends of the earth”. Newbigin did not see mission as something that was done just by churches from one part of the globe, or when a church was large enough, wealthy enough or even after a church had built their own building, but as something that was a part of the life of the church from the very beginning. He maintained that “spiritual health depends on the broader vision of world evangelization.”
Churches that reflect these concepts are missional churches. They understand that mission is the very nature of the church from the beginning.
One of the most brilliant and practical people I have every met was the late Dr. Bruno Radi who was the Regional Director for South America. As we were thinking of how to minister to our neighbors in Argentina, he said that being a Regional Director was not his calling (or vocation). “My calling,” Bruno explained, “is to be a Christian witness to my neighbors.” That perception of calling, or vocation, is crucial for us. Missionaries are not missionaries because they have a salary or a contract any more than a church is missional just because it has an NMI program. We all are missional as we embrace our true vocation to be Christian, or in the words of earlier Nazarenes, as we realize that we are “called unto holiness.”
So what does all of this mean for us?
1) It means that first and foremost, we are called to be Christian. Before any emphasis on goals, programs and activities, we are called to draw into God’s Holy presence. If God’s nature is mission, those of us who partake in His nature will share that same nature of mission. In this sense, therefore, mission is not a program, but rather the very DNA of being Christian.
2) It means that the whole church is the missionary. We are all sent. In my own personal life it means that I will intentionally focus my activities during the week in such a way that I will be in contact with people who are not Christians. As a missional Christian I make it a point to learn their culture and to be a Christian witness as I go.
3) It also means that the whole church sends missionaries. A missional church is actively involved in prayer, giving and learning as members from the church (or other churches) are sent to be specialized missionaries to people of distinct ethnic groups around the world.
4) It means that the mission does not flow from just the West. Any community of believers, in any part of the globe, whose lives have been transformed by the Gospel are to engage in God’s mission.
5) It means that we must participate in what God is doing to restore His creation.
6) In many ways, it means a distinct way of being church. We have often separated ourselves from other Christian groups with the objective to “keep the faith” by defending our specific emphasis. With a perspective that the mission is God’s mission and not ours, however, the greatest enemy is not other Christians. Our greatest enemy is that we draw into ourselves and become a sectarian group with an inward focus on ourselves instead of outward to God and His mission.
Missiologist, Wilbert Shenk, said it well: “God does not have a mission for the church, but a church for His mission”. We live in a time of incredible opportunity in which the triune God has called the church to be the missionary and to join in His mission of seeking and saving that which is lost.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
A Sent Congregation
by David Wesley
In a few months I will begin research which explores the involvement of one local church which is partnering with HIV/AIDS relief in Swaziland over a long period of time. I am particularly interested in how such a process might be an expression of a missional church and also how that involvement affects Christians both in Bethany Oklahoma as well as Swaziland. I will be making posts related to this as I move along in the research. This short video gives an overview of the challenges facing Swaziland and the steps being taken by Bethany First Church of the Nazarene to help turn the tide of HIV/AIDS in that nation. For more information on this project go to http://www.bethanynaz.org/the-swaziland-partnership-mission
In a few months I will begin research which explores the involvement of one local church which is partnering with HIV/AIDS relief in Swaziland over a long period of time. I am particularly interested in how such a process might be an expression of a missional church and also how that involvement affects Christians both in Bethany Oklahoma as well as Swaziland. I will be making posts related to this as I move along in the research. This short video gives an overview of the challenges facing Swaziland and the steps being taken by Bethany First Church of the Nazarene to help turn the tide of HIV/AIDS in that nation. For more information on this project go to http://www.bethanynaz.org/the-swaziland-partnership-mission
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Church as Missionary
This is a very good overview of what it means for a church to be a sent people instead of just a sending organization. Dan Collison does a good job of summarizing some of the current developments which move a church to think of themselves as missionary and for a pastor to think in missiological terms. I welcome your comments.
The Missionally Minded Church from Dan Collison on Vimeo.
The Missionally Minded Church from Dan Collison on Vimeo.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Ed Stetzer and David Fitch on The Missional Church
The following is an interesting perspective of the missional church from a perspective that is somewhat distint from that of GOCN, and yet has many things in common.
Ed Stetzer & David Fitch - a missional conversation from Missional Tribe on Vimeo.
Ed Stetzer & David Fitch - a missional conversation from Missional Tribe on Vimeo.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The DNA of the Church
On the right hand of this blog page I have a quote by David Bosch which states “It has become impossible to talk about the church without at the same time talking about mission. One can no longer talk about church and mission, only about the mission of the church…A church without mission or a mission without church are both contradictions.”
This quote is at the heart of the missional church conversation. This is a radical statement that goes far beyond churches that say “we are mission minded” or churches that talk about an active involvement in the program(s) of missions. Being missional goes far beyond doing compassionate ministries projects. If mission were a program of the church, it would be easy to decide to cut mission giving or mission type activity when finances are stretched. If, however, mission is the very nature of God or to put it another way, in the DNA of God, that is passed to His church, then it is impossible to separate mission and church. The church doesn’t just DO mission, the church IS mission. It’s in our DNA.
One implication of this is that any church in any place of the globe is intended to not only receive the Gospel, but also to take the Gospel. “Everything needed to develop mission sending capacity is already written into the DNA of any people group around the world. Likewise, there is no people group anywhere in the world that does not have the capacity to become a missionary sending force.”[i]
This is huge! This means that mission does not depend on the financial stability of a country; neither does it depend on the official sanction of the denomination. To be the Church is to be a church in mission, otherwise it is, at best, severely handicapped. Collectively, we become the people of God who participate in His mission to all people. When a church in Bolivia, Nigeria, Mongolia or any other part of the globe participates in mission, they are participating in their true nature.
This is at the heart of any real movement of God. A movement of God does not happen because of right strategy or sufficient funding. A movement of God happens when “ we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another…” It is when we reflect the nature of God and become mission in our very nature.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
NAVIGATORS, NOT MAP READERS
by David Wesley
I recently read a blog by Len Hjalmarson in which he quotes Eddie Gibbs who states, “The Church needs navigators tuned to the voice of God, not map-readers. Navigational skills have to be learned on the high seas and in the midst of varying conditions produced by the wind, waves, currents, fogbanks, darkness, storm clouds and perilous rocks.” (Leadership Next, 66).This is a significant insight. While we have generally located ourselves on maps based on a predictable rate of change to the surrounding landscape, we are now in a time where the pace of change outstrips our ability to locate ourselves. Moreover, the increasing fragmentation of western culture makes context king - adaptive responses must be local and not something that is developed in the U.S. and passed on to other cultures. (Perhaps this was already true twenty years ago and the universalizing tendency of modernity simply made us blind to the fact.)
Navigation is a significantly different skill than map reading. The points on a map are fixed, and so when one wants to locate a point in the real world one simply locates oneself by known geography or artifacts, and then proceeds step by step methodically to the next point. If you have a compass, this is really, really easy.
But navigation requires no fixed planetary points and requires no compass. Instead, one learns to read the sky - the stars, really. Map reading is a skill that can be learned on a table top in any school room. Any ten year old can master it. And with a compass, any ten year old can go out and use that knowledge with a high degree of confidence. This skill is only useful, however, when the landscape is not changing.
Navigation, on the other hand, is a skill that does not ask for a predictable landscape. And it is learned in the wilderness or on the ocean. It requires courage and the ability to withstand harsh conditions. And it requires something that is never required of map readers: faith and a fundamental inner restfulness. When there are no physical points to locate ourselves, we rely on an imaginal map - an internal compass. That internal compass is tuned not to earthly points, but to a fixed purpose and an external reference point - the North star.
In times of global instability such as these, our true source of direction must be in something beyond finances, politics, or stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)