;)
The Essence of Church
Posted by Strider in Church & Missions
My ecclesiological journey has been a long and winding one. I grew up in the Lutheran Church and then came to faith and was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church when I was 12. I went to a Baptist University and graduated from SWBTS in 1991. I never questioned the traditional view of church as ‘here is the church, here is the steeple, open the door and see all the people.’ I went on to become a pastor of a little church in West Virginia. In many ways we had a great little church with a really sweet fellowship. In other ways though… in other ways we were always wondering why we were not bigger. What was wrong with us? “Hey, Strider how are you?” “Great we had 40 in service this week!” or more often, “Terrible, I don’t know what’s going on, only 20 in Church this week.” Our whole judgment of ourselves was based on numbers and we usually felt bad about them! By the time God moved us on to full time missions in Middle Earth I was burned out by the traditional church and pretty happy to be going somewhere where we could start from scratch.
But what does ‘starting from scratch’ look like? If you just had a Bible in your hand and no history or tradition to confront what would Church look like? We had studied all about the importance of ‘contextualization’ and planting ‘indigenous’ churches. What would a church in Middle Earth look like? When we got here we discovered that the traditional church had already arrived. There were- and are- about 8 or so registered churches begun and still run by traditional western organizations. It is apparent to everyone but them that they are irrelevant to the vast majority of Muslims here. Locals consider them strange foreign organizations that they want no part of. We immediately began to think how we could overcome this. How could we communicate the Gospel in a way that could be understood here and what kind of church structure would the good men and women of Gondor adopt once they did become followers of Jesus? We started our first local church in 1999. It still exists today and is reproducing and reaching far beyond where we ever dreamed it could go. But that story is not the one that really shifted my paradigm concerning church. Like so many, I adopted the forms long before I saw and embraced the reality. We studied ‘house-church’ and ‘missional church’, and ‘organic church’ and other slogans and titles that fade in and out of popularity. But even though I started going to a house church in the year 2000 and even though we planted several house churches over the years it was not until 2003 that the lights came on. That was the year we started a new Disaster Management Team that would serve communities impacted by disaster and share hope and truth in a transformational way. I had no idea what I was doing and I told the team so. I told them, ‘I have witnessed to individuals and so have you, I have shared my faith with families and so have you, but none of us knows how to reach a whole village and that is what we are going to do.’ There were four guys, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pipen. Frodo, Sam and Merry have been consistent bold witnesses and each has his own dynamic ministry today. Pipen in my storytelling is a constantly changing character. The first one stayed with us just a year and then left followed by another guy who stayed for two years and then left. But I digress. Our first pilot project was in Anfalas. We did a two month training course and then went down to Anfalas to do a week long disaster preparedness workshop for the village. In the end, they needed wells for fresh drinking water and so we began a well project. Week after week we went down to the village and spent a few days at a time there. We would get up each morning and sing songs of praise, read the Word, pray, and go out and serve the community with whatever was needed. We did all of this in full view of the villagers. I would give Bible studies for the team right in front of ten villagers who would sit and listen in. Once I was sitting and playing the guitar and singing locally written praise choruses and Merry leaned over to the guy next to him and said, ‘Have you seen this?’ He then read him three chapters of Matthew! One morning we got up and as we were having breakfast Frodo said, ‘The lady across the street just had a baby and she is not doing very well.’ He then put butter on some bread and ran it across the street to her, came back and finished breakfast. After a month of this we were sitting in my office on a Friday morning debriefing the work week when Frodo said, ‘Every week we go down to Anfalas and we worship God together by singing, praying, reading the Word, and serving. Then we come back to Minas Tirith and on Sunday morning we drive halfway across town and meet with a bunch of strangers for an hour and a half and we call that church. That is not Church, what we do in Anfalas is church!’ This really impacted all of us deeply.
As I reflected on that statement and went back to the Word I tried to imagine what the New Testament was really describing when it described Church. I came to a number of conclusions. Firstly, and primarily the church is relational. God is a God of relationships. When you wander through the Bible looking for the nature of Church what you find is people in relationship. Hebrews 10 says we need to get together to encourage one another to love and good works. We love one another, encourage one another, build up one another, forgive one another, the list of one anothers goes on and on. As I continued to look at the Bible I saw much less organized leadership and well programed meetings and a lot more people who were called to love each other and share life together. Most of the time we use the word church to mean the building or the meeting. Rarely do we mean the people of God called out to worship Him by loving each other. Secondly, I saw the Church on Mission. This is where we Southern Baptist come the closest to getting it right. Health and wealth just don’t cut it. The Kingdom is not all about ME and what makes me happy and successful. The Church is on the Mission that God has sent her on. In our definition of church we say it this way:
The Church is a group of baptized believers who meet together regularly, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and worship together, and are obedient to fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission together.
Thirdly, the Church must have strong leadership. Every church must have a leader and his name had better be Jesus. Much gets written and talked about leadership in the church. Mostly by leaders defending their rights. That is harsh but I was a pastor- I know. I did it, I cajoled and manipulated for the good of the organization. Pastors do that. Jesus never has. Biblical leadership is a whole different post but let me just point out here that it is fascinating that we have much written in the New Testament about the character of a leader but no job description what-so-ever. I believe this is because the job description is simple: Love one another. A good leader will serve his people when he does whatever is needed to see that people are loved well.
Now let me tell you what happened in Anfalas. It is a long story full of spiritual warfare, many miracles, and a lot of prayer and waiting. But after a couple of years two families were baptized. We did not tell them to meet on Sunday morning at ten am. We did not tell them anything about how to ‘do’ church. They began to meet everyday. They get up each morning at 4;30 am (because that is what village people do) and they meet together for prayer, reading of the word and usually one of the men give some kind of devotional. Then they encourage one another to go out and serve well and that is what they go and do. Anywhere from 10 to 15 other villagers will meet with them to observe what they do and be encouraged by it. After a year of this they asked us if it was ok if they would just meet once a week. Frodo told them that that is what most believers around the world do but we didn’t want to hold them back! They tried it for two weeks but didn’t like it so to this day they meet everyday. It is biblical- if you remember Acts 2- but it is also what is appropriate for the village. Here in the city if I don’t see you for a week then you would not assume that our relationship was weak. We are city folk and we are busy. But in the village it is a different matter altogether. In the village if I don’t see you everyday then I assume you must be angry with me or that something is wrong. It is the nature of their community and if we will plant the Kingdom of God into that community then it must fit. Revelation 11:15 says it this way:
The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah and he will reign forever and ever.
As we plant the Kingdom we do not seek to start new communities of faith- we seek to transform the broken communities of this world into the Kingdom of our Lord. This is what our Lord is about and it should be what His followers are about as well. This has had a profound influence on how I think about the Church. The Church must ‘fit in’ to the community not in the sense that it compromises truth but in the sense that it offers truth to its community effectively. To bring this Middle Earth missiological principle closer to home there are over two million people in prisons in the United States and every one of those people lived next door to a christian who made no difference in their lives. This is not New Testament Church. Our churches must be on the mission that our Lord is on and He is redeeming communities to Himself. I am not talking about tearing down our buildings and everyone singing pithy praise choruses in our living rooms. If you want to gather with 2000 people and sing the Hallelujah chorus on Sunday morning that is fine by me. But the church can not stay there. IT MUST GO HOME. You live your life in your LIVING room so the church must happen there. You spend an unreasonable amount of time at work and in other activities. The Church must happen in all those places. We all must be in loving relationships with others that lead us to worship our Lord everywhere we go and in all that we do. The true Church as described in the New Testament is not an additional program to your busy schedule. It is your life in community with God’s people for God’s purposes. This will not happen in you spare time. As I have given my life to seeing God’s Kingdom come to Middle Earth I have found that the true Church is the only way I could have the strength to last a week. Loving God’s people well and being loved by them is our greatest witness, our greatest joy, and our only way to touch our heavenly Father’s heart. We have all been praying for revival and I believe it is coming. When it does it will cost us everything. Are you ready for that? Most days I think that I am but time will surely tell.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
My wife and I are on our way to CA to do EV and Church planting with the Board. This article talks about much of what we have been discussing over the last few months as we prepare to head to the field. It is a great encouragement to read what you have wrote and know that others think along the same lines as we do and see their church planting styles work. I have often seen Western churches planted in Muslim cities and they do not fit with the lifestyles of those living there. We have also been struggling with church stateside and what kind of Church we want to be apart of. When we go to scripture we find what you have talked about… it is about relationships. Thanks for the encouragement. Please pray for us as we hit the field and bring the Gospel to dark part of the world.
JS
JS- May the Lord bless you guys as you follow Him into all that He has prepared for you to walk in. Remember: organization is not evil or wrong but it must serve loving relationships. Many traditional churches in the West do this well but as Western society loses its sense of community more and more traditional church even in the West is becoming a part of the problem instead of the solution.
In one sense, it is easier to do the kind of thought/reexamination you are doing in an area where the church is less established. In conservative, traditional Sioux City, people have ideas ingrained by decades of “going to church” and simply cannot conceive of anything other than what they have “known” all their life.
I love these people (well, most of them) and I have a great job. But my son and I have talked about going somewhere and starting a church with only one goal – try to do things as the Bible commands, not as Baptists expect or as tradition dictates.
Dave,
I think you will find that is the reason that a good bit of the “envelope pushing” related to ecclesiology (in SBC, as well as general evangelical circles) has come from those with international missions experience, or, at least, with church planting experience. It is good to think outside of our cultural box, and try to be as brutally scriptural (if you can say that) as we can, on issues like this. However, we must also remember that Scripture is pretty clear on issues such as the unity of the Body of Christ at large, not putting a stumbling block in front of our brother, and deferring to the preferences of others. We must always “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19), and does not “cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32).
Yeah, I realized a while back that God give us different “anointings” – mine is to try to make the traditional church work. It just gets frustrating sometimes. I preach stuff and people amen and nod and tell me “good sermon.” But when it comes to putting some of those things into practice, it seems like I’m hitting a brick wall. Sometimes.
My son is younger and he wants to get involved with churches that root themselves in biblical mandates and not traditional structures. i guess its a generational thing.
I like a lot of what is going on in contemporary churches – if they just wouldn’t make me stand through the song service!
Strider:
As you say, based upon Biblical examples, there are a number of physical manifestations for “churches” other than “buildings” or “meetings”.
However, the “Western Culture” in the USA may be so strong as to render attempts to setup buildingless and meetingless churches impossible to sustain.
Consider this experiment. Let’s say that we imported people from Lower Gondor to the Buckhead section of Atlanta. Let’s say they setup whatever type of church structure (or non-structure) that was most natural for them. I think it is entirely possible that this congregation would morph into some more or less “western type of organization” i.e. a congregation with a building or a “house church” automatically due to cultural influences EVEN IF THERE WERE NO SOUTHERN BAPTISTS (or any other Chistians around) to contaminate the group. I believe this would be the case due to the strong cultural overload swamping out the nascent group.
There have been contercultural Christian movements in the USA such as the Barna/Viola anti-”Pagan Church” movement aka Organic Church. Even though Barna and Viola have championed this new model I wouldn’t be surprized if it never reaches critical mass in the USA. By critical mass I mean more than 10% of all Christians are continuing to self-identify on a continuing basis with the “organic model”.
There is so much in this post that I didn’t say, so much more to say about this subject. One of the aspects I didn’t talk about was discipleship. We have been under the illusion that discipleship means a 30 minute (or 45+ minute- you know who you are!) sermon a couple of times a week. I believe in the power of the proclaimed Word but that is not discipleship. As long as we sit in rows and say nothing, letting our designated hitter do all the work then we will remain weak and poor.
Roger, I would be in agreement with you except for one thing. The Church belongs to Jesus. He said He would build it. NONE of us believe that the Church is what He wants it to be today. Therefore, I can only conclude that Almighty God is not powerful enough to change it OR He is going to change it. I believe change is coming because I believe that Jesus is calling His Church to be the salt and light that He always intended it to be. Currently, we are not that. We are so poor and weak that we have resorted to asking the Govt to address the ills of society- and we are mostly Republicans! The early Church did not need to influence Govt to reach society. They turned the Roman world upside down by the power of the Holy Spirit working day to day, home to home. I believe that the true Church will leave the big buildings and go back into the communities who need transformation desperately.
No, you are right Dave, the people in the pews do not want this. They are happy to sit and watch you do all the work for them. I believe Jesus wont let them do this any longer. I believe the time is coming for another reformation. As Wolfgang Simson says in Houses that Change the World, we had a reformation of theology during the Reformation, we had a restoration of spirituality during the holiness movement, now it is time for a reformation of our ecclesiology. We can not keep the new wine in old wine skins anymore. I agree with him but when the new reformation comes will we be found standing with Luther or or the Diet?
Brother Strider,
There are good traditions and then there are traditions we think are good for us.
The essence of the church is Christ in us…. A unity like no other. The essence cuts through selfish tradition, whether it be a group of folks that like sitting together in a building at the end of the street, or if it is a group of young folks endlessly singing (standing) at the other end of the street. Both think they have the solution….but mostly a selfish motif.
When all is stripped away,…the fruit of the Spirit is what holds the church. It is a glorious blessing to see that king of love, because it breaks through the tradition of sitting or standing, and puts Christ in focus as sustainer. So then …no one gets upset when 20, 40 or 2000 show to love one another.
Ephesians 4:1-7 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (3) being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4) There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; (5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (7) But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Ephesians 4:15-16 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave Miller,
You said, “I like a lot of what is going on in contemporary churches – if they just wouldn’t make me stand through the song service!”
But the traditional churches don’t let us clap or lift up our hands (much less dance in place)
.
Strider. Phenomenal post. Thank you so much and may the Lord richly bless you there in Gondor.
Roger, I believe that American culture is a powerful transformative force. You might enjoy The Transformation of American Culture by Alan Wolfe on this topic. See my review here: http://www.ill-legalism.com/transformationofamreligion.htm
Thought experiment: Say a bunch of Gondorese Christian refugees emigrate to the US and continue their form of doing church. What will happen? As they become more Americanized, I expect their form of church to gradually change over time as well, but not necessarily their religious devotion. Strider said in an earlier post that this was a Walls of Jericho thing and he doesn’t presume to have hit on THE model for all church plants. (Rick Warren said this very same thing back in the 90′s but many SBC pastors flocked to mindlessly copy-cat him rather than replicate his methods using their own local culture.)
I think Strider’s point from Rev. 11:15, the core verse of the entire book, imo, is not that all localities will look and act alike, but that all localities will reflect the local culture, but in a way that enfolds it into Christ’s Kingdom rather than its own principality. This hit me like a lightning bolt when I read your post this a.m., Strider.
We are not called to win the culture war or redeem the culture. We are called to win disciples for Jesus Christ, and like yeast working from within the lump of dough, to transform the existing culture into Christ’s Kingdom.
Thank you once again for a stunning post.
rick
I want to be careful to not get into a discussion on music or worship styles. We can all agree that those are for the individual groups to decide what is more meaningful to them, what speaks Jesus into their hearts better. What I am more concerned about is the nature of our fellowship. If our fellowship is based around a one to two hour a week meeting then we have neither a productive organization nor the Body of Christ. Are we involved with others in deeply loving relationships that build up one another and encourage one another to fulfill Christ’ commands to His Church? Speaking from my own experience this happens rarely. It happens. Anecdotaly we can say, “Hey, I was in a Church once where this happened well…” but by and large it does not happen. Mostly, the people who sit next to us are virtual strangers and even those with the most meaningful relationships have no real clue as to how to take the Lordship of Christ they are experiencing and communicate it meaningfully to the lost and broken community around them. I maintain that Jesus will change this and probably change it soon. My concern is will SB’s be on the cutting edge of what He is doing or will we be pining for the old days while the Kingdom moves on.
Thank you Rick, Rev 11:15 was a great paradigm shift in my understanding of the mission Christ is on and is calling us to.
Andrew, I hope you show up at the SBC, because I’m compiling a list of grievances that we’ll need to work out over a coffee or something. I still haven’t forgotten that Iowa crack.
Here’s the problem with clapping in church, Andrew, at least in Iowa. Most Iowans are of Norwegian, Swedish or Dutch heritage. Great people – but completely incapable of clapping on beat. When we try to clap, it just turns ugly.
So, I’ll go for the “raise your hands” things, but in Iowa we need to keep them separately.
Dave, when you said,”try to do things as the Bible commands, not as Baptists expect or as tradition dictates;” Do not Baptists expect to do things as the Bible commands?
I dont understand statements such as this, unless you’re talking about your particular Church not obeying Scripture, or maybe yall dont believe what the Bible teaches, or what? I understand the tradition part, because we can get into traditions that can be changed, and that need to be changed. But, I dont get the idea that Baptist is somehow opposed to Scripture, or that Baptist doctrine and practice is somehow not what the Bible commands.
DAvid
To make a more serious point over my jesting above, I remember, when I was a kid, when raising your hands in worship was a scandal in a Baptist church. It just wasn’t done.
Here was a completely biblical practice that was eliminated from our worship because it didn’t fit our culture and tradition.
One of the battles in my church today is about dress. Older Christians sometimes feel it is disrespectful to wear casual clothes to church. Younger Christians say (and I think rightly – within reason) that God doesn’t care so much about the outside but the inside.
Scripture ssys very little about how we should dress for church, yet that becomes a big issue.
Maybe this is one of the big problems in the SBC today. We have Pastors of SB Churches, who think that SB doctrine and practice is not what the Bible commands??? Maybe???
David
Vol, I do not believe that Baptists always try to do things according to the Bible. I believe we have a lot of unbiblical (or extrabiblical) traditions that have become mandates in Baptist churches.
I’m not talking about core Baptist distinctives – like baptism by immersion or soul competency.
Vol, I would encourage you to read Jerry Rankin’s blog. He wrote an article about people who stick their head in the sand and act like everything is okay in the SBC.
We have big problems. You seem to think the problem is those who point out our problems. I think the problem is the problems.
We need to address the problems and not circle the wagons and champion Baptist tradition as the solution.
I have to confess, Strider, that your use of Rev. 11:15 in this post is still jolting me this morning. I have always known that was the central verse of John’s revelation and interpreted it in terms of Ladd’s book on the Kingdom and Stott’s “The Christian Counterculture,” but always in a Western context. My naive reading of Rev. 11:15 (until your post this morning) was that Jesus was going to make us all culturally homogeneous – or mostly so – as the inevitable march of Western Civilization oozed across the globe.
But you shook me to the core this morning as I realized that the world’s kingdoms BECOME the kingdom of our God and his anointed. This is a change of administration rather than a cultural shift. Instead of the Prince of this world ruling the kingdom, Christ becomes their king in a process that sociologists might call assimilation or amalgamation but not really. It is entirely within the interpretation of of Rev. 11:15 that we all maintain our cultural distinctives, but still are subject to the rule & reign of Jesus Christ.
I’m still pondering and meditating on the depth of how this works. I feel like a fish who has just realized that water is wet. It is something I’ve experienced all my life but only recently come to consider what it means.
Once again, Strider, thank you for a thoroughly inspiring post.
Rick and Strider,
I am trying to make sure I am following what you are saying about Rev. 11:15. As I read it (from a premillennialist perspective) I don’t see anything there about us, as the Church, transforming culture, per se. As I see it, the kingdom of the world will become of our Lord and His Christ, when He returns to establish His kingdom, not before then. That doesn’t mean that the kingdom is not already among us. Jesus said it was. But, I believe that we, as representatives of the kingdom on Earth are to establish outposts of the kingdom throughout all cultures, and rescue souls from the cruel enslavement of the world, as expressed many times through cultural institutions, and government structures, which, for the most part, will continue to oppose and persecute the called-out ones, even up until the very end. We are also called and sent to serve the victims of the domination of Satan, sin, and the world, just as the Father sent the Son to do the same thing. But not to gradually permeate, redeem, or transform the culture in a postmillennial/dominionist type of way.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, though. Are you saying something opposed to what I am saying here?
The altar call is a good example of something that is expected in SBC churches that is not biblical.
(note: I am not saying it is anti-biblical)
Another might be quarterly communion (or less).
The use of “ask Jesus into your heart” is an SBC mainstay and is not biblical.
That’s just a few.
Strider, I really appreciate your article. I believe the reason we in Western Culture do not become “the church,” is that we simply don’t realize how far we’ve strayed from being “the church.”
We don’t need programs and new paradigms, we need personal revival in America. We are rapidly following the course of Western Europe. Even though Southern Baptists experienced a return to an emphasis on the veracity of Scripture, we have grown lazy and indifferent to open sin. Our churches are filled with folk whose lifestyles more closely resemble pagans, than followers of Christ. That accommodation of sin, or at least the turning of the head away from it, has given the appearance of approval. Sin, then, appears less and less sinful.
If we, who have re-committed ourselves to Scripture, have such attitudes within our churches, think how those who have followed liberal theological teachings must consider sin.
When we make allowances for sin in the body of Christ, we show ourselves unworthy to be called by His name. Until those called “the church” fall on our collective faces in the dust at the feet of Jesus and cry out for revival and a fresh touch of His hand, we’re going to be less and less interested in “church” which affects our lifestyle.
David,
I hesitate to get into eschatology and I certainly have no idea where Strider is speaking from, but at the risk of sticking my neck out, I’ll share a little of somewhat where I’m coming from.
First of all, I buy into Ladd’s definition of what the kingdom is. It is posted online here: http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last%20Things/GK/gk_ch1.html if you want to read his full treatment of it, but in brief, Ladd defines the Kingdom as: “God’s kingdom, His malkuth, is His universal rule, His sovereignty over all the earth…One reference in our Gospels makes this meaning very clear. We read in Luke 19: 11-12, “As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, ‘A nobleman went into a far country to receive a basileia and then return.”‘ The nobleman did not go away to get a realm, an area over which to rule. The realm over which he wanted to reign was at hand. The territory over which he was to rule was this place he left. The problem was that he was no king. He needed authority, the right to rule. He went off to get a “kingdom,” i.e., kingship, authority. The Revised Standard Version has therefore translated the word “kingly power.”
Basically, he says, “The Kingdom of God is His kingship, His rule, His authority.”
Let’s apply this then to Rev. 11:15:
“The (rule and reign or authority) of the world has become the (rule and reign or authority)of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”
So, David, when you say, “As I see it, the kingdom of the world will become of our Lord and His Christ, when He returns to establish His kingdom, not before then,” I cannot agree with you. As I see it the kingdom, i.e. rule, reign, authority of the God and His Anointed is an ongoing process that is at work and continues to work in every age since Jesus first came even until today. As I understand this passage in the koine, this is one of the few examples of the use of a future perfect tense to describe an action that is certainly going to be completed in the future, but at the present time is part of an ongoing process. (Not having immediate access to my lexicon, I’m only basing this on feeble memory, so this may not be entirely accurate.)
Suffice to say, I believe Jesus was, and is, and will continue establishing his kingdom. Most excitingly, we can see this taking place in reports like Strider’s.
David R, I think you at least partially understand what I am saying here. I understand that the culmination of this verse is when the 7th angel blows the trumpet- whenever you think that might be. But here is the deal: If that is what will happen then that is what He is about, his modus aperandi if you will, right now. Jesus announced that the Kingdom is here. All of His teaching about the Kingdom leads to this conclusion; that the leaven will work through the dough. Our traditional models and methodologies have been to try and get the leaven as far away from the dough as possible! We are to be in the world- not of it. Our people are not discipled to do this. They are largely of it without being in it (as Mike was pointing out).
Volfan and others want to stay the same and see different results- that ain’t gonna happen. Oh, and Volfan Galatians 5 says we are free! Who Jesus is is set in eternal stone but what we do in order to worship Him, serve Him, love each other, gather together, order our organizations and even dictate the duties of our leadership; this is all up to us to pray together and be led together by the Spirit to create new and different modes and means as the Spirit and our culture decide. That sounds dangerous to those who feel insecure in the ability of the Spirit to guide us but it is the freedom Jesus and the Word have given us.
David R, one other thing about the outpost mentality. It has gotten a lot of folks killed in the Muslim world. I and others used to believe that this was the price that would need to be paid. What we have learned is that when we sow broadly and present the Gospel to a community- as was done in Anfalas- we see commmunity transformation and eventual acceptance of the followers of Jesus as accepted insiders instead of traitors. As Western individuls we think of individual people and we witness to individuals but the Bible is about the community. The family that was broken and God reaching into that family to redeem all the families of the earth. When did Paul ever witness to just one guy? It was always families and communities. This is who we are from God’s perspective and in the grand scheme of things it is His perspective that counts. This world is divided into many different kingdoms- His promise to us is that He will redeem them all. They are His. They will be completely His and it will be beautiful. It is a fractal. All my individual brokenness laid at His cross becomes my greatest strength in His hands of redemption. It is the same in my family, my community, my country, and eventually the whole world. His reign will have no end- starting today.
If I had a pulpit I would pound it.
Rick and Strider,
As I read each of your responses, I think we probably agree on a lot of things regarding this, but disagree on a few things as well. Actually, this whole discussion relates to the basic idea I have been thinking of posting on my next post. So, I am thinking I will defer further discussion on this until then. Also, I don’t want to sidetrack the conversation from the main focus of Strider’s post, which I basically agree with. Unless, you think this is on-track with the main point. In which case, I don’t want to run away from a good discussion, either.
Oh my, no, David.
Strider is looking for a pulpit to pound on this very topic. Let it fly.
I would much rather discuss the coming of the Kingdom and what that looks like outside of our Western Christian churchiolatrous culture than listen to whining and moaning about the CR and what it did and didn’t accomplish. (Oops. Is this post going to be justifiably banned because it has the initials “CR” in it? Sorry.)
Still, I think Strider is practicing what Reggie McNeal discusses (but not nearly as well) in his book on the Missional Renaissance. I confess to leaning more toward B. B. Warfield in my eschatology than John Darby, but what I most appreciate about Warfield is his desire not to couch eschatology is millennial terms. Personally, I think putting people into one millennial basket or another unnecessarily polarizes people and provides excuses to divide rather than come together in participating in Kingdom work. For that matter, I would never want to make an eschatological position a test of faith or fellowship.
Rick (and Strider?),
Okay. Here are a few questions to keep the ball rolling on this, as it were…
1. Would it be correct to use the term “community transformation model” to describe what you are talking about?
2. If so, what do you consider to be the main Scripture passages that advocate a “community transformation model”?
3. If we, as Christians, were to be successful at truly transforming a community (per this model), what would that community look like?
4. Can you think of any examples, in 2,000 years of church history, where communities have truly been transformed, in the way this model advocates?
*By the way, my thinking on eschatology is presently torn between a Progressive Dispensational and a Historical Premillennial view, and not really, much at all, a Darbyite view. In any case, I agree with Rick that we should not let our views on the millennium intrude on our essential unity in the Body of Christ. I do think that our eschatology can have some important repercussions for our missiology, though.
David, you are a provoker, aren’t you?
Quick answers and then an application:
1. Not sure what you mean as I am unfamiliar with the term. Unless you are coining a new term in which case I would avoid it for fear it gets turned into a program.
2. The book of Acts. I’m not being flip here. Acts is a textbook on a variety of means to incarnate Jesus into society. Acts in a post-Reformation world is a story about the rise of the church. In a 1st Century context, it was about the spread of the Messiah’s message. I see no denominations or mention of The Church as opposed to The Synogogue or The Heathen in the book. I see some sectarianism in being labeled “Messiahans” at Antioch (or “Christians” for Greek-speakers) but only as a flavor of Jewish faith and practice.
3. Pretty much the same as it looks now with some vital transformation in terms of the quality of its character. Less adultery, fornication, murder, and greed. More hospitality, honesty, integrity, and compassion.
4. Believe it or not, there have been some stunning transformations in Western society, but we are so enculturated to it we don’t see it as a triumph of the kingdom. The nearly worldwide derision for slavery that used to be so much a part of society that it was thought as recently as 200 years ago that the economy would collapse without it. Universal literacy in Christian and post-Christian countries is an example of the transformative influence of Christianity. Labor unions, believe it or not, are an expression of a Protestant work ethic that actually triumphed over the godless atheism of socialism and Marxisim. Capitalism, for that matter, found its highest expression in Calvinistic countries. Democracy is based on Christian ideals of soul liberty. The trouble is, we are so enamored of the Barnas of this world who only report the failures of Evangelicals to live up to their press clippings that we think Christianity has failed rather than acknowledging how much has changed for the better since the coming of the messiah.
Practical example: The public school is the culture my kids are in. Inside the doors of the school they do things like have FCA meetings, meet for devotions, prayer, Bible study, stuff like that. Everyone is invited. At the same time FCA is open to kids of any denomination. They form a Fellowship as part of their title. I see a lot of influence my kids give and receive during FCA and other Bible club meetings on a public school campus. It isn’t spectacular. It isn’t always visible unless you know what to look for, but I see a lot of subtle changes that take place as a result of the leavening influence of Christians on their peers.
Do I credit our school’s high academic performance to the fact that our Supt. is a practicing Christian and that many of the teachers are as well? No. But I can tell you that our school is a lot different than the one in the nearby town that does not have a Christian superintendent and where the school board fired a teacher because he had a Bible on his desk (more to it than that, but that’s what precipitated the firing). The differences are subtle, but real.
Strider, are you saying that there should be no Elders, nor Deacons, in the Church? I maybe reading more into what you’ve written than what’s there. So, I’m asking you.
Dave,
But, the way you said that comes across as if there’s some big divide between being Baptist and being Biblical. That’s the way you sounded. I do appreciate that you didnt mean Baptist core beliefs, as in the BFM2K; but you still sounded like you were saying there was a difference between being Baptist and being Biblical.
Now, if you’re talking about the traditions of some Baptist Churches, then I can agree with you. My head is not stuck in the sand. I dont think that everything that happens in SBC land is okie dokie. I know that there’s always things that we could be doing better. So, thre’s no sand in my ears, nor in my hair.
But, I do think that our basic beliefs are based on the Bible; on Scipture. Our basic beliefs are simply based on what the Bible clearly teaches. And, I do think that, overall, the SBC is the best thing going right now. I dont see anything better, nor closer to the Bible.
But, I do know that there are many traditions in some, or in many Baptist Churches that are just that…traditions. Now, they may be good ones, or they may need to be changed. I agree. Some Churches have traditions that need changing. Amen. But, to make a statement like you made, made me wonder.
David
Strider:
I’ve been away from my computer all day. Now I come back and see your comment.
Wow! You are really calling me out on the carpet in comment #7. This is weird — especially since I agree with you.
The church has nothing to do with buildings (none, big, small, straw huts, Cologne type cathedrals) so why are you complaining about a particular type of building that some people use or don’t use.
Also, as you say, Jesus doesn’t have much — probably nothing — to do with any particular political party in the USA. This must be the case since neither the Democratic or Republican party even existed until sometime in the 19th century and the church has been going since the First century.
I don’t think that “revolting” against some particular architectural style is very substantive. I would submit that having majestic buildings is not going to impress God much and tearing them down is not going to do much to patch things up with him either.
Hopefully, there is more to Christianity than taking shots at culture which has virtually nothing to do — one way or the other — with Christianity.
Independent of any culture, men have a sin problem. Let’s address that problem! It is a transcultural problem. I don’t think it is sinful or rebellious to have any particular culture. However, it is the case that culture serves as a context in which various people pursue their sinful lives.
Here in Oklahoma we have Cowboy churches. I think that is fine for those who wear coybow boots and have a pickup truck with a gun rack. Also, we have churches with choirs wearing robes, big video screens, and pews. Which one of these is the most Christian?
I think that there are some iconoclasts that are intentionally countercultural. It has been my observation that movements which are against something don’t have enough “weight” to go the distance. Christianity is an “attractional” religion. Not a place to celebrate rebellion.
Also, Strider, in this culture, where I live, most of the women work on outside job, as do the husbands. They come home from work, eat supper, clean a little, make sure the kids get their homework, and take a bath, and then get them in bed. The couple are dogged tired after that, and just want to sit down for a little while and watch a little tv and rest and relax. Then, comes Little League season, and dance recitals, etc.
When do they have time to hang out on a sidewalk in town, playing a guitar and talking to the other Church members? When do they have time to just hang around everyday, and just “be the Church?” When do they have the time and energy to do more than just meet at the Church building on Sundays and Wednesdays for that “little fellowship and small amount of discipleship time?” How can they be together more than just”running over to the Church building to meet for worship” for one hour, two hours on a Sunday morning….one or two hours on Sunday nights….and an hour on Wednesday nights?
Brother, what you’re saying may work in a little village in a foreign country….but, I’m not so sure around here.
Are you married, BTW? have children?
David
David Volfan said, “Brother, what you’re saying may work in a little village in a foreign country….but, I’m not so sure around here.”
I believe that was exactly Strider’s point. Maybe I’m mis-reading him here (wouldn’t be the first time I’ve done that), but it seems to me that he was saying first of all what works for US doesn’t work in Middle Earth. In fact, in places where it is tried, they are seen as “outsiders” and have a very narrow limited impact for the cause of Christ.
So what does work around here, David? Is two hours once a week enough to “be” the church? If you were a missionary and the US was your newly chosen field, how would you go about evangelizing in a society like ours? The most common way is to do a new startup and dip fish out of other aquariums until you have the core of a new church that can rustle enough sheep to fund the work of (hopefully) personal evangelism. And that’s the ones that are doing it “right.”
Am I jaded? Possibly. It could be. But then how many SBC church plants start in areas where there are NO Baptist works whatsoever versus churches that get started in either the Bible Belt or in a town that already has maybe one or two SBCs, GARBC, ABA, BBF, IFB or some other Baptist church?
Vol, if you will look at the subject of the post, it is about the problem of churches figuring out what makes a church. I think too many Baptists think the church is the building, or the organization, or a set of lifestyle guidelines. I am Baptist because I believe in immersion and the priesthood of the believer and soul competency and connectionalism instead of hierarchy.
But I think that Baptist churches are full of rules and traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible but they think they. That is my focus.
I think the phrase “Baptist is biblical” is dangerous on a couple of levels. One, it reinforces the assumptions of those who hold to these extraneous rules.
I also think the phrase is insulting to our brothers in Christ in other denominations that don’t call themselves Baptist. “Baptists are a biblical denomination” – amen. But when you equate the two terms, you imply that if you are not Baptist you are not biblical. I do not think that is fair.
Rick,
1. The term “community transformation model” comes from Strider’s post:
“As we plant the Kingdom we do not seek to start new communities of faith- we seek to transform the broken communities of this world into the Kingdom of our Lord. This is what our Lord is about and it should be what His followers are about as well.”
I’m not hung up on the actual term. Just wanting to make sure that it is really descriptive of what you are talking about.
2. I see Acts as being more descriptive, overall, of the plea, on the part of the Church to those in the communities in which they ministered to “save themselves from this untoward/corrupt/perverse/crooked generation” (2:40). From beginning to end, in Acts, I don’t see any actual communities becoming any less untoward/corrupt/perverse/crooked, but I do see individuals being redeemed from these communities, and new counter-cultural communities in the midst of the untoward/corrupt/perverse/crooked communities being established throughout the Roman Empire.
3 & 4. As I see it, the type of transformation you reference in your answers to these questions is something that waxes and wanes throughout history. There are, indeed, times and places, such as in the reports of the Welsh Revival, when there are outward improvements in ethical behavior among a signficant percentage of the population. However, I don’t see any evidence of the world at large, nor of any particular community, continuously advancing and progressing in these areas. And, while, whenever we see such outward results, we should definitely rejoice and thank God, I don’t believe we should pin our ultimate hopes there. The kingdom of God, when it comes in fullness, is going to be something far superior, as I understand it. And, while we should not force matters before Christ actually returns (a la the Munster Rebellion), neither should we settle for an ultimate vision that is less than what we expect when He returns and establishes His kingdom.
Rick,
Thinking over my last comment, I realize it probably comes across as a bit more hard-line than what my view really is on these questions. In order to give more of a balanced presentation, I would need more space. That is somewhat behind my suggestion to postpone this conversation, and leave it for my upcoming post. In any case, we can still discuss this here, too. I am especially interested in how these issues affect the approach we take toward cross-cultural missionary work, and look forward to Strider’s comments, whenever he wakes up over there on the other side of the world.
I did find it a little uncharacteristic, David, which is why I was originally going to let it wait until morning. Since you’ve clarified, however, let me wade in.
1. Fair enough. I didn’t think Strider’s approach had a name, nor would I be inclined to name it. I saw what happened to “purpose driven” when it came out and how it became a catch phrase. The same thing happened to “emerging” until now it’s practically a curse word in some circles. In short order it won’t be long before “missional” is put on the shelf just down the way from “bus ministry.” Personally, I’d like to see “youth ministry” up there too but I’m afraid it’s become ossified and institutionalized thanks to us Baby Boomers. However, this is just a personal preference. Nor does space permit the alphabet soup of ministry acronyms that have come and gone ad infinitum.
2. I would thing the parable of the mustard seed is emblematic of the book of Acts. What started as a group of 12 had spread across the Roman empire by book’s end.
3 & 4. I am so tempted to point out how dispensational premillennialsm as I was taught it in the Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsay school of eschatology sells the gospel of the kingdom so short, but I will forbear. I’m no dominionist and have little use for Christian Reconstructionists. I feel they tend to stress politics over gospel. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world. If it were, we would be like the Recons and fight for it. (Did I say that? Shame on me. I’m so bad.) I don’t see Strider looking for a political solution to things in Middle Earth. Nor do I think we should.
I don’t think Jesus promised us an unending evolutionary development to perfection in a perpetual ascent to a higher plane of moral existence. Yet despite our lapses which are many, the overall trajectory is from pagan slavery to empty ritual and superstition to what we see today. I don’t think it has to be constant progress toward perfection in all places through time to be the Kingdom breaking through. Revelation presents a view from the earth that sees plagues and pestilence and travail while the view from heaven of the same events is the triumph of Christ’s Kingdom. It isn’t always pleasant to view, but it is always ultimately triumphant.
I’m reminded of God’s pointing out to Moses that He’d already sent Bezalel to him, and gifted him in working with wood, stone and the like. That’s because the task of the “church” was to build the tabernacle, and God had provided the gifts even before the need was explained.
Strider, your story about the workmen in the villages is about as close a reminder of that as I’ve heard since I got interested in SBC stuff, and reminds me of church before we defined “church”.
God’s done the same thing here, where we gather each week to worship and are led by a gifted person, taught by gifted persons, and prepared via a gifted preacher’s sermon, to fill the place and the activity God has for us here.
Terrific post.
Well, a good discussion died here because I got up this morning and read through and began to answer when the power went off for all day! Now, it is back but it is meeting time. I will answer some questions later but I understand if you have all moved on to Andrew’s post.
The blog world moves on to the next sweetheart.
Strider,
Thanks again for another great post. There is much worthy of discussion here. I hope someone at the IMB is using this as a church planting case study. One point you made that we haven’t discussed enough is that the church is relational. We are called to love each other and share life together. That is especially true in the country where I served. We once had an SC who announced relational evangelism wasn’t scriptural. We didn’t have time to build relationships. Needless to say in 10 years I know of no churches resulting from his team leading. I’ve also heard it said it is not good to learn the language well because we would get too close to the nationals and not be willing to move on after we started a church. Most people I know who have never heard the Gospel or do not know any believers will not listen to your message until they get to know you.
Is your Disaster Management team your platform for being there? Would it be more in the line of community development ministries. I noticed you were digging wells. The reason I asked is that we have used disaster response teams but that only happens every few years when a large disaster occurs. An ongoing presence would require more than disaster related ministries.
Another word that should be used is flexible. I am glad you mentioned you considered house churches, missional churches and the other types of churches. I think we have to use the method that best meets the needs of the community or people group in which we are ministering. At one time we were told we could only start house churches that should split once we reached 10-15 members. I also thought it strange that we were told to teach our people group they must use house churches and also told to use volunteer teams from the states that were from churches with hundred or sometimes thousands of members who worship in beautiful auditoriums with large choirs and pipe organs. I know our people sometimes wonder why if house churches were good enough for them they weren’t good enough for our friends from the US.
In one church start I was involved in years ago we started in my home but soon moved into a store front. It moved several times but is still in a store front. After ups and downs it still has slightly less that 100 attending. Of those involved one has moved on to start a church that has close to a thousand attending. Another is leading home Bible studies that have resulted in many coming to faith and then moving on to an established church. I have supported both and believe each should use the gifts God has given them to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit as they reach out to their own people. I’ve often said if we really believe in the indigenous principle we must let nationals take the lead in decision making and not force our theories of how church planting should be done on them. Of course any involvement of outsiders even in the beginning will to some degree lessen the indigenous nature of the church. You can see that in the traditional churches you mentioned in your area.
Well, let me take the questions one at a time. First,
David the Volfan- yes, there are elders and deacons and leaders. But the Word is very specific on the character of these people but never says what they should ‘do’. How they lead is by Jesus model of servant-leadership but the day to day things that such a godly leader should do is based on their culture. Very often I see missionaries go in and train a guy how to lead. I think this is a big mistake. They don’t need a leader who is up on John Maxwell leadership principles. They need a humble follower of Jesus who knows how to serve his own people in his own culture.
Second, let me say that Rick can answer for me anytime. He was spot on in his assessment of my thinking- kinda scary really.
David R, I think I understand your concerns and we may be even closer than you think in our understanding of truth here. When I talk about ‘community transformation’ I am not talking about it in the classic sense of changing society until we have the millennium here on earth kind of thing. What you rightly see is that the people of God are the elect, called out ones. We are in 1 Peter 2 that royal priesthood and holy nation. But here is the thing that I am getting at in my post. All the other people are not someone else’s people. When we bring the Gospel to a community we long to see the whole community impacted with the Gospel. Extraction evangelism short circuits this. It pulls the leaven out before it can work and leaves the lump lost. What we want is a lighthouse in the community that is FOR that community. We want to see redeemed men and women who still have relationships with the their former community. Relationships that impact, communicate real Gospel in a substantive way.
The best modern example of this is China. Western missionaries made their worst mistakes in China coming in with a foreign gospel in a foreign way, even using the British oppressor’s gunboats to float up the river to deliver the truth. They were some great men and women of God doing the best they knew how but from their experience we know more now. When they all got thrown out the Church in China was around 100,000 people. Then tremendous suffering came to China through their own culture wars. Everyone suffered, Christian and non. When they came out on the other side in the 1980′s the Christians were respected by their fellow Chinese as those that suffered together with them. They were not outsiders and the Church exploded in ways that made the book of Acts look timid.
I could go on but I will rap this up for now. But one more thing needs said. As the Gospel comes to a community and transforms it many accept Christ and many reject Him. In one sense, His people are revealed, the called out ones. But I believe that the reason Hell is hot is that they are in another sense ALL His people. He died for them all, loves them all, invites them all. Almighty God does not toss masses of people into Hell because it is part of a program. “Well, the rulebook says this and this so, sorry off you go.” No, His wife is spitting in His face and walking out the door with another guy. Those who reject Jesus have not made simply an intellectual mistake, they have betrayed our great lover and the wrath of God is fueled by His great love He has for His people. Maybe that is an aside but it informs my missiology, how I go about my work and who I see that I am reaching out to.
Third, Bob, I love what you have to say here. Thank you for that.
Ron, you have a real knack for seeing the schizophrenia of our organization! Use volunteers! Be indigenous! Go deep in language and culture! Time is short get the job done and move on! I hear you friend.
Concerning relational EV I think it is the current thinking. Shotgun EV was distasteful and revealed no love so many took to something called relationship EV which took forever and once you developed a deep friendship with someone you were not wanting to mess that up with the chance of being rejected over the Gospel so many would find that they had these great friends for years whom they never got around to sharing the Gospel with. So, now we have a new paradigm that I like: Relational. Relational means that I share the Gospel right away (which I can do because I am an expert in language and culture)but that I am inviting this person into a deeper relationship with me. When done well- I am always working to do it better- it means that the first time I meet someone I should share some significant truth with them. Maybe the story of Adam and Eve, maybe more. Then I invite them in. They are welcome at my work or in my home. If they come I give them more Gospel. I am open to being their friend but they understand from the beginning that if they want to be with me we are talking about God. This leads to another principle: the Gospel is filter. I know who is ready to hear the Gospel by giving them the Gospel. My door is unconditionally open to them for friendship but if they come they know what they are in for!
We live in a place where up until about 3 years ago we could do disaster management full time. We got into disaster preparedness as well which was educational in nature and provided access to places that had not yet seen a disaster. But this has slowed down. For this reason we are moving toward water projects as this is the next biggest felt need here. There are no formulas for platforms and access. My mentor told me, ‘You go into a village and ask the Holy Spirit what do these people need? You listen to what He says and start doing that!’
In terms of house churches etc what I want to make clear is that I don’t want this to be my decision. I want to make disciples and let them decide what level of organization they need to create healthy loving relationships. Here in the city this usually means meeting once a week in a variety of places- usually their homes. In the village it means meeting everyday exclusively in their homes. It is their decision not mine.
Ok, that is me done. Dave, we are moving on sweetheart!
Strider,
I would agree that, in our strategy, we should not seek to introduce a foreign culture, but rather to seek to let the gospel itself take root in indigenous culture. In order to do this well, as foreigners, we must take time to learn local customs and ways of thinking, and develop personal relationships. And, it is generally best to let local folks figure out how to best apply the truth of Scripture in their own cultural context.
At the same time, though, I think we must avoid communicating the idea that what we are really all about is Christianizing the culture itself. We should help those who accept the gospel to be prepared for persecution, and to live faithfully as a religious minority within a corrupt world that, on all levels, will oppose them, whenever they stand up for the truth.
If we can ultimately gain a better hearing for the gospel, by presenting it to entire communities, or within the context of an entire family, or household (oikos) of peace, then, I agree, it may be best to defer seeking to extract individuals from their cultural context. But, if our end-vision is working toward a “Christian” Saudi Arabia, for instance, I think we are misguided, and will end up frustrating those to whom we are seeking to bring the gospel, and of whom we are seeking to make disciples, setting up a goal which Jesus Himself never set up for us this side of eternity.
I agree David, I didn’t go to Anfalas and say, ‘I am here to transform your village.’ But interestingly, as we worked in the village and presented truth to the whole village appropriately it was changed. Even the non-believers recognize that the relationships are better. This is a by-product of what we do and I have heard this kind of story many times. We focus on presenting the Gospel and that seed will grow and bring forth its own fruit. A few to salvation and many unfortunately to rejection. But I want to be able to say with Paul that I preached the Gospel fully to all.
Ok, one more thing. In terms of Christianizing the culture the believers I work with here are adamant: We are men and women of Gondor. We did not sell our heritage we have become followers of Jesus and now He is redeeming our culture. They have weddings and funerals now that look just like the Muslim weddings and funerals except they exalt Christ while they do it. They are choosing to remain culturally who they are while at the same time allowing Jesus into every aspect of their lives. This is what I mean by redeeming communities. They remain culturally who they are- as opposed to becoming western- but they believe they are now becoming what God meant when He meant Gondor. I hope that this clears up what I have been trying to say.
Strider,
You have a talent for explaining things well. I am not familiar with the latest terms but I would say my understanding of what you call relational is similar to what some of the old China Hands I knew tired to teach me. I was a poor student but I am glad to see their spirit lives on in some of our new Ms like you.
Strider,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. It is helping me to think through and organize my own a little better. From a missionary standpoint, I think it is important to realize we can never totally divorce the message we proclaim from its cultural trappings. However, the gospel is transcultural. It transcends the limitations of any one culture. And, it is better to communicate the gospel in the trappings of the receptor culture than in the trappings of the sending culture.
In the last day, we will be gathered around the throne from among every nation, tribe, people, and language. The praise offered to the Lamb will be offered in a vast conglomeration of cultural trappings. This is a good thing. I think, even, it touches the core of what world missions is all about.
By the same token, however, also in the last days, Babylon the Great, the great harlot, in Rev. 17 & 18, is seated upon the waters of “peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages” (Rev. 17:15). And, as God’s people, we are warned to “come out from her” (Rev. 18:4), and “be separate” (2 Cor. 6:17).
Among peoples of all cultures, we must teach them to be in the world, but not of it.
Here is a real-life example that illustrates a little of what I am talking about in an everyday missionary context:
A believer in an evangelical/Baptist church we were planting in Spain played an instrument in the local municipal band. In that context, a corresponding requirement was participating in Catholic processions, and playing music dedicated to the local idol (a statue of a saint). As I see it, a proper way to “redeem culture” in this context would be to play music in evangelical/Baptist church worship that was culturally appropriate (in keeping with local indigenous musical styles). It would also be playing this music in public settings, together with other Christians, in order to present the gospel, or even, to provide a positive pre-evangelistic platform for presenting the gospel, as relationships were formed subsequently in which the gospel would be shared more directly. However, I do not think it was a good thing for this man to remain in this band and play music dedicated to the local idol. Perhaps, he might have said that his reason for staying in the band was that he hoped to infiltrate the band from inside, and eventually convert it into a “Christian” band (i.e. evangelical/Baptist, not Catholic/idolatrous). As I understand it, this would necessarily involve compromise, and not be something that God would bless. Neither, however, do I believe that I, as a foreigner, should have told this man, point blank, that he had to get out of the band. I believe that is something the Holy Spirit would need to convict him of, as he was discipled, and began, on this own, to apply transcultural biblical principles to his own cultural context.
Does this make sense?
David, I am with you on this. In doing a culturally appropriate wedding a local believer asked me a lot of questions related to what could be kept from their traditions and what could be ‘baptized’ into a Christian wedding. I gave him the principles but told him he had to make the call on how to apply them. In the end, almost all the ‘Muslim’ things were baptized and utilized but all the old Zorastoran things were left out. I found that very interesting but the point was that I could tell him about Jesus but only he could apply that to his culture.
David,
May I challenge you a bit in applying your question to Strider? I say this will all due respect because what I am about to propose treads heavily on the patriotism that many American Baptists hold near and dear.
Let me deal with your example first of all. Short answer: It depends. (And I believe this is in keeping with Paul’s aberrant teaching on the topic of meats offered to idols – I say aberrant because his recommendations in Romans and I Corinthinans contradicts the recommendation of James and the Jerusalem Council to abstain.) We do not require Americans who get saved and become Christians to throw away their calendars because the months and days honor pagan deities and heroes. Why? Because the use of calendars is so secularized that it carries no religious connotations any longer. If the Christian were playing in a ceremony that may have originated as a Saint’s Day but is currently secularized and stripped of religious connotation, I don’t have a problem with it. My kids passed out Valentines every year in elementary school on the Day of St. Valentino. Next week they will wear green in honor of St. Patrick and I will pass along greetings to all my Irish friends (even the Orangemen). Are we “compromising with the world” and “destroying our testimony” by doing so?
Now for the challenge.
Jesus says that his Kingdom is not of this world. The First Commandment teaches us to have no other Gods before us. Let me ask, in our churches where the American flag is displayed (often in tandem with the Christian flag), which flag do we display in the highest position of honor, i.e. at the speaker’s right hand? And which one do we place on the left hand in the place of lesser honor?
During VBS, when the kids say pledges, which one is primary, i.e. which one do they say first and which one do they say last?
Do either of these practices reflect our belief that Jesus is the primary focus or that he is secondary to the state? If our kingdom is not of this world, do we do well to even permit an American flag in our buildings as a competitor for our Savior’s attention and allegiance?
And before you all start picking up stones, let me ask this – what place should the flag of Gondor have in Strider’s churches? What would we say if Strider took a pledge of allegiance to an earthly power in the presence of young Christians there in Gondor? If we would find Strider’s behavior odd and maybe more than a bit disconcerting, why is it that we do not find ours equally disturbing?
I’m only asking. I expect a lot of our patriotic brethren to be offended or at least miffed by these comments. But let’s look at the bigger picture: Are we miffed because we ought to be or are we miffed because we are so enculturated as Americans that we are unwilling to abandon cultural attachments in church? I’m not even an “outsider” suggesting that the flag and the pledge don’t belong in our churches and I know many places where this stirs up a hornet’s nest. Imagine if I were a Korean doing mission work in the US telling Americans to keep the flag and the pledge out of church. How well do you think I’d be received? How much more then when we tread foreign soil as Christ’s ambassadors? Do we come as Americans or as subjects in God’s Kingdom? And if we come as both, should we?
Question: We all say not to be “of the world.”
What does that mean?
Does it speak to individual words that we use? (I’m thinking of the word “suck” here which can have a very worldly meaning depending on the context, while damn and hell issue from pulpits frequently – or at least they used to – with scarcely an eye blink.)
Does it speak to the way we dress or how we cut our hair? (I remember the controversy that ensued when young Hershael York took to the pulpit of Ashland Ave. as music minister and *gasp* didn’t wear a tie!)
Does it speak to our conduct, our integrity, our character only?
Or is this an appropriate question best left to a different blog post?
Strider,
Very interesting about the “Christian” wedding, and the “Muslim” and “Zoroastrian” elements. It would be fascinating to hear an explanation of this from the local believers.
As I suspected, I think that, when it all comes out in the wash, we are pretty close in our core philosophy regarding these questions. But, in my opinion, it is helpful to think them through a little more thoroughly, a lot of times, though.
Rick,
Yes, the secularizing of religious (and idolatrous) traditions does throw a bit of a wrench into all of this, and make it a little more complicated to discern. But, I don’t think the complexities involved invalidate the general principles.
In the example I gave, during the procession, they actually carry the statue around the city, on a sort of a float, and pray to the saint in order that she might protect and bless the city. The music played is basically the equivalent of hymns of praise to that particular saint.
And, I, personally, am not at all in favor of American flags, or pledges to the flag, in church activities. For the very same reasons I don’t think it is a good thing for believers to play in municipal bands in Spain such as the one in my example. But, just like I did not feel it appropriate to demand that this brother drop out of the band, neither do I demand that churches get rid of their flags and pledges. I do think it would be a good idea, though.
David, You gave the example of one who plays an instrument in a parade honoring an idol, and seemed to say your responsibility is NOT to admonish him, but to recognize his error while attempting to lead him to understand his error so that he might recognize it on his own.
My question to you is: At what point do you, as a spiritual leader, share with him your understanding of what he is doing? Paul was extremely pointed in his admonitions to those for whom he felt spiritual responsibility.
Many of us can recount experiences in other lands where culture and faith seemed to clash, but explicit instruction to new believers often prevents them from making unwise choices.
Perhaps, my lack of experience in Western Europe is creating an obstacle for me. I have experienced that the Believers in Asia and India, and Eastern Europe are usually more fundamentalist in their approach than we Westerners.
Mike,
Good question, and one that I think gets at the root of the point behind Strider’s post. Perhaps he might want to chime in with an example from his context as well.
In any case, I think there is a delicate balance to be maintained on questions like this. Yes, Paul was extremely pointed at times in his admonitions. But, I don’t personally speak with the same apostolic authority as Paul. I can point people to the Scripture, which does carry the same authority. And, I can at times ask pointed questions… “How do you think this biblical principle applies in this particular situation?” But, I must also be humble enough to realize that my cultural prejudice sometimes colors my understanding of how the transcultural principles of Scripture best apply in someone else’s culture.
And, yes, believers in Asia, India, and Eastern Europe are many times more fundamentalist (at least, in some aspects) in their approach than we Westerners. Western Europeans, not so much so. Also, Asians, Africans, Latin Americans, etc. tend to be a lot more culturally inclined to pentecostal/charismatic perspectives on a lot of things.
Sometimes, it really is hard to sort out between the biblical core and the cultural trappings.
David, Intesting that we agree on so much.
I have known many, many missionaries to Latin American countries who roundly condemn the annual pre-Lenten Carnival. Meanwhile, we in the States do the same for Mardi Gras. I agree with you that playing in the processional falls in the same category.
However, I recognize cultural drift and how customs that were at one time abhorrent to Baptists are no longer thus while things that were generally accepted are no longer approved. How many of us are old enough to remember having to navigate through the cloud of cigarette smoke in front of the church where the deacons were getting ready for the morning service? And how many pastors supplemented their income by raising tobacco?
Hence my question of what does it mean to be “of the world”? Are smoking deacons “of the world”? Pastors that raise tobacco? Am I being worldly if I go to the track to watch the horses but don’t bet? I can go to football games and not bet which seems to be fine, but horse races?
And I’m not meaning to get into particulars so much as to generate conversation on principles that we state often but sometimes provide little thought to.
Rick, I first heard David’s Dad preach a message on this subject about forty years ago while he was still at Merritt Island. The idea was that if one can believe that whatever is not of faith is sin, then one need be able to say about disputable things, “Without doubt, I believe God is leading me in this.” The caveat is that God will never lead on contrary to His “revealed will.”
Rick,
I do not have a definitive answer to your question, right now. However, what you have written brings to mind another illustration from my missionary experience that kind of speaks to all of this.
For five years, my family and I served in the city Merida, Spain, which was the capital of the Roman province, back in the first few centuries A.D. During that time, Christians were persecuted, and thrown to the lions, etc. One of the Christians who was persecuted was a young girl named Eulalia who is the saint that today is recognized as the patron saint of Merida, and is venerated as an idol (I can go into more detail if necessary, but that would be a bit of a rabbit trail). The statue of her is the same one they carry around in the procession in which the municipal band plays.
In any case, in Merida, there are magnificent ruins of the Roman Theater. Around the middle of the 4th century A.D., the Roman theater in Merida fell into disuse, because of the “Christianization” of the community, and their disapproval of the theater, due to it being considered to be worldly. From a historical point of view, one might think that “community transformation” had been successful, due to the sustained witness of the Christians. However, in the ensuing years, in Merida, as well as throughout the Roman Empire, pagan traditions from the surrounding culture began to infiltrate the “Church” itself, and led to the syncretism we currently know as Roman Catholicism. After this, there came the invasion of the barbaric tribes from the north of Europe (usually Arian in their Christology), and eventually the Moorish conquest from the South…
Today, however, the Roman Theater in Merida is back in business, regularly hosting plays that are often just as lewd, idolatrous, and more so, than the ones the early Christians “boycotted.” And, in a city of 50,000, there are only about 300 total evangelical (gospel-believing) Christians.
My point: We can win the culture war, and, at the same time, lose the gospel war. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose to win the gospel war.
“We can win the culture war, and, at the same time, lose the gospel war.”
Excellent assessment. I used to be a big fan of the Culture War until I attended some events hosted by Culture Warriors – huge rallies where Jesus was mentioned in passing and the gospel not at all. I turned to the person I had traveled with and asked him, “What happens if we win?”
He looked at me funny, not knowing what I was talking about. I elaborated that if this rally were successful and we achieved our objectives, what would we have won? Would more people be entering the kingdom? More baptisms? Stronger Christians? We discussed this on the way home and ultimately concluded that we would actually end up with a populace that was nominally and complacently unsaved because they’d never confronted their sins, they wouldn’t see the need for church since it was indistinguishable from the surrounding culture, and the Christians would be weakened because there was now no discernible difference between them and society which had been sufficiently reformed up to our Christian standards.
Quite a sobering ride.
I also love your story as it tells the vicissitudes of cultural conquest. Eulalia was likely no more Catholic than Patrick was, yet both of them were co-opted and configured as RC saints. So rather than appear to venerate them, we avoid them, allowing the Catholics to “own” them. I grew up in a predominantly Italian and Polish Catholic neighborhood, so I’m sensitive to this sort of thing. In a Catholic neighborhood I’m less inclined to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day than in a predominantly Protestant one. Ironic, eh?
Rick,
Now we’re tracking. It looks as if we see this the same, after all.
I am still wrestling with how all this ties in with avoiding “extraction evangelism,” though. Maybe they are totally separate issues. But, somehow, I have a hunch they are tied together, at one place or another. Not completely sure, though.
I elaborated that if this rally were successful and we achieved our objectives, what would we have won?
Well, of course I can only speak for myself, but I don’t so much view it as a “Win”. I want to see the bad guys (those that want to keep abortion illegal, make gay marriage illegal, and limit freedom of speech with moronic hate speech legislation) lose. I want to see Luke and Richard looking into each others eyes knowing that their perverse sexual relationship will never be called marriage and they will never be afforded any of those benefits. I want to see Shyera get pregenant and she and her boyfriend, Katar, trying to figure out how they’re going to afford to raise that child since they were unprepared for it but they can’t get an abortion.
Will that lead more people to Christ? Well, probably not. But that doesn’t change the fact that the positions I have just advocated are the positions the Bible takes on those issues.
My above comment should read “…keep abortion legal, make gay marriage legal…”
Joe,
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:17
I totally agree. I just don’t see that as precluding wanting to see abortion made illegal or making sure that gay people can’t marry. I’m not talking about going all “Westboro” on anybody. In fact, I don’t think having rallies or going public with how we vote is a wise thing. I pretty much keep that stuff to myself in “real life”.
I don’t advocate being vocal, just voting with a biblical world view.
Well, to bring these two issues of extraction EV and cultural membership together here is where I stand. In America I am in MY culture. I have a stake. I am a patriotic American. I vote, I care that babies are being murdered. I care about crime and hate and sin in my community. As an American I have a voice in my community and I should speak up. But I believe that this is not a replacement for the Gospel. It is a separate issue. It is interesting that in the Great Awakening that followed our Revolutionary War the Baptist and the Methodist numbers swelled greatly while the congregationalist dwindled. Why? Because the first two supported the War while the later was ambivalent- mostly pacifist or out and out Torries. When people came to Jesus they joined the groups of Jesus followers that were most like and loyal to their community.
So, if I want to see Americans come to faith in Jesus it is best to present myself as a real American and demonstrate how a real American who follows Jesus should behave. This is something we have not done too well in my opinion. But here in Gondor, I need to be careful to present Jesus alone with as little cultural attachment as possible. The men and women of Gondor need to be shown by me how to listen to the Word and the Holy Spirit and then make their own calls on how to live life here. This is one place where house-church is so powerful here. As they meet in their own homes in their own communities their families and friends are confronted with a traditional family who looks and talks like them but who are following Jesus instead of Islam. This is very shocking to most folk in Gondor.
Last fall a young believer died tragically. The Muslim family would not bury him so the Church did it using all the forms and traditions that the community always used. The only difference was they read the Bible instead of the Koran and prayed in Jesus name. The family was amazed. They said, ‘you mean you are not going to bury him in a box?’ Westerners use coffins but Muslims bury in linen in an ‘L’ shaped grave so that no dirt is over the body. The Church responded, ‘We are men of Gondor!’ This had a profound effect on the entire neighborhood. You can be a follower of Jesus and still be from Gondor!
Avoiding extraction EV is not easy but it is what I mean when I talk about community transformation. I am not talking about the New Jerusalem but rather men and women who remain salt and light in their communities after they come to faith.
Evidently, the blog world has not yet moved on to a new sweetheart, eh?
Strider, That sounds like “Chusak” in Korea where you take food to the cemetery and spend the day having a picnic on the graves of family members.
In India, a Hindu man was married to two women when he converted to Christ. The fathers of the two women took him into the town center and beat him severely, because they knew that Christians only have one wife and neither wanted to have another mouth to feed. The new believer asked us what he should do. We reminded him of his responsibility to those women. Should he abandon one, she would have little recourse outside of prostitution. There culture met faith with severe consequences. Scripture is not clear on the subject. We attempted to instruct him in matters of faith and responsibility. Should the church expect him to continue to be husband to both wives, or should they expect him to dis-associate from one?
I’ll tell you, that we had no definitive answers, but I personally feel that in that particular culture he had a definite responsibility to both women: materially, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Mike, there are unfortunately countless examples where we insisted on what we thought to be right only to find out people were suffering due to our ignorance. That is why we need to point them to Jesus and trust the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.
Folks,
I’m not trying to hijack this thread, but I’m seeking info about the structure of the SBC with Associations, State Conventions, and SBC. Has such a topic been discussed on this blog? If so, by whom? You seem to have no mechanism on this blog for asking questions, or requesting the discussion of a particular topic, so I’m using this means. If it is inappropriate, I apologize.
I’ve received considerable feed back from a blog I published, but I’d sure like to see the topic discussed here. Perhaps it has, but my search has not turned it up.