The Final Countdown!

Here we are.

As I look back at the nearly 300 lessons I've completed, the 8 Hebrew exams and 8 Greek exams, the 3 comprehensive exams and 3 summary papers, the 6 term papers and 2 book reviews; the ethnography; the countless mentor meetings; and the lessons I've had to write - well, I want to take a nap! Considering that during this season my husband and I became caregivers to his mom before her death; I changed jobs to one much more challenging; we moved into a different house and a different church ... I am amazed that it has all gotten done, frankly, and only 8 months behind "schedule". When people ask me how I do it I tell them I don't know - it's a God thing!

So, I have 6 months left. 6 months in which to write a Graduate Research Paper of 25-50 pages and complete a Capstone Project that addresses the major components of things I've learned over the last 4 years! Meanwhile, this represents the final teaching component of the study!

I'm biting off the whole elephant here because the final section was all review around certain themes. So I thought I would emphasize some of these thematic elements because really they summarize the entire study program I've been pursuing. So - here goes!

• Supracultural absolutes surpass the level of culture but must shared incarnationally. Contextualization, modeling, storying, and other tools are valid paths for communicating these absolutes. This includes art forms, language, ritual - all things that make up a "culture". There is no such thing as 100% identification with a culture, but intentional efforts can be made.
  
• Communication always occurs in a social context. Therefore, it is important to understand the social context to which we wish to communicate. For example, is the society face-to-face, or are other forms of communication effective. Being "all things to all people" means understanding and learns their social contexts. Learning styles are both personal and social, so it is important to grasp how socialization might affect a learning style.
  
• Decentralization and grassroots involvement are crucial for vitality. The modern "evangelical" movement in the U.S. is a good example. Loosely defined and without any specific organizational structure, evangelicals have become a significant group within Christianity. Its strength lies in its decentralization. Decentralization allows grass roots "fringe" groups to appear; this can be risky, but it can also be progressive. Often positive movement starts not at the center, but at the fringe. Thus, hierarchy can actually be counterproductive to vitality.
  
• However, people tend to conform to the voice of the majority. The fringe voice is hard to communicate. This is called "Social Momentum" and as a result, research tends to go in one direction or another for a while. This prevents clear, critical thinking about ideas with conflict with existing theories. Yet watch the fringes - that is where you will see a lot of breakthroughs. We can especially see this in scientific fields. Fringe ideas will float for a while, unable to be published, then suddenly a breakthrough happens!
  
• Change happens. It just does. Whether missionaries enter a culture or not, that culture doesn't remain static. Business will change it, or environment, or government. Therefore, missionaries bring the crucial element of love, always serving as an advocate for the people, as a partner and never a dominant benefactor. Much of missions history reflects the positive impact of missions on societies. And Christianity has historically elevated the status of women, slaves, and manual laborers.
  
• For religious change to occur successfully in a people group, indigenous involvement is crucial. There must be grassroots level adoption with leadership support. The missionary can facilitate this by an awareness of cultural forms and functions, but ultimate change will have to come from within.
  
• Translation always involves some level of interpretation, because theological assumptions and factors come into play when decisions must be made.
• Our worldview must always be dynamic. We don't possess absolutely perfect knowledge, so we have to be willing to update our worldview. Worldview is the path between faith and life. It is key because we don't change all of who we are because of faith - we retain cultural elements. So a dynamic worldview will help us sort through what is biblical and unbiblical, what is cultural and supracultural, within our worldview. Along those lines, we must roll back the blankets of prejudice that cause us to see all things from within our own cultural tradition.
  
• Christians have the opportunity to glorify God by fighting disease, whatever its source. We have the responsibility to intentionally challenge it based on the wisdom God gives us.
  
• As we face an increasingly globalized world, we have to be able to assess whether there is any connection - any unifying level that makes us mutually dependent and responsible. Is there anything beyond "every man for himself"? This is the essence of "global civilization" ... not a one-world government, but a realization that we are all made in the image of God.
  

It's been a fun ride! I appreciate your reading these brief summaries. Thanks for bearing with me!

Theology Review!

Wow - I'm already in the review portion of my program. Only a few more lessons - just 4 more summaries after this one - and I'll be done writing these lessons, and focusing on my term paper and capstone project. For those of you who have borne with me over 4 1/2 years and inconsistent timing of posts - thank you!!!!

So the next few lessons will be a brief review of major areas of study. This is the theology review. It was hard for me not to get bogged down here, as I love historical theology. At the end of the day though, God is about changing lives, and I have to keep moving to maximize preparation for ministry. I'm sure some of this will grip you and you will be able to study more in depth; there are great resources out there for all these areas of study.

Scripture. The biggest point of study relating to Scripture for this program has been the translatability of the Bible. This isn't something that we see in, for example, the Quran, where the very holiness of the text keeps it at a distance for translation purposes.

The fact that Scripture is so translatable means that Christians want Scripture if they don't already have it. And where the entire Bible is translated, errors are minimized and mission is maximized. Furthermore, Biblical confidence is closely linked to evangelistic zeal and world mission. So, as translators work toward accurate translation, they can also seek to increase Biblical confidence and evangelistic fervor.

Finally, the community of faith and Scripture are inseparable. The canon emerged, it wasn't imposed. Believers as a group learn what Scripture means and how to obey it. While we can and should study Scripture alone, it is meant to make a difference in how we relate to the "one anothers" in our lives - the other believers with whom we do life.

God and humankind. God is perfect and man is fallen. That's a simple theology of God and humankind. But the key component is not that fact, but what God did with that fact: The Incarnation. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Our transcendent, perfect, holy God is also very personal. He "translated" Himself for us to bridge the gap caused by our sin. Hallelujah!

Christ, Salvation, and the Kingdom of God. Newbigin observes that we live in the time between Jesus' exposing and disarming the powers of darkness, and His reign being fully revealed in its glory among the nations. The character of Jesus' earthly ministry is to be the character of this time. Marking by suffering and the signs of the kingdom, the Church will have a double character - suffering and victorious. Showing kingdom-level justice and love reaveals "glimpses of the kingdom". Working for the common life of our nation and world gives us a share in God's project for His world.

Eschatology, The Afterlife, and Spirit Powers. Jesus is coming back - isn't that all we need to know? Well, since so many errant movements have started around doctrines of the end-times, we need to go a little deeper than that. Gabriel Fackre points out that there really are only a few clear elements that make up the kernel of eschatology, and we are too easily distracted by the surrounding "husks". What are the major points that are very clear? Jesus will return; there will be a resurrection of the body; there is a final judgment to come; there is eternal life for both the righteous and the wicked; there is a restoration of all things. Most of our divisions are on things outside this kernel. Scripture gives us broad brushstrokes when we was outlined detail. We have to maintain a focus on purpose (mission) versus dogma about nonessentials!

The Holy Spirti, the Church, and Gifts. The gifts of the Spirit are to empower and equip believers for service. They enable us to fulfill the mission God gives us. A natural talent becomes a gift of the Spirit when it is yielded to the Holy Spirit and used by him.

These gifts are exercised within a regular, local gathering before God. Paul pictures this group as a body and as a family or household. Central to his teaching is the idea of love. Love is the sacrifice God requires that should govern all our relationships. Fellowship in the Christian context is joint participation alongside another. Historically and biblically, this has meant the exercise of the gifts of many - the entire body. Presently there is an emphasis on the gifts of the few - ministry as hierarchy who does the work for us.

A whirlwind tour to be sure. The bottom line is that we should view all our doctrinal studies through the eyes of mission - does this enhance and support our God-given mission? Don't pursue disputable topics that distract from mission.

Withdrawal and Engagement

From before the time of Christ, there have been religious groups who saw their role as standing apart from society, maintaining a pure system with minimal engagement. The Essenes in intertestamental times are thought to be such a group. While there was some positive functions - the preservation of Scriptures, for example - these groups played much less a role in daily society than groups such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to be intentionally involved in their cultures.

Other groups have always wanted a top-down structure which enforced a set of beliefs on all within their sphere of influence. The conquistadors who baptized all the natives and claimed them as believers exemplify this type of cultural "engagement".

Ultimately, both those who withdraw and those who force engagement minimize their effectiveness in a society. The pattern that shows the most success - the pattern we even see among the early church - is a group of people whose relationship to each other and to their God impacts every aspect of life and through the resulting actions, "turn the world upside down".

Lesslie Newbigin presents the role of the Christian in Biblical engagement as beginning with opening up underlying assumptions, asking unasked questions, and probing unrecognized presuppositions. A biblically solid believer will have something solid to stand on when engaging society in such a manner. A lifestyle that is consistent with teachings, solid scholarship, authenticity, and credibility will go a long way toward significant cultural engagement.

Ultimately, we have the same contribution to make as the early church. We can provide both support and challenge, challenging toward truth. We can show the truth of the message by its impact in our lives, and demonstrative how reasonable and logical it is. We can tell our story.

Christ and Cultures

What role does faith play in a culture?

Does it merely play a private role, allowing individuals to be personally fulfilled while society hums on at an abstract secular level?

Does it define the laws and norms of the culture from the top down?

Or does it impact society at a different level - at the worldview level? When a person truly adopts all tenets of their faith ... does it make a difference in what they think and how they react? And if enough people have a changed worldview, can the society be changed? Should we hope for that? If the changes come from the grassroots level - rather than forced by government edict - can that be positive for a culture? Can it be better than "secularism".

One of the quotes that stuck out from my recent study is from teacher Corrine Armstrong: "Christ is not there to maintain evil systems." When Christ enters a heart, the kingdom of God intersects with that individual's kingdom of residence. Soon, a clash of values may ensue. That will certainly affect the individual, but it has the potential to affect society in a dramatic way if the movement reaches the tipping point with enough believers choosing to line up with Christ's kingdom.

That might sound dangerous but consider: if the Christians who served in Hitler's regime had chosen to align with Christ's kingdom rather than their earthly kingdom of residence, history could have looked very different. Radically obeying Christ would have meant, at the very least, refusing to participate in the killing of millions of people considered less than perfect. It could have led to even more radical actions, such as the overthrow of a man who came to power claiming Christian values. As Armstrong rightly argues, Christ doesn't side with evil. Allow it for a season - sure. Maintain it through the efforts of His people - no.

So if we "buy" the idea that in general it's okay, even helpful, for Christ to make a difference in a culture - how should we make the leap to making a difference in our OWN society? What elements needs to be considered in our Western, post-modern world?

* First, know where we come from. The Enlightenment contributed to a culture that values Knowledge, Reason and Progress. Technology is an outgrowth of that. We have to understand and appreciate these elements, but seek to use them responsibly.
* Know what postmodernists are looking for. Postmodernism is in many ways a cultural reaction to the failure of modernism. When Modernists embraced the industrial revolution and began to treat humankind and society as a machine, the stage was set for postmodernism. It's a logical response to a society that failed to use its knowledge to address its flaws. As a result, "postmodernists" have a distrust of systems, but long for relationship. They desire holistic approaches over ones that overspecialize and lead to 'functional silos'. It challenges existing structures and seeks to find an authority worth trusting.
* Recognize the hope and challenge. The early church succeeded in a similar milieu to postmodernism, not by plans but by a radical walk in the Spirit. We don't change our world through our church programs but by pointing to the One who can be trusted and living a life that is radically obedient to Him, even when confronting our own society. We earn the right to speak into their lives. The church serves to provide a human presence to show the love of God, and to act as the gentle conscience of society. For example, the prosperity Gospel avoids challenging entrenched socioeconomic structures. The kingdom as God intended it will love people at all socioeconomic levels and in love challenge the structures that keep people in poverty. It will raise valid questions about issues of human life while also meeting the needs of people facing difficult decisions. In short, it will provide a balance of support and challenge - a balance that research shows is essential for learning to occur.

There are no easy answers when seeking to understand how faith transforms cultures. The list of "don'ts" is easier to compile; the examples of success are harder to identify, perhaps because they occur as the yeast in dough, imperceptibly yet obvious through the result. As New Testament believers our starting point is always the same - our relationship with the living God.

The Excluded Middle??

As I've noted before, Western thought loves dichotomies. We love to compartmentalize and to make things black and white. This tendency is reflected in what's called the "law of the excluded middle" - the logic of Aristotle that something either is, or it isn't, and that the two are self-eliminating. For example, one is either man or not a man. There is no middle ground. As with most philosophies, this one took off because there is some truth to it. There are aspects of life that are black and white. Much philosophical debate has surrounded what those elements are, but we instinctively know that Aristotle was on to something.

Yet as with any thought outside Scripture, there is imbalance to the law of the excluded middle. And generations of that imbalance has led to today's "two-story" view of facts and values. For many thinkers, there is a lower story of facts, and an upper story of values, and "never the twain should meet". This has infected religious scholarship, and so you will sometimes read authors who speak of the "realm of faith" and the "realm of facts" - as if the two are exclusive. Even the evangelical church is impacted when we speak of the "things of heaven" and the "things of earth". Our churches tend to focus either on heaven (evangelistic) or earth (social justice) - with few successfully balancing the two.

Paul Hiebert challenged this thinking in missiological circles with an article called "The FLAW of the excluded middle". Essentially, he said that while we see things in two tiers, most of the rest of the world sees the "excluded middle" where life is lived in a spiritual realm that intersects with earthly existence. In this middle world, people use charms against evil spirits, spit to avoid the "evil eye", don't name babies until they are a year old out of fear of a spirit overtaking the child, where virgins are raped because they are supposed to cure AIDS. It's the place where everyday needs meet spiritual realities. It's the middle world that has to be impacted for true development to happen, and it's the middle world that holds the most challenges for missionaries who are discipling new Christians.

Examples abound: Liberation theology in Latin America met the real need of people who felt economically disenfranchised - but it linked them to Marxism more than Christ. Communism flourished at the height of the industrial revolution when workers felt disenfranchised and taken advantage of, and evangelical churches were withdrawing from public engagement because of the rise of naturalistic teachings and a sharpening distinction of faith/facts spheres. In Islamic countries, "folk Islam" fills the void left by traditional Islam which emphasizes the 5 pillars but doesn't attempt to solve the problems of the people.

To truly impact this middle world we have to first grasp that our faith is a total life experience. The kingdom of God isn't ultimately about us getting to heaven - it's about His glory revealed in us and through us. And when we come into relationship with Him through Jesus, we reflect His glory to those around us as His kingdom reigns in us. Heaven is the culmination - the perfect experience of His kingdom - but we can have a measure of that experience in the here-and-now.

Once we grasp that, we then have to recognize that our proclamation of the Gospel must reflect a total life in Christ. That means that we care enough to do something. Our secular jobs take on new meaning in this view, as we see that God is using us to give a glimpse of His kingdom to those around us. Not merely in our actions and attitudes - but in the very work we do we can testify to His kingdom purposes. Finding a cure for cancer can be a part of advancing His kingdom if the researcher testifies to God's guiding hand in the process and makes the cure publicly available as a testimony to God's healing power.

On the mission field, we care about the people's lack of water and work hard to provide them good drinking water - all the time telling them about the Living Water. Missionaries function this way every day in "creative access countries" where their job is their reason for being there, and the evangelism comes along the way. But it's something we can all practice every day, for His kingdom can be at work in us and through us wherever we are.

"Will not the Judge of the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25)

International development cannot be considered apart from issues of justice. When "Dictatorships, Coups, and Terror" (the title of lesson 18) strike the earth, and people search for justice not only politically, but socially and economically as well, does the church have an answer? Do we have any message than to offer a "pie-in-the-sky, sweet by and by" as some non-believers view heaven?

I believe we do. And I believe we must articulate that message in a way that is distinct from secular organizations that also claim to advance justice. Lessons 18-19 stirred a lot of thinking in this area. Again, there are more questions than answers at this point. Liberal and Catholic theologians have spent a lot more time addressing these factors than the evangelical church, and so it is understandably going to take a lot of thought and prayer for evangelicals to know what role God wants us to have in the search for earthly justice. This is just a snapshot of some of the thinking I've done on the subject in recent weeks.

Why bother? We know that true justice will only come at the final reign of Christ. We know that in a fallen world, all our efforts will be flawed. Why not focus on spiritual needs and point people to the ultimate rescue to come, rather than spending time and energy on earthbound justice? That's a basic question, and a lot of evangelicals have decided to do just that - focus on heaven at the exclusion of earth. Interactions with individuals are opportunities to evangelize, nothing more.

One of the most condemning comments I read came from Nelson Mandela, imprisoned in South Africa for his fight against apartheid. Mandela watched and grew concerned as evangelical leaders embraced the ruling South African government and failed to consider the challenges faced by Africans under apartheid. He observed that only the communists treated Africans as humans and political equals, leading many Africans to equate freedom with communism. Christians missed a major opportunity to demonstrate God's heart toward the weak and outcast. Today, apartheid is broken and South Africa is learning to walk in political freedom, but a strong liberation theology dominates much of the thinking of Africans. Evangelicals missed a golden opportunity to love people, glorify God, and impact long-term theological development among His church in South Africa.

Our Western mindset tends toward compartmentalizing. We separate church from state, sacred from secular, earth from heaven. Much of the undeveloped world makes no such distinctions. What happens in heaven affects earth and what happens on earth affects heaven. Therefore, every earthly action has evangelistic opportunity, and every conversions affects earthly actions. 1 John teaches us that loving God and loving others are inseparable parts of our walk with Him. Micah 6:8 speak of God's expectations as justice, mercy, and love for Him. Pursuit of authentic justice has historically been part of the Christian experience and should once again be part of evangelical church life.

What is justice? Sometimes we don't always know what "side" to support. We don't know what true justice looks like in a given situation. This sometimes leads to inaction, and other times to knee-jerk reactions.

We need to take a step back and study justice in light of Scripture. What does Scripture emphasize when it talks about God's justice? What does God make a point of underscoring in Israel's governing laws? Such a study is far beyond the scope of this post, but we can draw some general principles from the laws He states and the pictures He gives through men like David, a man after God's own heart.

We see that He seems to emphasize things that were counter-cultural. Taking care of widows and orphans, loving strangers in the land - these things weren't done by the nations surrounding Israel, and they probably didn't come naturally to Israel either. For example, cultural anthropologists tell us that the innate reaction to strangers is fear and assumption of bad motives. God's law goes the direct opposite of what we are hard-wired by sin to do.

We see that He seems to emphasize actions that are intentional. David went out of his way to find someone from Saul's lineage to whom he could show kindness. Mephibosheth - weak and wounded - was carried to David's table and seated where he thought he didn't belong. We rightly see this as a picture of God inviting us to His banquet table in our broken state. But evangelicals have often ignored that it equally reflects the heart God wants us to have - to intentionally seek out those we can love with His love who are living on the fringes of society.

We also see that He emphasizes justice that protects the right people. Romans 13 has caused a lot of confusion among Christians who see abuses of authority by governmental leaders. But in the context of the whole counsel of God's Word, we see Romans 13 not as justifying the wrong actions of governmental authority, but as defining their right actions: They are charged by God to fight against evil and give approval to what is good. When government approves what is evil and fights against what is good, it has violated God's purpose for its existence and will have to answer to God for its actions.

What that means for the church, especially in a democracy, is that we must seek to advocate for protection for the right people. We have a responsibility to line up on the side of good, every time. And we must be willing to practice that justice ourselves, like the early church did when they rescued babies left to die in the wilderness. Our governments are ultimately part of a fallen world system and won't always get it right. But the church can fill a void by actively practicing justice that protects the right people. I have in my mind a picture of two families right now: One took in two children with 30 minutes notice because the mom was going to abandon them to DHS without someone to adopt them. The other has traveled to Ethiopia and China to adopt babies left in orphanages, one of which is a blind, developmentally disabled boy. Both families put feet to the words of social justice. They are living out protection of the right people; I shudder to think where those 4 kids would be today without their intervention. We must be politically engaged, but we can't rely on government. We have to be the church, every day.

We also have to guard against our human tendencies. For example, we have a tendency to elevate the successful, the wealthy, the winners. Does a custodian have equal chance of becoming an elder in your church as a wealthy business owner? If not, then we are subtly practicing economic injustice. We have a tendency to judge "the other side" more harshly than our own. Do we automatically defend our preferred party line, assuming that the other side has nothing to say? If so, then we are subtly practicing political injustice. As one author wrote: "Seeing what we expect to see is a common human ailment." We have to get outside of our tendencies.

Finally, we see that God provided a perfect picture of justice - Jesus. Jesus came to show us what the kingdom of God is like. He didn't just talk about healing in heaven - He demonstrated it to outcast women and lepers. He established the church not as an end, but a means. We have to represent the kingdom of God as Jesus did: challenging the powers of evil and demonstrating the supremacy of God's kingdom. That requires engagement and conviction. When we recognize we are equipped in the course of our duty as citizens to carry the kingdom of God wherever we go, the church becomes a history-making force ... not in pronouncements but in people.

The World Around Me

My world is expanding, and the world around me is getting smaller all the time as I proceed through Module 4.

By that I mean simply - the more I learn the broader my vision of the world becomes. At the same time, the more I learned, I realize how connected we all are and how actions have impacts far beyond our national borders. In that sense, my world is bigger, but the world is smaller.

The lessons I've studied recently in Module 4 (lessons 13-17) underscore this point significantly. Through these lessons, I have examined wealth and poverty from a global standpoint. I've learned that the poor of Los Angeles would be the middle class in Calcutta. This is stunning to me.

My study program emphasizes development, so much of what I have studied presents different viewpoints on development. Many of these are new to me and I'm still processing them, and trying not to come to conclusions too quickly. But there have been some key themes that emerged in the study of wealth and development that merit sharing here.

• The industrialized countries hold 20% of the world's population, but consume 80% of the world's food. An interesting fact - but what do we do with that information. Bringing that into a healthier balance would be good for everyone - they wouldn't starve and we wouldn't overeat. But how does that happen? We know that forced redistribution isn't a viable long-term option (see: USSR). We could send massive quantities of food around the world, but that's relief - not development. How can we help them help themselves? And what about countries with poor soil - should we approach those differently. More questions than answers.
• Development problems are both spiritual and material. Often, physical problems have spiritual causes. And sometimes, addressing material needs opens the door to meet spiritual ones. But we have to recognize that the issue cannot be separated. The struggles of Israel in Judges would have looked to the outside rather material - wars, poverty, oppression. Yet we know from biblical revelation that they had spiritual causes. In today's world, the same is true. Not that every spiritual cause can be laid on those suffering - sometimes they are victims of another's sin. But separating the spiritual from the material causes is a western concept, not a biblical one.
• Incarnational mission will meet people where they are, in a manner that honors who they are - but will love them enough to move them beyond their present situation. That's what God did for us when He walked this earth.
• Development should consider how to be of, by, and for the people. If we truly believe in democracy, we should apply that to development. Often we do it "for them" (or worse, for ourselves). We need to come alongside and find ways to help them identify the need, be involved in the process of meeting it, as well as serve them authentically in a way that is truly "for" them. This can happen in a number of ways: micro loans; incarnational service; national involvement; grassroots opportunities. We just have to quit thinking of ourselves as the hero and see ourselves as a servant in God's kingdom purpose - leading the people to a better place materially and spiritually.

Note that this is different than relief. In urgent crises, relief is necessary. People have to survive before they can thrive. But relief can also be counterproductive to successful development. We should be wise about how long to extend relief and also seek to involve locals as much as possible. (For example, the IMB distributes food through local churches, who know those who truly need food and those who just take it and sell it on the black market. In contrast, some major secular relief organizations just open the back of a truck and give food to whoever is in line first - often the strongest who got there by pushing back the weak.)

• We cannot refuse to respond. Yes, indigenous involvement is important. Yes, we have to take into account ways to avoid creating a dependency culture. But God has always used instruments to achieve His purposes. In the case of Israel noted earlier, the judges were raised up as tools of God. Matthew 25:31-40 gives practical, not theoretical, ways to serve. As an article by World Relief noted, "God never intended for the righteous to sit idle while the restless poor struggle for survival." It would take $30-40 billion a year to meet the educational, health, and water needs of the entire world - and that's the amount spent each year on golf.
• Stewardship is vital. Obviously, we want to use funds wisely, so that we don't send $30-40 billion a year forever. That isn't healthy either. As we gain knowledge, we should pray for wisdom and look for organizations that are serving the grassroots level in ways that demonstrate successful development, not institutionalized programs. As Ralph Winter notes, "When the means to an end becomes the end, you are in big trouble." Watch your giving to assess whether the goals are being accomplished by the organizations you give to, or whether the means to an end has become the end.

Finally, I'll close with a significant quote from Lesslie Newbigin on having a Christian worldview. As someone who has focused much on theology but has been weak on practical application, I appreciate his message:

"The Christian story provides us with a set of lenses, not something for us to look at but to look through."

May we learn together to look through those lenses on a global scale!

New Attitude

How do we change at the deepest levels? That's the heart of the questions in this section. How do we get a “new attitude”. One of the authors pointed out that where Christianity has entered into medical missions, it has made a difference not just because of the medical deeds accomplished, but because of the “new attitude” it brings toward the sick. How is this developed? Obviously, the Holy Spirit plays a key role, working change from the inside out. But how does change look on a societal level?

Broken Earth is a book about the rural Chinese following the Cultural Revolution. It's interesting to read because it reveals how the Chinese ethnos remained despite the cultural revolution. There was a significant difference between the propaganda and the reality, the cadres and the peasants. The ethic or worldview didn't change despite forced attempts. Surface level does not equal heart change!

Assessing the evidence of real change involves a willingness to get to know people and drill down to the basics – to promote reflective thinking and not reactionary responses. Polarizing or reacting tends to lead to reductionism – we see this in the liberal/fundamentalist camps, which reacted to each other so sharply that for many years Christianity had the “social Gospel” wing and the “evangelical” wing. There are new organizations today that are blending the two again as they always have been Biblically ... but the process is hard. It's hard for an old organization to bring in the other element.

When we let Scripture guide though, we see so much balance. We can bring all of life under kingdom principles in perfect balance. There is an emphasis on both individual and community. New cultural forms of faith are extolled without any hint of using indigenous churches as an excuse for racism. The balance is perfect.

Ultimately, through the Spirit and the Word, God will work a new attitude. As believers, we can best influence our society in the manner mentioned by Mother Theresa: Let people be "reminded of Jesus" by our actions.

Us and Them

Us and them. At least since Babel, humans have been able to differentiate on the basis of differences. THEY are not like US…however we define that.

Perhaps that’s why one of the most deeply rooted reactions that cultural anthropologists note is the fear or distrust of “outsiders”. Throughout the world, people seem hard-wired to reject, fear, or even attack those who are “not us”. Social psychologists have noted that in addition to assuming negative facts about outsiders, humans worldwide tend to reinforce negative stereotypes of “others” on minimal facts. (Think Archie Bunker.) This isn’t just the domain of “racists” – the research shows it’s our default reaction as humans. We all have the potential to be Archie Bunker. It’s called sin.

In this light, the Biblical commands to love and actively seek the good of the “foreigner” – placing the outsider in the same category with widows and orphans in many passages – can be seen as a corrective to our sin nature. We have to be guided toward loving them.

One of the best tools that we have, in conjunction with the empowering of the Holy Spirit, is knowledge. The more we know about a group, the less “other” they become. When we actually come to know someone from a group, “they” begin to be less “them” - a faceless conglomeration. They take on flesh and blood. We begin to see our co-worker or friend in the faces of others from that group.

Much of the church in the West is still in the process of embracing multiculturalism. We’re scared of the word. It’s understandable that this will be a process – in 1945, 99.5% of the world was under colonial rule. By 1969, 99.5% of the world was free from colonial rule. We’ve only been really dealing with this issue for a couple of generations.

One of the best things we can do is learn to ask questions about our own culture and worldview. What are the elements in our culture that seem strange to outsiders? Why do we believe what we do? Where do we get the idea that silverware is better than chopsticks? What are the benefits of a family-oriented culture over an individual-oriented one like ours? And so on.
Within the church, we will see benefits if we do these hard things. Christianity is accepted by more people when it is freed from political power. So if we can separate what is cultural versus what is Biblical, we take a big step toward freeing Christianity from being perceived as “Western”. We then take a huge step toward seeing people – and cultures – on equal footing with ours: All in need of grace. All with some attributes to be embraced, some to be rejected, and many to be redeemed.

This is called incarnational ministry. The Incarnation was the translation of Word to flesh. Our Bible, unlike the Qur’an, is translatable. Likewise, our faith is translatable into different cultures. Jesus established the model Himself: At places He adapted to culture; at other places He broke mores.

“The Incarnation was not and is not primarily a doctrine. It was and it is an event. It was a life lived, and it is a life to be lived.”

Module 4!

Wow, here it is - module 4. It seems like yesterday that I started the World Christian Foundations program, and yet on the other hand, it seems like I'd never get here. I still have a long way to go - but this first post of material I've learned in my first 3 lessons marks a key point for me. It's a commitment that yes, I will finish this program. The light at the end of the tunnel shines brighter with each page I turn!

I LOVE the way Module 4 kicked off ... with an overview not only of the module, but of the entire program. "From First Things to Formulation" allowed me to really understand the reasoning behind some of the approaches taken in the course. Those of you who know me realize that I have to get a context and understand the connections between things. I can't just follow a program without asking tons of questions. So I've often wondered why we covered such a large period in Module 3 (200 AD - 1945!); why "contextualized theology" was bantered about but not discussed in detail; and so on. Finally, in this lesson, I believe I 'got it' from a big-picture perspective. What I learned is that I was wanting to study the trees; WCF hoped that I would catch a vision of the forest and go back and study certain trees in detail.

One of the big things I understood from this is that "indigenous theology" isn't a phrase to be scared of but represents something that is essential for a solid indigenous church. Basically, the church must learn how to apply Scripture to specific problems of a culture. They must learn to trust Scripture for themselves - and the church in the West must learn to trust the Holy Spirit in their lives. Sure, we can guide and help them learn to study the Bible ... but if we expect them to take our theology carte blanche, without surveying Scripture and assessing truth from their worldview, we are essentially establishing ourselves as the experts, as the revelation, rather than Christ and His Word. I like what J.I. Packer says about this:

When a version of Christianity ... is exported ... the major trouble is likely to b enot that it inclues idiosyncrasies but rather that it ignores matters of importance.

That really helped me get my mind wrapped around the idea that western theology is going to be inadequate for, say, a people group whose experience is nomadic or one who practices a lifestyle similar to the Essenes or one who has mores like those of ancient Israel. Scripture won't be inadequate - it is wholly adequate to all of life in all times and cultures - but our systematic theologies won't help them determine what to do about the polygamy in their society, for example. For that, they must "work out (their) own salvation with fear and trembling".

This helps me grasp the need for an emphasis on Bible translation and indigenous worship forms. We must help the people make the faith their own - even as they are united in its distinctives to all other Christians in all other places. Unity and diversity - the church.

Lessons 2 and 3 afforded me a quick review of Modules 1-3 ... good reminders of important lessons learned, but more than that good "big picture" definitions of important words like culture and worldview. It was also a reminder that we are in a war - conflict is depicted at every level of life, even that of organisms. There is an "intelligent evil" that works to actively hinder the advance of the kingdom of God. Thus, we have to remember that we must seek transformation at the worldview level, not just the institutional or surface levels. Along those same lines, I continued the self-evaluation of my own culture and learned to my surprise that even such things as decision making are truly cultural!

A couple of quotes I enjoyed:

Hesselgrave: Culture is "different answers to the same human problems."
Winter: Theology "is the art of coming to justifiable disagreements".

I began developing questions for my graduate research paper and seeking historical parallels that might be useful. All in all, 3 lessons that were very valuable!

Housekeeping Note

No, I'm not going to give cleaning hints here (many of you are breathing a sigh of relief, knowing I'm not a Good Housekeeping winner). Instead, I wanted to brief you on what's going on with my studies and this blog.

With the final post below, Changes, I have completed the blogging for Module 3. I have to write a term paper - the topic will be related to women working with immigrants in the late 1800s. After that, I will be taking a brief break before resuming studies in Module 4, sometime in early 2009 if the Lord wills.

Module 4 will be my final module of study. I will have to write a Graduate Research Paper and complete a Capstone Project, in addition to keeping up with the regular lessons. So you can see I need a lot of prayer!

I confess that I haven't done as good a job on this blog as I would have liked. The lessons lack the detail I would prefer, and often barely scratch the surface. But that is how I feel in this study program - there is so much to learn, and even the hours of reading I spend barely begins to cover the depth of what there is to learn. So to boil that down even further for these lessons seems overwhelming to me. I think sometimes I've gotten it right by grace alone and written something helpful; other times, I probably left you scratching your head. Thanks for bearing with me regardless!

I'll continue to post on my primary blog (http://surpassingglory.blogspot.com) things that the Lord gives me to encourage kingdom workers and whomever God sends by. Meanwhile, The Big Picture will be here for reference, and I will resume this blog with Module 4. If I can figure out how, I will post my term paper - once it is written.

Thanks for your prayers and support!

Changes!

The world change dramatically between 1912 and 1945. Prior to 1914, people talked in terms of empire: The British Empire, the Ottomon Empire, etc. By 1945, two world wars had decimated the empires and people spoke in terms of nation-states. Prior to 1914, there was an optimistic perception that the world would only get better and better - it was a time of "high hopes". World events - two wars and a depression - shattered this optimism. Values were questioned and people were confused. People struggled to find a "new normal".

Hope dashed by war. Confusion. Financial trials. Questioning of values. Sounds a lot like our era, doesn't it? The headiness of the end of the cold war came to an abrupt halt on Sept. 11, 2001 ... and we've been trying to find our own "new normal" ever since.

The study of missions and church history has encouraged me greatly in the face of facts like this. Because no matter what type of leader, no matter what governmental structure, no matter what conflict among nations -- God's kingdom has made progress. And that progress is exponential! Consider:

• In 1430, 1 out of every 100 people were committed Christians - or 99 unbelievers to every believer.
• It was 1790 before 2 out of every 100 were committed believers.
• By 1940 the number was 3 out of every 100. Each advance is more rapid - by 1960 4/100; 1970 5/100; 1980 6/100; 1983 7/100; 1986 8/100; 1989 9/100; 1993 10/100; and 1995 11/100.
• Today that number is closer to 14/100. That means that for every believer there are only 7 unbelievers -- while only a generation ago (1960) that ratio was 1:25. That's progress!

Consistently, the number of people committed to God has grown faster than the general population - since the day of Pentecost. Current expansion rates are 3 times the rate of population growth. The task is obviously much closer to our reach today than in 1430. And God has blessed us with tools unheard of at that time - television, radio, film, printed and spoken Scripture in multiple languages. But there is much work to do, and we cannot shrink back at this juncture. For example, if every congregation in the world adopted and made serious efforts to reach one of the unreached people groups, there would be 500 churches focused on each of the remaining unreached people groups. Imagine the speed with which the Gospel could penetrate the world!

God is always on His throne - working for His glory. Even in the atrocities of the Holocaust and the darkness of 1914-1945, He remained sovereign with a purpose beyond human eyes. He directed spiritual battles we can only imagine. He kept His purpose intact throughout those years. The nation-states that emerged laid foundation for tremendous advance in kingdom understanding. And the church continued to make progress against the gates of hell.

The Proper Focus of Missions

Barely 1% of all missions giving in the US goes to unreached people groups, so that should obviously be our focus - right?


But then ... where the Gospel has been planted and the church is still in development, the plants must be cultivated. Isn't our 12% of giving to focus on evangelizing reached people valuable?


And can we have a valid ministry abroad without meeting needs here?


What about our church - can we ignore building a strong local body of believers?


These questions illustrate that a commitment to missions sometimes raises more questions than we expect. When we are truly committed to advancing God's kingdom in the world we will find the temptation to either an overly broad or restrictively narrow approach.


Some churches adopt a people group and ignore all other missions efforts. Others throw missions money at everything that comes along. Most are trying to find a balance, seeking to maximize their places in God's kingdom purpose.


A historical study of missions reveals the importance of balance in the advance of the kingdom of God. Protestant missions was really a "latecomer", not blooming for two centuries after the Reformation. A young man named William Carey was among the earliest who caught a vision for man's responsibility in God's kingdom purposes - and was told famously to "Sit down" because God could evangelize the heathen without his help. Carey sat down only long enough to write a treatise on missions - specifically calling for the use of "means", or missions agencies, to spread the Gospel.

As so often in church history, the fringe led the way - those missions agencies filled a role the churches weren't filling, and soon came a distinctly western phenomenon: The denominational mission board. Protestantism was engaged in mission at last!

And yet the story was far from over. It seems the lesson needed to be learned again every couple of generations - the task isn't finished. The initial focus was on the coastlands ... then came the cries to come home because the task was complete. God raised up Hudson Taylor and others who called for advances to the inlands ... and again, the cries were soon being heard that the job was done. Later cries came to go to the frontiers and then a young man named Cameron Townsend was convicted of the lack of Scripture in indigenous languages. Wycliffe Bible Translators was born and the foundation was laid for the modern-day emphasis on people groups - and the awareness that there are still many unreached groups. At each stage of missions advance there has been a call to retreat - it seems as though God raises up someone with a vision just when the church thinks the job is done.

What's my point? Simply that in our humanity it's easy to think that what we are emphasizing or prioritizing is the end of the story. Not true! Instead, we need to see ourselves like the Israelites - in Numbers 2, God directs the structure of their camp. There were four sides with three tribes on each side. The large numbers of Israelites meant that when they moved, they used a lot of space. Surely it was easy for them to travel about with only the people in their tribe or at the most from their side of the camp. It probably took a lot of effort to cross the camp and talk to people at the opposite edge. And yet God consistently speaks to them as one, directing regular gatherings of the tribe's leaders and of the entire congregation. He insisted that while they needed to be organized for the best possible advance of the group, they also had to recognize their common goal and shared identity.

It's the same with us. God's kingdom advance requires strong churches, solid ministries in our Jerusalems, the training and preparation of the church in new areas - and advance into unreached people groups. We can't have a focus that is too narrow or too scatter-shot. We must check ourselves and our churches to be sure that we are fitting in to God's kingdom in way He has arranged - and that we are recognizing and honoring the common goal and shared identity of those who are working in other areas. It's the key to kingdom advance!

Self-determination vs. Guidance

Some of the reading for Module 3 has focused on the history of the native churches in the lands where the Gospel spread. Unfortunately, in far too many cases the story is short - an indigenous church (in a non-western form) failed to develop or thrive; the national believers were accused of following a "foreign" religion and discouraged or even persecuted (witness: Japan).

Scripture is clear throughout the New Testament: As the church spread, it didn't have to remain Jewish in form. The Acts 15 Jerusalem Council and Paul's conflict with Peter in Galatians 2 underscore the truth that Gentiles didn't become Christians by adopting Jewish forms. Furthermore, the church depicted in Corinth, Antioch, and other Gentile locales looks quite different from the Jerusalem-oriented church of Acts 2-7. And the throne room scenes in Revelation depict believers with their ethnic distinctions still visible to John the onlooker. Clearly, the unity Christ desires for His church doesn't require uniformity.

Yet the idea proposed by some scholars as a solution raises questions as well. Partially as a reaction to the former attempts to westernize native churches, some propose a radical self-determination, one that is completely devoid of guidance from the missionaries who bring the Gospel. In this model, the Holy Spirit and Scripture are presented as the only guidance needed by new converts.

The example of the New Testament church challenges this concept as well. In Acts 15, 1 Corinthians, Romans 14 - indeed, most of Paul's letters - the apostles give guidance in lots of specifics, but leave room for self-determination in other areas. Jude exhorted his audience to earnestly defend the faith that was "once for all delivered to the saints" - drawing a bold line around certain elements that are to be indisputable (Jude 1:3). Paul's tender care for the churches, extensive times of teaching (for example, in Ephesus), and priority on training leaders and warning about false doctrines underscores the responsibility he felt for the doctrinal development of the churches. Furthermore, Paul wrote in Ephesians 4 that pastors/teachers are God's gift to the church to build them up until they achieve unity of faith and are no longer swayed by strange doctrines.

Can we trust the Holy Spirit and Scripture in the lives of new believers from other cultural backgrounds? Absolutely! Should missionaries make every decision? No! Yet somewhere in between "all or nothing" is a Biblical approach to indigenous churches. Training leadership in specific doctrinal points forms a solid foundation for a church. Fretting over which instruments are allowed is less helpful.

A sound indigenous church will perpetuate the faith "once for all delivered to the saints". But it may do so in a form very different from what you and I are used to - and that's okay. It's just a reflection of our creative God!

The Good, the Bad, and the Somewhere in Between

Our study of missions and church history brings us to an interesting era in the church - one that leaves no easy answers. As the Protestant church was awakened to its need to be on mission, Western nations were busy with a mission of their own: Colonialism. Many missionaries "rode the coattails" of their nations' colonial interests ... and found themselves facing some challenging questions.

There was much good done ... schools and hospitals by the thousands were started out of a genuine desire to help people. As Ralph Winter observes, "Overall, the Christian movement ... brings blessing to all the families of the world." Despite the sometimes selfish interests of their national leaders, the Christians who jumped at the chance to "go" made a positive difference.

And yet, they frequently faced questions of paternalism and nationalism raised by the actions of their home countries. They had to decide whether to be a missionary first, or an American/Briton/Dutchman first. Their decisions weren't always perfect; in the case of the American West, for example, we find many examples of missionaries who failed to treat the American Indian with dignity and respect. The long-term consequences of such actions were devastating for both Native American culture and the Gospel.

Other times, however, the willingness to challenge their own country's assumptions led to significant opportunities to transform their "mission" into a blessing. Some missionaries used their position to bring radical change - William Carey's fight against the practice of widow-burning in India, for example, resonates as one of the high points of the era.

And then there were all those times somewhere between bad and good, those times when missionaries treated the people with love and respect but failed to allow them the chance to develop their own unique worship forms. Their theological or form-based assumptions led to a different type of imperialism, one that communicated, overtly or subtly, that to be Christian was to be Western. The effects of this cannot be overstated; in many of those countries missionaries were later banned and Christians persecuted because they followed a "foreign" religion. Often it took decades for the church to recover - and in some cases, like Japan, it never has.

The lessons from colonialism were learned the hard way, when two world wars led to a dissolution of the empires and the rise of many independent nations. In many ways we still fight that battle today, as nations are becoming far less "nationalistic" and more focused on ethnic distinctions. And yet we have a great opportunity to learn from history. As we go into these nations - sometimes on the heels of our own nation's military or diplomatic successes - we can encourage the development of an indigenous church ... one that might not look like us, but that will have a solid foundation for survival and relevance once we are gone.

Elements of Renewal

Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell could not prevail against the church, built upon the Rock. He promised that the Gospel would be preached to all people groups before His return, and gave His Spirit to ensure completion of the task.



So what happened? If the Greek language and culture could sweep a large swath of the globe in just a few years under Alexander the Great, why have nearly 2000 years of church failed to see the true globalization of Christianity?



Simply put: There is another, frequently-forgotten aspect to the Gospel. It's the simple truth that we are in a spiritual battle. True, the war has been won - but our enemy is angry, because he knows his time is short. So he thwarts the advance of the Gospel any way he can ... sometimes with direct onslaughts like extreme persecution and genocide; other times by exploiting the sins and weaknesses of the saints; sometimes by stirring seeds of dissension within fellowship; still other times by distraction to "good" things - anything to shift our focus off Jesus and the race set before us. Frankly, he doesn't care what we do as long as we don't advance the kingdom of God. Because every day that the Gospel is delayed from reaching that final people group is one day longer that he gets to roam the earth and have some degree of perceived power (perceived, because even he falls under the sovereignty of God).



Yet mission historians see an overall advance of the Gospel, albeit not without setbacks. Jonathan Edwards viewed the history of the church as a series of pulses - outwardly pulsing toward advance and renewal, then inwardly contracting ... with each outward pulse pushing the church forward beyond the last point. Kenneth Scott Latourette sees similar phases, which he calls renewal and recession.



Richard F. Lovelace studied the various renewal movements throughout church history and found several common elements:

• Dependent prayer


• Outpouring of God's Spirit


• Increased awareness among laity

Each renewal seems to have started with an emphasis on prayer. Even Pentecost - perhaps the greatest renewal ever - came after the disciples spent 10 days in the Upper Room, praying and waiting on the Spirit. And when the Spirit came, He didn't prioritize the leadership ... instead, He empowered the church and brought to the laity an increased awareness of spiritual matters, an increased sense of responsibility and purpose. Even where leaders were unsupportive, the Spirit's power on the laity was profound. And the fruit was dynamic:

• Doctrinal awareness of basics of redemption (justification, sanctification, indwelling Spirit, spiritual
• Awareness of mission
• Dependent Prayer
• Community of Believers
• Theological integration (applying faith principles to life)

Ralph Winter adds another sign of renewal: Lots of creativity in the body of Christ. New forms of worship, new music, new ways of doing "church". Sometimes things that are on the "fringe" are determined to be emotionalism or false; yet the presence of activity is a sign of life. Jonathan Edwards addressed the topic in Religious Affections, still the best work I know of to help delineate authentic works of God from their counterfeits. And even Edwards was cautious of criticizing some things considered "fringe"; he counseled emphasis on Scripture and watching for fruitfulness.

The bottom line of renewal is a return to what should be normal. Being on mission is always normal. Our reliance must always be on God's spirit not a method. God is going to use the average, every day Christian - not just leaders - including unexpected vessels like women and youth movements. There will be things to watch out for - and things to celebrate.

And the kingdom will continue to advance against the gates of hell.

Cultural Change and the Gospel

It's easy for evangelicals to decry the "social gospel" that arose in the 19th century and began to emphasize meeting practical needs over evangelism. A study of the conditions of the times, however, reveals an understanding that can bring common ground and much-needed balance to both emphases.

Go with me if you will into early 19th century England. Thousands of displaced cottage industry families find themselves working in factories and coal mines. Entire families would work together just as they had in their home industries, and women and children received no special considerations. Increased food production and income was easily offset by the needs of a rapidly growing population. Conditions were terrible, really. Today we would call that England poor, third world, backward.

The coal workers faced brutal conditions. Because they were smaller, women and children often hauled coal out, hunched over to travel underneath low ceilings while pulling a cart full of coal. The work was hot, and like the men, the women went shirtless. Their backs were breaking down, their lungs were filling with dust, but the complaint that finally stirred Parliament was that the women's shirtlessness was lowering moral standards. Factory conditions were hard too. Little or no concern for anything beyond the financial 'bottom line' meant long, hot hours for the men, women and children in the factories.

It was in this context that the Second Great Awakening flowed into England from the US. This awakening brought more than an understanding of personal salvation; it brought an awareness of how that salvation should prompt its adherents to make a difference in society. And while its followers pursued this goal imperfectly, their goal was thoroughly in line with the book of James. "Faith without works is dead", he wrote, and exhorted his readers to show practical acts of servant love to the weak members of society because of their faith.

This same understanding spread to other parts of the world. In Ghana, efforts of Christians led to transformation as well. William Carey made a difference toward ending the practice of suttee, or widow-burning, in his beloved India. Consistently, Christians were becoming awakened to the idea that they should speak up about social ills and the needs of society. And in the process, society changed. The decrease in poverty was dramatic, and just as believers spearheaded the end of slavery, they also successfully fought for the end of English sweatshops and extreme hunger as a norm.

By the late 19th century two streams were developing: Some Christians focused on evangelism, and others on social action. While those emphasizing evangelism were prone to ignoring or minimizing the social and cultural development of the people, those prioritizing social action - especially after the rise of Darwinism and radical "higher criticism" which questioned the authority of Scripture - sometimes compromised truth and minimized evangelism. Even when evangelicals embraced social action, often it was at the expense of the other group's cultural distinctives; in other words, the goal was to make them "civilized" defined commonly as "more like us" (the tragedy of the Native Americans illustrates this sad fact; we created a de-culturated and totally dependent sub-class and to this day face repercussions for those decisions).

As always, there were stellar examples of balance. Some Methodist and Baptist pastors travled west, living in rural villages and adopting the lifestyle of the people. Some missionaries went on the Trail of Tears with the Cherokee. Some Catholic missionaries and Spalding exemplify the effectiveness that these individuals had. They were successful because they identified - and they balanced evangelism and meeting needs.

The story of missions in the late 19th century illustrates the importance of the pillars of evangelism and practical acts of servant love. When we care about people's eternal destiny, we should be motivated to make a difference in their present situation. A friend of mine works for a ministry that offers "eternal hope and temporal help". And the temporal help, when given wisely, can change societies. We are living proof - as we look around and see the absence of slavery, Jim Crow laws, sweatshops, and child labor, we can grasp that Christianity can make a difference for both the future and the here and now.

John R. Mott captured the balance perfectly:

"There are not two gospels, one social and one individual. There is but one Christ who lived, died, and rose again, and relates himself to the lives of men. He is the Savior of the individual and the one sufficient Power to transform his environment and relationships."

Hearts and Minds

What is mission, really? What are we trying to do when we go "into all the world" and make disciples, as Jesus commanded?

Through the centuries, that question has been answered in different ways. Some have interpreted it to mean a carbon copy of the one going - teach the new believer to follow Christ in the same cultural clothing we use, having quiet times the same way, etc. Others have focused on criticism of the dominant culture/government, teaching the disciples to be revolutionaries. At another extreme, the emphasis has been on meeting practical needs with no effort to bring lasting change - merely leaving the people where they are, but making sure they hear the Gospel. Today's two most common extremes are an emphasis on evangelism to the exclusion of practical ministry, and an emphasis on practical ministry and social change to the exclusion of evangelism.

As usual, God's word blazes a different path - one that takes into account the needs of today and the changes required for tomorrow; one that emphasizes both evangelism and action; one that teaches contentment without complacency; one that comes ready to fit into any culture - and transform it where needed. It's the path of changing hearts and minds.

As "outsiders" in any mission situation, we have to focus on the hearts and minds of those we wish to reach. Even in the political realm, the idea of "hearts and minds" is critical: in the 19th century, the Opium Wars in China - after the West, including some missionaries, supplied opium to bring down tea prices and the Chinese government fought to have us cease the practice - and the forced opening of Japan show us that we can "win" and still lose if hearts and minds aren't with us. The longterm effect in both those societies and the West's relationship with them is significant. Part of what we see today goes back to those flawed encounters. Both China and Japan were totally closed to the West for much of the 20th century, and even today Japan remains one of the hardest societies to penetrate with the Gospel. The lesson was learned the hard way: for political relations to succeed, as guests in a country we should make ourselves useful so they want us there. When the hearts and minds of the people are on our side, the political relationship improves.

The same is true missiologically. Our "mercy ministries" meet practical needs but also form a strong link to the Gospel. The adage is true; people don't care what they know until they know that you care. Missionaries who seek to fit into the culture (in ways that don't compromise the Gospel, but might make them feel awkward or foreign at first), and who focus on meeting needs, are often the ones who are able to stay when everyone else is forced out of the country. Living with the people; dressing like them; eating what they eat; in general identifying with them, affords a relationship that can lead to conversations about the Gospel.

William Carey affords a great picture of a misisonary who had strong theology, solid evangelistic perspective, and yet was thoroughly socially engaged. An article I read titled "Who Really was William Carey?" presented a portrait of the man from different angles - showing the breadth of his involvement in India. From contributions in botany and other sciences, to fighting the social practice of widows burning themselves on funeral pyres, to translating Scripture, to sharing the Gospel - Carey made himself useful in his chosen country of service, meeting practical needs, blazing the trail for those who following, and even seeing conversions. He won the hearts and minds of the people, and in the process earned the right to share what was most deeply etched in his heart and mind - the Gospel.

Sure, there were political challenges in Carey's India. Yet he wasn't drawn into them just for politics sake. We have to be vigilant to pursue all things for the sake of Christ. We have to seek to "keep the main thing, the main thing". We have to focus on the hearts and minds of people. And in so doing, we may become a conduit for Him to change their hearts and minds for eternal good and temporal hope.

Single Issues and Systemic Concerns

An amazing thing happened in the 18th century - Evangelicals "awakened" to the Gospel in new ways and began to get involved in missions as a result. Catalysts like William Carey became God's instruments to use "means" to carry the Gospel to the world. Previously, the Protestant mindset was largely reflected in the quote an elder supposedly told Carey when he presented his desire for evangelization: "Sit down! If God wants to convert the heathen, He'll do it without your help or mine."

Carey couldn't sit down - he wrote an influential pamphlet arguing for the use of "means" to accomplish God's plan to reach the world with the Gospel. Those "means" are known to us as missions organizations.

The first formal missions organizations were not denominational, but were, as many key movements, on the fringe. These new structures afforded a place for individuals who were tugged by the compulsion to share the Gospel and minister to people, but whose churches lacked that emphasis. Modeled after Paul's missionary bands in the book of Acts, these bands have been called Protestant "orders" (paralleling the Catholic orders which led the way in Catholic missions through the monasteries). These missionary bands reported to churches and sought to develop churches, but were independent from any one church.

Eventually, the churches caught the vision and developed their own denominational missions structures. Since that time, Western missions has been characterized by these two systems. This variety in approaches has led to an unprecedented expansion of specialization; Martin Mary writes, "These institutions grew larger and larger, but their goals encompassed ever narrower portions of life." Essentially, many agencies specializes in something different - Muslims, or Tribals, or the poor - providing a means or instrument for the outlet of those stirred by awakening to meet a specific need. It affords a natural structure for new ways of thinking and new emphases.

However, there is a downside. The very structure that attracts those who have the passion it reflects also acts, intentionally or not, to exclude those who have different passions. As a result, there is a surrender of wider systemic concerns. It often can lead to individual level reform vs. societal reform, if the organizations compete rather than peacefully co-exist among a people group.

Such a struggle underscores the wisdom of God. It is through the church - the body of Christ, where all are equal and all concerns valid - that God manifests His wisdom to the spiritual realm. In the church, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female. The Biblical pattern doesn't segregate by age or ethnicity, either. And through each person fulfilling his or her gifts and working together in unity with others, God transforms not just lives but societies.

The very fact that I am sitting here studying this material in a majority-Christian society demonstrates that transformation. My ancestors were Native Americans and Europeans, mainly German and English. Reach back far enough and all those regions were controlled by tribes that practiced animism and warred against each other. More recently, the early American society while largely influenced by Scripture only boasted 6% church attendance, until the Great Awakening truly brought home the need for personal salvation. So I sit here today with a heritage that demonstrates societal transformation.

Alone we can impact people. Together we can "turn the world upside down", as the Jewish leaders said of the apostles. Missions structures are vital - God has used them mightily for 200 years, as the "wild fringe" that keeps the church focused on God's big picture plan. But left to themselves the missions structures can polarize rather than unify. That's why there must be a partnership with the church - God's structure for revealing His wisdom!

The Christian in Society

We all know Christians are in the world, but not of the world. Jesus said it, and when we walk closely with Him, we sense it. We know in our spirits that the priorities of the world are not our priorities, that the perspectives of the world are not our perspectives, and the goals of the world are not our goals. Especially in the modern-day evangelical church, we can become pretty adept at focusing on the "not of the world" part of Jesus' teaching.

What we often struggle with is the "in the world" part. When we awaken to the fact that we aren't to be like "the world", often we just want to hold out until Jesus comes and takes us away. The concept of separatism has been around as long as Christianity, and over the centuries various groups have emphasized separatism as what should be the norm for believers. From the Anabaptists during the Reformation to many fundamentalists today, the message has been "Be separate."

But God leaves us in this world after we are saved for a reason. He could immediately take us to heaven and make us perfectly holy. Yet He doesn't - He leaves us here, in this messy, fallen world, and asks us to walk with Him along with other believers on this journey. He tells us to love Him, love one another, and love others in highly practical ways. And over the centuries, biblical Christians have interpreted that to mean that we have a role to play in the societies in which we live -- a role of salt and light, a role of messenger, and sometimes a role of change agent.

Being "not of this world" is the fuel that keeps us going when our efforts to love are rejected, when we are battle-weary, or when everyone else abandons a situation. Prioritizing love means we stay in the race to the end. It's why Christians were the ones rescuing babies abandoned in the desert during the Roman Empire, nursing the sick as the Empire was hit by plagues, ministering during the Dark Ages' bubonic plague, defending the rights of the Indians against opportunists, forming abolitionist societies despite the economic benefits of slavery, fighting to see Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid overturned, challenging Roe v. Wade. It's why Christians aren't abandoning Burma and are taking the lead in relief efforts in China after the earthquake. It's why we fight in prayer, winning battles on our knees, but also stand at the ballot box to exercise the free will God gave us to make a difference. We love, so we act, and we keep acting because we are not of this world. Yet we are in it, and so we care.

We don't parallel the Israelites in the dessert, wandering and waiting on the Promised Land. Instead, we are like the Jews in Babylon, who were given these instructions from God in Jer. 29:4-7:

4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."

Granted, we are not left here for judgment like the Israelites were sent to Babylon for. But neither are we left here to twiddle our thumbs while waiting on Jesus to return. And Biblically, while we are certainly to prioritize evangelism, we are also to express our love in very practical ways. And our love is directed not at the government or institutions, but at people.

We get disheartened when we look at what little we feel we can do, and the magnitude of the problems. But the bottom line is, the church has a role to play in society, not just us as individuals. The Gospel and our lives should preach the same message. Looking beyond our individualistic worldview, we can see that it's not just me making a difference in one life, it's us making a difference in our lives and the lives of those around us. When evangelicals step back from society, theologies that minimize God and His Word prevail. What a loss when we have the chance to lead but instead step back and retreat rather than engage.