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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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.”
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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:
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:
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!
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!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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!
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:
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.
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!
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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)