Church Planter/Pastor Extraordinaire or Total Church?

I am almost done with the book "Total Church" and have very much enjoyed it...some things I question, but for the most part, it speaks to exactly where I believe God has been moving my family and Soma Communities. I thought I would share something from the book to show how it has resonated with me, especially when thinking about church planting and super hero pastors who become the functional saviours of their churches.

I don't feel pressure to "perform" for two reasons. First, "success" and "failure" are common property. We all share a sense of responsibility for what happens. We use first-person pronouns rather than second-person pronouns: "we could have done better" rather than "you could have done better." If I am negligent or ungodly, then people will challenge me. But I do not have to perform. Second, ministry is not an event that occurs on Sunday. It is a lifestyle of word-centered activity. Success is not judged by a sermon or service. It is judged in terms of growing Christians and gospel opportunities.

I have used the first person, but not to trumpet my experience. The reality is that it is often very messy. I have used the first person to show that what I am describing is not impossible rhetoric or unrealistic idealism. I remember talking over lunch with two church leaders. At first they expressed concern that we did not have an accountability structure over and outside us. But as I talked to them about the day-to-day accountability I enjoy from my congregation and from other congregational leaders with its opportunities to share heart struggles, their attitudes changed. Soon they were saying, "I wish we had something like this. Out accountability is so superficial. I feel alone most of the time." True accountability is more about relationships than about hierarchies. It requires community more than structures. The sad thing was that those two church leaders could not imagine their situation ever changing.

Church without programs, structures, or buildings can make you very vulnerable. Leadership in which your life is open can feel scary. But we should embrace this fragility because it forces us to trust God's sovereign grace.

I often describe our church as a group of messy people led by messy people. That is what happens when you take away performance and pretense. They are replaced by messy pastoral issues. But this is how growth takes place. This is how grace is displayed. To paraphrase the opening words of the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the broken people, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them" (Matthew 5:3). Ministry as performance does not welcome brokenness because it ruins the veneer. But God's kingdom is for broken people. When pastoral problems emerge, I do not think, "Oh no, here's another problem to solve." I think, "What a privilege to be serving broken people. This is where God's blessing is found."

The real tragedy of leadership as performance is that it devalues the work of Christ. Our identity then is not rooted in grace but in the success of our ministry. And so we feel upbeat when we have performed well, and we feel down when things are not going well. We become enslaved to other's people's approval. We are concerned to prove ourselves, and that is just another way of talking about self-justification. We preach justification by faith on the day of judgment but do not practice justification by faith in the daily routine of our lives. Our practical theology has become disconnected from our confessional theology. Our song becomes:

My hope is built on something less
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
I trust my skills, I trust my fame,
And maybe sometimes Jesus' name.

But we cannot keep it up. Self-justification is always beyond us. The chorus of Edward Mote's hymn, which I have taken the liberty of inverting, actually goes: "On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; all other ground is sinking sand." Leadership as performance is sinking sand.

Tim Chester & Steve Timmis, Total Church, pp. 197, 198.

Read More......

White Boy Worship

I spent this last week on vacation in Suncadia and had some great conversations with a couple of my friends. One of the conversations that we continually had was the problem with Westernized Christianity pressing others to join their club and wear the Members Only Jacket, instead of asking people worldwide to follow Jesus and do it from their own cultural perspective and understanding. One of the things brought up was the fact that God created many different people groups, cultures, languages, contexts, etc. to be a better shadow of the Godhead. They all speak to the person and work of our God. For some reason, it seems as though we Westerners are the ones God truly loves and appreciate because our kids have clothes on, we have concrete floors and our children don't have flies swarming them. I'm calling B.S.

One of the things we must understand is that although the Kingdom of God hasn't yet been totally fulfilled, it has been partially with the coming of our King Jesus. Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Luke 17:20-21

From talking and hearing what is happening around the world, especially in the latest centuries, it seems one of the ways we can see our pompous attitude has come in the way of songs of worship. What has happened is that instead of treating other cultures with respect we have lost the understanding of what it means to sing songs of worship. Check out this verse:

“All the earth will worship You,
And will sing praises to You;
They will sing praises to Your name.”Selah.
Psalm 66:4

And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Revelation 5:9

So, what does this look like today then? How should we be the shadow of the perfect that will come? From what it sounds like and what we see from around the world, Westerners have forced some strange things on other cultures. What some will find is that Western missionaries have merely taken Western hymns and translated them into the cultures language and had them sing them. Westerners have also given instruments that are totally foreign to that culture and taught them how to play them. So, what happens? Worship in these gathered churches are Western, just in a different language. Is this what is supposed to happen? I don't think so.

Worship isn't something that is forced onto a culture, but comes through culture and the people. The people should be able to sing songs and worship in all ways through their daily walk. This would mean that we allow the worldwide church to worship in song in the ways they normally would within culture, yet redeemed. God made everyone in his Image, with unique personalities. When we shove our worship or styles on other cultures we are saying not all is equal, but we are above them and they need to learn from us.

I heard a quote this past month that said that there are only two places in the world where Christianity is not growing...can you guess which pompous places those are?

United States of America and Europe

Maybe we should lend an ear, instead of a voice, to those places where Jesus is working mightily instead of forcing ourselves on them. Maybe we should trust in the Spirit to work in these cultures and to see them worship in the ways that God has made them. Maybe we should look to Jesus, instead of our own culture as a means of worship and adoration. Just maybe.

This doesn't just speak to those people overseas, but it starts when we go to the people groups in our own cities that are from around the world. Allow the Spirit to work through their culture, not apart from it. God created culture and different people groups to show off his diverse depth, when we shove our own on others, we rob, not only others, but also ourselves of seeing the beauty of God and his vastness. Maybe when we enter into other territories or other parts that are foreign to our culture we should sit and listen for a long time instead of lending our voice like they have been waiting with baited breath for us to speak and teach them. Just maybe. This is all part of contextualization to all peoples, to all places.

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Matthew 24:14

Read More......

The Gospel Is Not Western Culture

I received this book in the mail today and read the preface. This is a strong start and one that excites me to read this and glean from Dr. Hiebert and his experience in the field and in his studies. Enjoy.

There is, today, in churches around the world a renewed vision of their responsibility to bring to people everywhere the Good News of salvation, and to minister to their needs. This can be seen not only in the revival of interest in missions which has occurred in the West, but also in rapid growth of missionary outreach in the churches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the so-called Two-Thirds world.

With this renewal has come the realization that missions must be far more sensitive to people and their cultures. The modern mission movement was born during a time of Western colonial and technological expansion, and too often Western missionaries equated the gospel with Western civilization. Here and there individual missionaries identified closely with the people they served, and learned their ways. Many more showed their love for the people by their deep commitment to their ministries. They went abroad often knowing that they faced death in a few short years, and those who survived gave their whole lives to the task. But the identification of the gospel with Western power and technology made it foreign, and therefore unacceptable, to many people

Today the young churches planted by the early missionaries are speaking out, calling us to be more aware of human cultures and their differences, and reminding us that God is not a tribal God, but the God of the world; that the gospel is for everyone; and that the church is one body that breaks down walls of ethnicity, class, and nationalism that divide humans into warring camps. At the same time, there has been a growing awareness in the social sciences, particularly in anthropology, of the need to understand people in their cultural settings. Out of this has come the growing realization that missionaries today need not only a solid understanding of the Scriptures, but also a deep knowledge of the people they serve...Every missionary must experience God's call to missions and be rooted in a love for God and his glory, and in a love for people, their salvation, and their well being.

Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Preface

Read More......

Incarnational Ministry and the Unique, Incarnate Christ: Part 2

Here is the second part to yesterday's article put out by Modern Reformation.

___________________________________________________________

While I share Lingenfelter's practical missiological concerns, I think that his close analogy between the Incarnation and cross-cultural ministry is not the best way to address these concerns. It depends upon a questionable interpretation of Philippians 2 and a reduction of Christology to a problem of math. (How exactly is a "200 percent person" one person rather than "two sons," as the ancient heresy of Nestorianism claims?) But for our present purposes, I will focus upon two observations.

First, Lingenfelter's portrait of the Incarnation tends to conflate the unique Incarnation with our own process of learning about another culture. The deity of the Son is seen as a "culture" and the taking on of humanity as a second "culture" taken on in the Incarnation. Thus, Jesus, as the pioneer of our faith, shows us how to take on a second culture as well. But here is the problem: the divine nature is not a "culture," and we cannot (and should not) see ourselves as analogous to the pre-incarnate Word that then takes on humanity. The deity of the Word won't fit into the box of "culture" because God is not a creature-and culture is a characteristic of creaturely existence. Instead, God is the transcendent and mysterious creator of the universe. The truth of the Incarnation is that in the eternal Word, this same transcendent God takes on the flesh of human beings for the sake of our salvation.

Second, this doctrinal conflation can lead to a significant problem in practice: it can conflate the mission of Jesus with our own mission. While Lingenfelter certainly would not want to be promoting a messiah-complex among missionaries, the close analogy between the incarnational as a culture-crossing action and our own culture-crossing action makes this a constant issue. I recall times in which missionaries schooled in incarnational ministry told me they were "cheating" from the model if they gave something away to persons in need, or if they presented any ideas that were not already inherent in the culture of reception. Behind this sense of "cheating" is the assumption in that our identification with the culture is enough-that is our mission. Yet, while I agree that missionaries should seek to identify with the receiving culture, our identification with that culture is not inherently redemptive. We should identify with the culture so that our lives offer an intelligible witness to the one Redeemer of peoples from all cultures, Jesus Christ. It is not enough to bear witness to Jesus as the model for crossing cultures. Jesus is much more than a model.

Instead, in our teaching about the Incarnation, we must be crystal clear about the fact that this is a unique event. Jesus Christ is central to the gospel because the Incarnation is not something that happens in various forms to various persons. Jesus Christ is the one and only incarnate Word. There is redemptive power in the Incarnation; apart from the Incarnation, Christ's obedient life, death, resurrection, and ascension would be of no use to us. Because of the Incarnation, we know that it is none other than GOD who has sought us out and cleansed us from our sins. "In Christ" we know and have fellowship with God. If God and humanity were not united in Jesus Christ, then being "in Christ" would not be a locus of our communion with God.

Indeed, if we are to make analogies between the Incarnation and our own lives, it should point us to the reality that Jesus Christ is not a "200 percent person"-in which deity and humanity are framed competitively, two persons smashed into one. Instead, the Incarnation shows us how God's action in our life does not mean the evacuation of human agency, but the empowerment of it. Augustine points this out in his debate with Pelagius about grace. Augustine writes, "This birth [of Christ], which joined the human to God and the flesh to the Word in unity of one person, was undeniably gratuitous; Good works followed; they did not earn this birth." In other words, just as the divine Word takes on flesh in the Incarnation-before the flesh could merit anything on its own-so also God's work in our lives is received as an unmerited gift, with good works following.

Christians often struggle with spiritual pride-we find it difficult to take a compliment in a way that does not give ourselves "spiritual bonus points" for our own faithful acts. We know we should give credit to God-but really, I was the one who performed that act of service and love, right? Ultimately, a competitive, non-incarnational view of divine and human work underlies this ambivalence. In the Incarnation we see that true God and true humanity are brought together in one person, Jesus Christ. When we perform an act of love and service, we can give the Spirit the credit while still recognizing that this act is our own in a secondary sense. Why? Because as we become more like Christ by the Spirit, we are not becoming "less human" by becoming more like God. Our true humanity is being restored as the Spirit unites us to God in Christ.
The Unique Incarnation and the Work of the Church

If it is misleading to see the Incarnation as an example of culture-crossing or to conflate Christ's mission and our own, what can we say positively about the ways in which our lives and ministries participate in the incarnate Christ and his mission? The Holy Spirit has united believers to the living Christ; thus it is important to think about the positive ways in which we participate in Christ. I think that the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) is very instructive on this point. Rather than taking the Incarnation as the point of departure for how we participate in Christ, it speaks in terms of the three offices of Christ:

Question 31. Why is he called "Christ," meaning anointed?

Answer. Because he has been ordained by God the Father and has been anointed with the Holy Spirit to be our chief prophet and teacher who perfectly reveals to us the secret counsel and will of God for our redemption; our only high priest who has redeemed us by the one sacrifice of his body, and who continually pleads our cause with the Father; and our eternal king who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and who guards us and keeps us in the redemption he has won for us.

Question 32. But why are you called a Christian?

Answer. Because by faith I am a member of Christ and so I share in his anointing. I am anointed to confess his name, to present myself to him as a living sacrifice of thanks, to strive with a good conscience against sin and the devil in this life, and afterward to reign with Christ over all creation for all eternity.

Note how the HC does two things simultaneously. First, it speaks about a profound union between believers and Jesus Christ-we are not lone-ranger Christians; we are profoundly connected to the living Christ: "I am a member of Christ and so I share in his anointing." Its language is strong and unequivocal on this important connection.

But secondly, note how our "membership" in Christ and "sharing" in his anointing are derivative and subordinate to the living Christ. Christ alone is the "chief prophet and teacher," our "only high priest," and our intercessor to the Father. In our own person, we can do none of these things. The Son is a child of God by nature, but we are children of God by grace. This difference has profound consequences for ministry.

The consequence of this distinction is that we should not seek to simply "copy" Jesus as the "missional blogger" advocated at the beginning, or as some other advocates of incarnational ministry suggest. We belong to Christ-"in body and soul, in life and death," as the first answer to HC states. But we are not Christ. And, in spite of a potentially misleading claim in the "mission statement" of my own denomination (the Reformed Church in America), we should be cautious about seeing ourselves as "the very presence of Jesus Christ in the world." We belong to Christ, but the only Savior is the living Christ himself-the Son by nature, not simply by grace. Our ministries should point to the Head of the body, the One to whom we belong. Paul brings together these teachings of union with Christ and yet pointing to Christ when he writes that God has made known his riches among the Gentiles in the mystery of "Christ in you, the hope of glory." But rather than follow up with this stunning affirmation of union with Christ by focusing upon our own redemptive action, Paul continues: "It is he [Christ] whom we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone in all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ" (Col. 1:27-28, NRSV). We are united to Christ in a profound way, yet we do not simply copy the action of the one Redeemer. We bear witness to Christ the Redeemer rather than ourselves; we find our maturity and identity as ones united to Christ but also as "servants" of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:1), the one Incarnate Word who reconciles us with God.

The answer to HC 32 above is also instructive for thinking through the implications of the three offices of Christ-the difference between Christ as prophet, priest, and king and our own lives that participate in the one prophet, priest, and king. We are "anointed" by the Holy Spirit to bear witness to Christ, to "confess his name." We are not the great prophet and teacher, but we confess the One who is. Secondly, we offer our entire lives as "a living sacrifice of thanks" to "strive" against "sin and the devil." Christ alone offers the perfect atoning sacrifice. Our own sacrifice is one of gratitude and thanksgiving-done with a "good conscience" because of the complete work of Christ our high priest. Finally, we "share" in the kingship of Christ by sharing in his resurrection and exaltation, looking to the day when we will "reign with Christ over all creation for all eternity." Christ is prophet, priest, and king. We are united to this same Christ. But as members of the body serving the one Head, we participate in Christ through acts of professing Christ and his truth, loving God and neighbor in gratitude, and living in hope of our final resurrection, exaltation, and reign with Christ. We do participate in Christ's "mission," in a certain sense. But precisely because Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity-the only perfect prophet, priest, and king-our "mission" is distinct from that of Jesus Christ himself.
In terms of Christian ministry, the result of this approach is one that gives a central place to the church's ministry of Word and sacrament. Negatively, this means we are not sent to go out and "take over the culture," or to seek to be the Savior to those around us. Positively, it means that we point to Christ, the Head, through the word of the gospel held forth in both Word and sacrament. There is no human set of activities-no matter how loving or revolutionary-that can bring redemption. Redemption comes through Jesus Christ alone, made possible by the Spirit's work in uniting us to Jesus Christ.

This approach toward Christian ministry overlaps, on some key points, with some visions of incarnational ministry. As Lingenfelter suggests, we need to seek out relationships with those to whom we minister, displaying our faith in lives of humility and service. We need to approach ministry as learners of the culture and history of those around us. Yet, it is not necessary to draw upon the Incarnation as a model for culture-crossing in order to promote these virtues in Christian ministry. These norms coincide with the humility and gratitude of those who know they belong to Christ but are not Christ themselves: we present our lives as "a living sacrifice of thanks," serving God and loving our neighbor in humility and gratitude. A life of gratitude humbly recognizes that we are not our own, but that we belong to Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the fact that we are "not our own" should call into question our allegiance to national or cultural priorities that fuel our ethnocentric tendencies that compromise our witness to the gospel. As a way of giving thanks to God, we are called to seek out relationships with those in need and move across cultural barriers that threaten to block our grateful witness to Jesus Christ, the One to whom we belong.

Moreover, in contrast to seeing incarnational ministry as the model for culture-crossing, the Heidelberg Catechism's teaching directly counters our own messianic tendencies: we are not the Redeemer-we belong to the Redeemer. We are freed from manipulating those to whom we minister because we do not need a list of spiritual accomplishments to please God; and it is with "a good conscience" that we strive "against sin and the devil." In the unique Incarnation and the once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, we have been cleansed from our sins and filled with the Spirit who brings new life. Precisely because the Incarnation is unique-and we do not need to copy it -we are freed for humble, non-manipulative witness and service for the sake of the gospel.

________________________________________
1 [ Back ] See http://timothycowin.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/incarnational-ministry-the-way-of-jesus/.
2 [ Back ] Sherwood Lingenfelter and Marvin Mayers, Ministering Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). Lingenfelter also uses the analogy in Teaching Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Teaching and Learning, coauthored with Judith Lingenfelter (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).
3 [ Back ] Lingenfelter and Mayers, 17.
4 [ Back ] For further analysis of the biblical and christological issues raised in proposals such as Lingenfelter's, see my article, "'Incarnational Ministry': A Christological Evaluation and Proposal," Missiology: An International Review 32:2 (April 2004), 187-201.
5 [ Back ] Augustine of Hippo, quoted from "On Rebuke and Grace" in Theological Anthropology, ed. and trans. J. Patout Burns (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1981), 101.
J. Todd Billings (Th.D., Harvard University) is assistant professor of Reformed theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. He is the 2008 winner of the John Templeton Award for Theological Promise for his book, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Belivers in Union with Christ (Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology) (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Issue: "The Imitation of Christ" March/April Vol. 18 No. 2 2009 Pages 19-22
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation.

Copyright © 2010 White Horse Inn

Read More......

Incarnational Ministry and the Unique, Incarnate Christ: Part I

I was sent this by a friend of mine, Mike Gunn. Mike is the director of Acts 29 International and also still preaches at Harambee and is one of our pastors/elders. The opening is his introduction to the piece and the actual article was written by J. Todd Billings for Modern Reformation. Enjoy.

I have used the word "Incarnation" quite a bit these past 5-10 years. My main intent in using it is to flush out verses such as John 20:31 in which Jesus says, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you!" It is to express the need to cross cultures, and barriers to reach others for the gospel much like Paul seems to claim in 1 Corinthians 9 when he says, "I am all things to all men in order to win a few." Obviously we are called to be "In the world...but not of it" (See John 17), but what does that mean, and can we truly "Be" Jesus to others like we hear so often? Is that possible? Yes, we are to love like He loved, and give like He gave, but is "Like" a good word? Do we love "Like" He did? Do we give "Like" He did? What does it mean to be "Incarnational?" Below is an interesting article from The Modern Reformation written by J. Todd Billings (March/April 2009). Read closely Incarnational Ministry and think hard, it just may challenge your thinking! Ouch!

Mike Gunn

Incarnational Ministry and the Unique, Incarnate Christ
By J. Todd Billings

The term "incarnational ministry," like "missional" or "Emergent Church," is used in a wide variety of ways. Sometimes "incarnational ministry" means ministry that crosses cultural barriers to be an embodied presence to people in need. At other times, it's used to talk about culturally relevant analogies for the gospel. In still other contexts, "incarnational ministry" has become shorthand for affirming that intellectual assent to faith is not enough-faith needs to become embodied and "incarnate" in acts of love and service, as in the earthly ministry of Jesus. It is understandable if you find these different uses of the phrase puzzling. For in its common evangelical usage, "incarnational ministry" often has surprisingly little to do with the unique Incarnation of the Word made flesh in Jesus Christ. For instance, surely Muslim, Jewish and other religious practitioners would affirm that faith should be made manifest in concrete, physical acts of love and service. But these persons would not affirm the Incarnation of the eternal Word made flesh in Jesus Christ.

This leads us to a question underlying the coupling of the term "incarnational" with "ministry." What is the relationship between the one Incarnation, and the activity and ministry of the church? Should our ministries be guided by analogies between the Incarnation and our own Christian lives?

As Timothy Cowin-one missional blogger-suggests, the Incarnation is important for ministry because it teaches that "Jesus came to physically be with us" to show the Father's love to tax collectors and sinners, seeking not to retreat from culture but to "penetrate" it. The Incarnation applies to us because "the missional church sees its mission as the same as the Lord's." Stated differently, for Cowin, the Incarnation is about engaging in a set of inclusive and loving activities (like in the ministry of Jesus), since the mission of Jesus Christ is the same as our own.
Although Cowin makes some legitimate points about the church's calling to be in but not of the world, approaches like this one risk missing a profound truth of the gospel that the Incarnation is utterly unique. Whereas it may sound empowering for us to have the "same" mission as Jesus in the Incarnation, there is a subtle but profound danger in this incarnational analogy. It is God alone who saves, and God alone saves through the Word that takes on flesh in Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is not a pattern of activities that we copy. The Incarnation is unique-it is not simply a truth that Jesus lived a self-sacrificial life, but that the eternal Word became incarnate in this man Jesus who lived such a life. The Incarnation is a reality without which the ministry of Jesus, his death, and his resurrection would have no significance for our salvation. As such, the Incarnation is a central, constitutive truth of the gospel.

Yet, there is something right about those who seek to recover the doctrine of the Incarnation and its implications for our lives and ministries; there is something right about the sense that we should not enter into ministry in a prideful way that looks down upon others rather than serves others; there is something right about the calling to cross-cultural barriers for the sake of the gospel. In order to explore this further, I will examine how the incarnational analogy has functioned in evangelical missiological circles. After this analysis, I will point to one area in which I think analogies can be made from the Incarnation that do not compromise its uniqueness or centrality; finally, the article ends by drawing upon the wisdom of the Heidelberg Catechism in articulating the ways in which we participate in Christ and his mission, and the ways in which our mission remains distinct from that of Jesus Christ himself.

A common example of the use of "incarnational ministry" in missiological circles comes from a widely used textbook, Ministering Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships, by Sherwood Lingenfelter and Marvin Mayers.

In Ministering Cross-Culturally, Lingenfelter argues that the Incarnation has profound consequences for cross-cultural ministry. Jesus came into the world as a "learner," needing to learn about Jewish language and culture. Like a careful anthropologist, he studied the culture of his people for thirty years before he began his ministry. Key to the rationale for this position is the Christ-hymn in Philippians 2. In Lingenfelter's rendering, although Jesus Christ was "in very nature God," he identified with humanity and human culture, taking "the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" (Phil. 2:6-7). In fact, Jesus not only completely identified with humanity but with Jewish culture in particular. Thus, Lingenfelter sees the Incarnation as the model for incarnational ministry, for Jesus was "a 200 percent person": "he was 100 percent God and 100 percent Jew."

Lingenfelter goes on to make a direct analogy with our own ministry: we should seek to become 150 percent persons, becoming less like persons of our own culture and more like persons of the culture to whom we seek to minister (thus 75 percent of each culture).

Lingenfelter has legitimate and pressing missiological concerns that underlie his use of the incarnational analogy. He has seen the tendency of Western missionaries to retreat to their safe missionary compounds, rather than approaching the receiving culture with humility and respect. He has seen how this action-of distance, rather than humble engagement-distorts the message that Christian missionaries try to communicate. Thus, the Incarnation seems like an attractive analogy to inspire missionaries to acquire a posture of learning and cultural engagement.

Copyright © 2010 White Horse Inn

(the conclusion to this paper will come tomorrow along with the end notes)

Read More......

It Worked, Why Ever Change?

Something that has concerned for quite some time is the thought among Christians on what ministries, programs and the like to use for mission work within the community. Anytime you try to speak to people about possibly changing these programs or dismissing them altogether, what usually happens is that someone will have a great story of redemption that happened because of the ministry or show how it has worked for decades. But, is this enough to keep a ministry going or start it in your church?

I am very leery of "boxed ministries" because what these state is that they have come up with some sort of program that works for all cultures for all times. But, what does it mean to have a ministry that works? Do we see anything like this in the Bible? Honestly, what is our calling as a gathered church in our communities around the globe?

Here is the truth, God calls you specifically, your church corporately, and the universal church together to spread his fame for his glory. God has done this in many different ways, but even looking biblically, we can't see one way that was the most appropriate for everyone. Let's be honest, just because God spoke through Balaam's ass doesn't mean that we should raise a bunch of asses and let them loose on the city hoping they speak. Even though it seems that this happens in other ways today. Did it work for the purpose God had as told in Numbers? Yes. Does that mean that because it worked then, we should try it now? If you think, yes, then you might want to look for a Red Sea to part and a burning bush to talk to you.

This doesn't mean that God won't use the same way twice, but in reality, God calls us within the culture that we are in now. I am sure that people have been saved through many different ways, but is that our calling? Isn't there something that works in all cultures for all time?

The answer is actually, yes. We are always called to live for the glory of God. We are called to live out the gospel, and preach the gospel to those around us in the best way possible. This is how Jesus did it. He didn't come to Jerusalem wearing khaki pants and Tevas. He came to the culture and spoke and lived the way that the culture lived so that he could reach them (there is so much that could be written and has been written based on this one sentence). In all this, he never sinned, but loved the people so much he became one of them. This is what we are called to do. We are called to live in the culture, love the culture all for God's glory. Whether we like it or not, our job is not to convert people, but to live for Christ. Through our living and through our preaching the Holy Spirit will take souls for the glory of God, but we cannot and will never win one soul for Christ. We are merely the instrument. It's like giving glory to the shovel for digging the hole instead of the one doing the digging.

Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.
Isaiah 10:15

We need to know our place and simply ask God how he wants us to live out his glory to those around us. We need to be willing to serve those around us without some secretive plan to convert them to Jesus. Now, would we love for those around us to convert to Christ? Of course, but we should be willing to love the community around us and serve them for the glory of God and let God do the work and let God allow the right timing in speaking to them about Jesus. It should be natural, not some odd tract or bullhorn yelling at them as they try to buy milk at Safeway. We should be willing to serve and love a community even if no one that we know of is never converted. If we bend ourself to only converting, we will stop loving and serving the community if we find no converts. Ask Jeremiah, sometimes that is God's plan. It won't be easy, but we must continually love a community even if that community hates Jesus and never show any converts.

The worst part about trying to get people to see this is that everyone has a story where this one guy was saved because of this certain ministry. That's great, praise God, but that isn't the question at hand. The question isn't what happened that one time, but the question is, "What is the best way for us to live out Christ to those around us right now?"

We must get around this idea. It actually is way more pervasive than we think. I have had people that go into almost a depression type feeling because they had a great vacation with family that don't love Jesus and they never preached to them the gospel. Or that they passed someone on the street and didn't ask them if they knew Christ. It becomes evangelism out of guilt instead of love for others and ultimately love for God alone.

The question isn't "what has worked in the past?" but the question is "How do I currently live out God's mission for his glory right now?" The church must start personally, then it will spread corporately. Humility is key to this, because this might mean putting an end to programs and ministries that have been in the church for ages. This is way harder to do than to say and think about. But, we must be a people that is searching for God's will and glory now, not God's will and glory for a different generation and a different culture. Some things that "worked", and I use that word loosely, in the past, might not be what we are called to do today.

In Reformed circles we use the term, "Semper Reformanda" which means "Always Reforming." The question is, "Are we doing this in the community and culture we are in now?" If not, I am afraid that we are just being lazy, not wanting to change and just pointing to conversions and love that happened 25 years ago instead of pointing on how we impacted our community for Christ last weekend.

I know that this post has been quite the rant and quite the mish mash of ideas, but I pray that you read this and simply ask, "What is the best way for me to live out the glory of God to those around me?" Don't hang your hat on an ass and a burning bush, hang your hat on knowing you worship an eternal God who will not give his glory to another.

Read More......

Vintage Church

Vintage Church sets up to be the continuation of where Vintage Jesus left off. Vintage Jesus upset some people as they thought that Driscoll took too many liberties in describing who Jesus was. Although I disagree with them, it is hard for me to see where those same people will have issue with this book. This book is set up to be an open an honest discussion of what the church is. At some point, if you are a pastor of a church, you will be challenged by Driscoll and Breshears and even rubbed the wrong way in their description of what a church should look like.

This is not because they are purposely trying to demean churches, but they are taking the modern church and testing them to Scripture. Driscoll himself even shows in some places that he wishes that they were better at, or where they have corrected Mars Hill over the years. Again, this is exactly what makes Driscoll so attractive, he is honest with his mistakes while pointing out others. He hammers on emergent church designs and also the traditional fundamental churches, to make sure they return to the true calling of the church as a whole.

What I believe this book will turn out to be is a handbook for church planters or those who are desiring to test what they are doing within their churches. The book is set up like the others that Driscoll has done in recent years. Meaning, he puts forth a topic through the Scriptures and culture and then Breshears answers commonly asked questions on that topic of the chapter. Vintage Church sets up everything from answering questions on preaching, ordinances and church discipline to how to utilize technology as a church. This book is very practical and reminds me of "The Deliberate Church" by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander. The difference is that Driscoll and Breshears cover more ground and looks more into the culture and missional aspects of the church.

In the end, the readers for this book will be pastors and elders, and not as many congregants will enjoy this book like they did with Vintage Jesus. This doesn't make the book bad, it just makes it targeted. I felt that the book was really a grown up version of Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. That book told the story of the beginning of Mars Hill, and this tells the current story. This is my only "gripe" with this book is that it seems to more of a polemic for the current way that Mars Hill is doing things. So, when you get to topics like "What is a Missional Church" and "What is a Multi Site Church" the descriptions are more of what Mars Hill is doing and less of a general look into these topics. But, should I really expect anything less of a book written by a pastor who believes (as do I for the most part) his church is doing the correct mission of Christ?

I also did enjoy the reminders to big churches that not all churches should be big, and the reminder to small churches, that not all churches should be small. Criticism of each other usually comes from each side of the issue, but Driscoll and Breshears really exhort each one to do the calling that Christ has called them to. But, because Driscoll's church is huge, some of his practical wisdom on how to live out church are going to fly over the head of those pastors in small churches. Some of the things discussed in technology and multi site are just not going to be able to be utilized by small churches. This is fine though, because the book is for all to read, not just big churches or small churches.

Although this book could have been titled, "Vintage Mars Hill" or "Confessions: Part II", the book delivers a very good understanding of the church. My favorite part of the entire book was simply, "What is a Christian Church?" Driscoll puts to shame those who believe that online churches, or coffee shop churches are true churches. Driscoll walks through what a church should include to be a true Vintage, or Scriptural, church. I very much enjoyed this description so that one does not get together with a friend for coffee and call it church, or a church gets off target and loses focus of what a church should encompass.

If you are a church planter, or one that is about to engage in new church plant, pick up this book. If you are a leader in a church that is looking to restructure or desire to test yourself to make sure that you are a biblical church, pick up this book. If you are a dated church that desires to reach today's generation, pick up this book. You will not be disappointed. I would also highly recommend that one pick up The Deliberate Church and The Master's Plan for the Church
alongside Vintage Church for great study and great resources on the Christian church according to Jesus. Highly Recommended.

Link to Buy

Crossway

Westminster Books

Read More......

Christian Mission in the Modern World

It's been a while since I have read John Stott, but this was definitely a book that will make me read more of him. This book is a necessity for anyone that considers themself a missiologist or is wanting a deeper look into what it means for us Christians to be in the world. Stott hammers away in only 190 pages so much depth that any review will leave the subject at hand wanting in a desperate way. It is still hard to believe that this was first written in 1975 as he hits some people today straight between the eyes with his theological and practical conclusions (myself included).

Stott hits on five subjects and really pinpoints them further for great discussion.

The Five Subjects that he hits are:

1. Mission

Stott breaks down the two movements that are most abused, which are evangelism only ministries and social action only ministries. After breaking down why neither of these are correct, he blends the two to show the biblical aspect of how these two need to work together, not separate.

2. Evangelism

Stott lays out what must be considered in evangelism. He shows the priority, the meaning and then unpacks what must be included while presenting the gospel according to Christ and the apostles.

3. Dialogue

In this chapter, Stott again shows the two extremes in dialogue. One where the dialogue is so open that you can't tell that a Christian is in the conversation and the other being where the Christian believes that no dialogue should be had with other religions. Stott shows a balanced view to this and gives great examples how this can work and has worked.

4. Salvation

Stott works to find the biblical answer to what this term means in the Scriptures. He works through what salvation truly is and the areas of difference within this. Some of these would be salvation from political oppression, salvation of sickness and poverty, etc. Then Stott answers the question of salvation theologically and shows why salvation is more than just what we see, but is really the salvation of what we don't see. Namely, salvation from God's wrath in regards to hell.

5. Conversion

In this chapter Stott gives a precedence for conversion to the Christian faith. He fights against the universalists and also those who believe that there is no need to be converted to Christianity because Christ can be found in other religions as well. After this defense, Stott then shows what one is converted to when converted to Christianity.

This book is so well rounded and Stott unpacks the extremes in each case above to even the heretical. He then gives the biblical reasons to balance the extremes or to deny the heretical and comes to conclusions. The arguments are very well thought out and linear so that the reader can follow very easily and understand the concepts and defenses put forth by Stott. I would urge any pastor or missionary to pick up this book. This book is something that would have helped the start of my study on the church's mission before going to deeper studies that I have already looked at. I would hope that people that are in the emergent circles (Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, etc) and also in the IFB circles would pick up this book to see their errors in the thought of Christian mission. Overall, this "introduction" is a great balanced approach to our mission as Christians as we work, minister, educate and evangelize the world as we know it today. Whether one is abroad or in their own back yard, this book lays a great foundation so that one sees their errors of extremism in any of the above named topics. Highly Recommended.

Buy at:

InterVarsity Press

Westminster Books

Read More......