The theme of mission does not seem to be attracting much activity. Is it new or is emerging church less interested in mission than debating theology and doctrine? Unless we are prepared to fulfil Jesus’ commission to us we are more likely to submerge than emerge. So let’s hear it from the body:
How should we engage post modern society? How can we be Jesus to people in the 21st century? What does it mean today to bring the resurrection and the Kingdom of God to those outside the faith.
transforming mission
Chris - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I guess that it is easier and less demanding to debate theology and doctrine in a detached way, whereas mission demands that we think and speak while simultaneously practising it.
It seems to me that mission has for many decades been dominated on the corparate front by the ‘big’ evangelists - “if you do mission you must have a ‘big’ speaker to bring in the harvest”; and on the personal front by schemes and devices “here are three/four points of doctrine you must believe before you can be a Christian” that can be learned and used by all eager prosyletisers.
Mission has been so dominated by poor eschatology so that we end up just ‘saving souls’ and not making disciples. Much teaching on mission has focused on saving souls from hell and not on preparing disciples for the reign of Jesus on the earth.
Methinks that if we sharpened up our eschatology then certain aspects of mission would fall into place. If making disciples was the key concern then I’m sure our whole approach would be different.
On mission practice - I think that ‘More ready than you realize’ by Brian Mclaren is a excellent stimulator for approaches to mission. I disagree with those (on the recent NT Wright conference) who were suggesting that church and mission should not take place in a big corporate gathering. I think that for many folk, coming into a large gathering provides them with the public space where they can learn about the Christian faith and what it means to follow Jesus having seen the evidence in the lives of the friends without the pressure that I suspect sometimes exists with the small (Alpha) group method.
Practicing the practical, down-to-earth teaching of Jesus as those who model the life of the Kingdom that is to come is an authentic way to bring Jesus to people.
On the resurrection…I think that is still much work to be done, turning the faith from cross-centred to resurrection and life centred, other than to suggest that living out the life of Jesus should communicate the resurrection and the Kingdom…
Forgive the rambling
Mission that works
Spot on Edward. Moving from the evangelist to every member ministry and from an emphasis on agreement of doctrinal points to a process of establishing a relationship with God through Jesus, is the way forward. So, yes, everyone making disciples is the answer. The good news is that there are an increasing number of leaders interested in mission who are beginning to see this. The difficult bit will be putting this understanding into practice. This is where I’m unconvinced that theology, eschatological or otherwise, will be able to help us much. I welcome Tom Wright’s approach. It has helped me to see that the critical analysis of scripture can be constructive and holistic rather than reductionist and devisive, even if I still consider that the socio-historical constructs used are built on weak and vulnerable foundations. But I don’t see the theology helping me much with the Commission. In the present climate we are unlikely to provide any evidential theological material that will disciple people very far into the Kingdom. Taking Jesus with us to be seen in our lives, out on the streets, in the dark places in our communities, at work etc., will have much more impact. As you say “living out the life of Jesus”, communicates the resurrection of our lives and the promise of a new birth for theirs. First, people need to see the truth, then they will be ready to hear it. This, however, is demanding stuff. It requires us to be sacrificial in our relationships, to be committed to people long term. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think we Christians, emerging or otherwise, are up to carrying this cross yet. We’d rather sit at our keyboards or in our pews, theologically linked but relationally isolated.
Emerging mission movements?
Ouch!
Chris, (hello again, from your roommate at the PoG conference!) I’m with you on a great deal of what you are saying here and it’s a helpful balance to some of the direction OST tends to go in. Nevertheless, I think there’s possibly more validity to the emerging church than your post gives credit for. I’m right with you up to the place where you say…
The problem with this final, rather ‘broad brush stroke’ that you make in painting a picture of what holds genuine, effective mission back, is that a significant percentile of the people at the keyboards and sitting in the pews are doing so because they don’t properly know how to do anything else, even if they are willing. For many, this is (sadly) giving their best. (If you find this doubtful, ponder for a moment, the implications of the statistical observation that the average reading age of the UK population is, extraordinarily, that of an educated 9-year old).
Thus, your final critique misses the point that it is often the leadership, emerging and otherwise that continues to frustrate the purposes of God. It’s an observable reality that people will become inspired, zealous and sacrificial and they will participate in movements when leadership inspires appropriately. This is observably true in Christian mission as well as in secular employment, politics, voluntary work etc.
My own theological and historical reflections suggests that when the Holy Spirit is able to take hold of a human being, regardless of their background, he is able to launch a movement, subversive, servant-centred, motivated, led and accountable to the same Holy Spirit. Anything less than this is unlikely to make much more than a local impact.
And thus, I also wonder if it isn’t localised “success” — the parochial — realised or in visionary form, that remains the true enemy of mission. Unless Christian leaders are concerned for the kingdom of God, rather than only the “church in my street / community / city / workplace,” I sense that selfish ambition has too strong a cultural hold on most of us, emerging or otherwise, to allow the launching of genuinely transformational mission movements.
If this is true, it might be a reasonable hope that the subversive, disparate and, yes, sometimes desperate nature of emerging church, just might provide a more fertile environment for such Spirit-led mission movements to emerge in denial of the stronghold of selfish ambition.
Here’s hoping…
Church and mission
Hi John, good to hear from you. Sorry the reply has taken so long. Yes, I’m sure my leadership role has distorted my perspective: I’m sure the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leaders as well as the the congregation. But I’m also sure that emerging church needs to escape from the trap of the leader-congregation divide. I liked your idea of parochial success as an enamy of mission. I certainly see this in middle-class churches and large city congregations where we are too comfortable, enough income to maintain what we have, sufficient staff to sustain the ministry etc. I just hope God will enable us to challenge self satisfaction wherever it has a hold on us. That’s why gathering in fellowships is important; it’s where we can challenge and be challenged, molded and supported in our mission.
leader-congregation divide
I’m not sure what you mean by this Chris, though I might guess. However, I don’t think it’s the divide that is the trap. I wholeheartedly believe in leadership as the single most important factor in development; this is true in every sphere of life, the organising of the people of God has never shown signs of being exempt from that.
What is required is the clear deliniation of leadership-congregant roles and the recognition that Christian leadership is fundamentally different because of the depths of service required. The scripture that defines this is Mark 10.44. A lot of the things which, for example, Brian McLaren, notes about what he describes as post-modern leadership (e.g., ‘dorothy on leadership’) seem to me to be about the kind of leadership that Jesus has always wanted from his disciples and followers. For me, this is less about the passing of modernism, more about simple, authentic servant-leadership. My personal sense is that wherever and whenever such leadership is operating influencially, a great deal of progress in the kingdom of God is able to follow. I suspect that, in no small measure, this is a significant factor in the liberating global-missional outlook and growth of developing nation (“non-western”) church, and in the stifling introspection and lack of growth of developed nation (“western”) church… You say,
I think we must do more than hope for this Chris. We must, in our meditating, our thinking and our communicating return to this standard, if we are to recover any sense of morality in the midst of increasingly amoral culture. The strong hold that selfish ambition has upon our culture makes Christ-centred servant leadership obscure and probably the majority of people are indifferent to it… except perhaps when they are in a crisis that dominant forms of leadership have created! Servant-leadership offers what is apparently a painfully slow form of transformation, nevertheless, it is the only kind that will can exercise moral authority. Self-serving leadership is increasingly transparent to all but the most devoted adherents and clearly no longer has the necessary moral authority to guide and direct, hence, its increasing tendency to try to control in order to engineer “church-as-a-product” to recover some semblance or appearance of authority. If that sounds cynical read on for my reasoning about how trust of mainstream Christian leadership is increasingly fragile.
I’m also not sure why you hold this to be essential, Chris, at least not in the sense of religious congregations (i.e, the conclusion may be right, but we need to re-examine why we believe it to be so.) My own experience and soundings of others experience suggest that such meetings frequently serve to uphold self-serving leadership models all-too-easily, hand-in-hand with the parochial outlook, as already noted. Congregating itself is not wrong, as such, but the accepted form has engendered such a passive mode of gathering, for the vast majority, that I question its value, certainly as the accepted “norm.” We need ways of meeting together that allow personal relationship, intimacy and openness to flourish. Religious congregations, by and large, are no longer trusted by a considerable percentile of believers, to be environments which will edify them spiritually. That trust has been lost by misuse and, in some cases, abuse. The only answer is right use: we are back to servant leadership, serving God’s people so that they can go away from meetings with leaders - of whatever form - to do the work God has called them to do, in their homes, workplaces, communities. The idea that serving God means serving “local church vision” needs significant reworking, i.m.h.o.
Shalom!
Open financing?
You should agree (really, it is Bible’s opinion "Silver controls everything") that when we speak about organizational structure and practical acts, not about the foundational theory, nearly the main issue is money!
What can be finansing of "open" missions (as opposed to missions of a concrete church/congregation/denomination)? What if a poor (and discriminated) man from Afghanistan, Iraq, or Russia would be called to such a ministry? (I mean called in the sense this word was used "in ancient times" that is called by God.) Aren’t we speaking about an "open" church (really, every real church is open, not limited with national borders!)
It is a very hard question, as if a mission happens to not belong to a denomination, somebody need personally study its belief to distinguish a heretical mission from a truly Christian one. What are the real criteria of donations, is it really supporting these who have true faith? Or what is the criteria? Do you feel kinda a humor here? Who could check proposed ministers’ faith to decide whether to support them? We must analyse the reasons, why somebody receives donations and somebody does not.
The fundamental issue here is whether the Church is really united or not!!
The most common answer here is "Ask the local church". Yes, normally, it is the best solution. But sometimes all churches established in a city are heretical. (And the worst thing here is that they may be called belonging to a non-heretical denomination, but really people there may have different opinions than "the symbol of faith" they confess…) or sometimes local churches are also just too poor. So a local church is not always a solution… Does anybody have any ideas about solutions of these issues? It is a really hard question. But it must be answered as the issue is unity of the Church! Every idea is valuable! We need an "invention". P.S. As I anyway speak about donations, you can donate to http://ex-code.com/~porton/bible/donate.html
Response to your questions
How should we engage postmodern society?
To engage postmodern society, we need to swallow a dose of reality. Like drinking the palatable "solution" to clean out the intestinal system before scanning the colon for disease, we as Christians need to be willing to drink the salty mixture of reality and let it wash away any fallible doctrines of man that do not stand beyond our absolute grip on them.
When we have a proper view of reality, we have a better grasp of the stories of the people who surround us. We are able to relate to them, to authentically show compassion towards them.
In the words of the dearly missed and highly respected Stanley Grenz, "The enduring essence of Christianity is not to be found in the fallible doctrines of the church, but rather in the work of God in the lives of human beings."
How can we be Jesus to people in the 21st century?
When we enter into peoples life and have a proper dose of reality, we become the hands and feet of Jesus to people in the 21st century. Look at the example of Christ. Jesus probed hearts, challenged His followers toward mission, counted the cost of His ministry, asked direct questions, rebuked when necessary, was honest in all He said and did, warned against following selfish and evil desires, protected the weak, showed deep concern for the poor.
Jesus entered into the lives of those he reached out to. As bearers of His image, it is our mandate to do the same.
What does it mean today to bring the resurrection and the Kingdom of God to those outside the faith?
In the words of Stanley Grenz once again (Grenz making reference to Wolfhart Pannenberg’s ‘Systematic Theology’)…
"…Pannenberg appeals to the eschatological nature of truth and to the scientific nature of theology. Because truth is historical, the focal point of certitude can only be the eschatological future. Only then will we know truth in its absolute fullness. Until the eschaton, truth will by its own nature always remain provisional and truth claims contestable."
Re: Emerging Mission?
(This comment was moved to a new thread under the title ‘Subversive mission’- Andrew)