Four Reasons Why Spiritual Maturity is Impossible Without Global Partnerships

Photo: "Somos" by Miguel Cabrera

First, two moments . . .

#1.  As I sat listening to the Sunday sermon at Worship Harvest Ministries in Kampala, Uganda my mind filled with gratitude at the countless and consistent opportunities I have to learn from, work with and be sharpened and challenged by brothers and sisters, friends and partners from every part of the globe.  I relished in the thought and praised God and then tweeted this:

Ministries/churches based in the West which have no intentional means of regularly learning from leaders in the Majority World are insane.
— Cody Lorance (@cclorance) December 2, 2014

#2.  Yesterday in a fairly randomly (from my perspective) chosen coffee house in the Chicago suburbs, I caught wind of a business as mission venture that they just happened to be starting up that involved coffee, coffee beans, Uganda, and community transformation.  Now, that sounds pretty much exactly like what we are working on with Endiro Coffee so my fist thought was, "Ahh, DRAT ... competitors!"  But then, the Lord graciously let me to a new thought, "No, no, no ... partners!"  And we started to talk.

The evangelical missions world has always been sparsely populated, but when you are in the midst of it, it seems like everyone and their dog is clamoring around one or two ideas -- usually the same ones you are -- and it feels crowded.  It's like Toronto.  There are two valid and biblical options for dealing with the crowds.  First, you can move to Manitoba or, two, you can learn to make friends and work together.  

So, let's talk about this idea of global partnership for a moment.  I'll begin with a quote from the Lausanne Movement which is as poingnant today as when it was written a few years ago in advance of the 3rd Lausanne Congress in Cape Town, South Africa:

Partnering in the Body of Christ: Toward a New Global Equilibrium

Seismic Shifts in Global Christianity.  Global PARNTERSHIPS for world evangelization, unlike anything possible in the previous twenty centuries, are now attainable as we develop relationships that are based on mutual respect – acknowledging that God has called us to be one in Him. These new partnerships, increasingly led by visionary leaders from the majority world, will also involve more lay people who comprise the vast majority of those who bear witness to Christ in this Century.  By sharing the best available resources and best practices, together “the whole church (will) take the whole gospel to the whole world.”

Now the practical question for me as a mission leader is, Why?  Why should I lead my team and seek to mobilize others to enter into partnerships within and outside of the denomination, within and outside of the nation? Putting all the obvious (or at least they should be obvious) practical considerations aside, let's consider the deeper, theological impetus for engaging in and committing to global partnerships as individuals, churches, ministries, agencies, and denominations.  Here's Paul:

“I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love.  I pray that you may have power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:16-19, NRSV)

Paul’s prayer declares that it is impossible for local bodies of Christians to reach (or even significantly approach) spiritual maturity without engagement in genuine relationships with other Christ-followers outside their local group.  We can point out at least four theological foundations for global partnership in this text:

1. The Desired Result is Spiritual Maturity – note Paul’s “so that” in verse 19.  Everything that Paul is praying is “so that” something will result in the lives of those for whom he is praying.  It is “so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Which is a wonderfully evocative way of speaking of spiritual formation, maturity, sanctification -- i.e. God’s work to transform us into the image of Jesus Christ.
2. The Cause of the “So That” – It is clear that Paul believes that when a disciple of Lord Jesus is enabled to comprehend and know the multidimensional, knowledge-surpassing love of God, the result is spiritual maturity -- the “so that” of verse 19.
3. The Essential Conditions of Comprehending – Note that Paul’s prayer assumes that this comprehending and knowing of God’s love is only possible together "with all the saints” (v. 18).  This fellowship is presented here as a necessary condition for which Paul is praying on behalf of his readers and without which, the Apostle is convinced, grasping the love of God and thus spiritual maturity is an utter impossibility.
4. The Plurality of You – The Biblical demand for partnership comes into full relief when we recognize that the “you” of Paul’s prayer (v. 16, 17, 18, and 19) is plural (by the way, a nice benefit of global partnerships is having friends that speak languages which use plural forms of "you".  Thanks, Nepalis, for "timiharu"!) That is, the “you” being rooted and grounded in love in verse 17 is the local body of believers that has received and is now corporately reading Paul’s epistle.  Thus is it a local body of believers for whom Paul is praying in verse 18 when he says, “I pray that you [all] may have power to” comprehend and know the love of God. It is this plural "you" then that must enter into relationship, dialogue, and indeed partnership “with all the saints” – Christ-devotees from outside that specific community – “so that” spiritual maturity may result in their body.

What we are left with is an inspired prayer that sees spiritual maturity as only attainable when local bodies of disciples are engaged in meaningful partnerships with other communities outside their immediate context.  That is, we may say confidently from this text that any given mission team, church, agency, denomination, or Christ-centered business will be unable to be all that God would have them be as evangelists, medical missionaries, church planters, Bible translators, campus ministers, educators, relief workers, worshippers, intercessors, disciples, or whatever apart from the pursuit of global partnership as a corporate spiritual discipline.  Or, to put it positively:

The active pursuit of ever-deepening global partnerships by local bodies of Christ-followers enables those communities to better and increasingly comprehend and know God’s love which results in dramatic spiritual transformation and growth.

This is true, I assume, because there is actually only one body of Christ in the world (4:4) with one triune God indwelling, ruling over, and guiding that whole body (4:4-6).  That the gifts of Christ are distributed among all parts of that body (4:7ff) further testifies to the fact that it is when that global body is peacefully bonded together (4:3), pursuing and gradually arriving at the unity of faith (4:13) that the family of Jesus Christ in the world functions as it should (4:16).  It is when the whole Church builds itself up in love (4:16) – which it cannot do outside of the exercise of the spiritual discipline global partnership – that it “grows up in every way
into him who is the head, into Christ” (4:15).

Communion or Disunion? | Sexuality/Gender

I do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. However, I find this so-called "shift" in the Catholic community disturbing. Stories like this concern me about the times in which we are living. Seems to me that the author, Mary Hunt, is not a Catholic (or a Christian for that matter) in any meaningful sense of the word. She doesn't seem to have any sense of Scriptural authority or belief in basic historic Christianity. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate insight from my readers who may have a better perspective on such things.

Communion or Disunion? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches: "The egregious breach of decency that led a Catholic parish priest to deny Communion to a lesbian woman at her mother’s funeral has received widespread and well-deserved condemnation. Even the Archdiocese of Washington DC admitted that the priest had violated their policy. In a little note, a vicar promised Barbara Johnson and her family that he would celebrate a Mass in memory of her mother. They deserve sympathy for their loss, a full-blown apology from the institutional Church, and time to deal with their grief in peace."


Addendum:


Thanks to Nate Taylor for referring us to a helpful article on this.  Check it out here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/03/01/the-priest-and-the-lesbian-communicant/  I also want to reference here the letter of apology that came from the Archdiocese.

Without Thee, I Cannot Live: A Theology of Nominating Committees

Today I was praying for the Nominating Committee of our local association of Baptist churches and a thought or two came my way.  Do you know what a "nominating committee" is?  Basically they are the group in an organization responsible for getting other people to agree to fill voluntary positions and offices.  It's a rather thankless task to be sure.  On another level, however -- on a more spiritual level -- there is something else going on.  Something that I think we do well to ponder.

There is under-girding and thus birthing and sustaining the existence of such a thing as "nominating committees" in Christian circles a truth so central to our lives that it seems all other truths may just hang on it like ornaments on a tree.  It isn't the same thing which gives rise to "nominating committees" outside the Church (or at least it shouldn't be).  Outside it is this, "There are jobs which must be done and positions which must be filled; we need a group whose sole purpose is to berate, guilt, or sucker people into filling those posts."  No! In the Church it is another thing:

"Without Thee, I cannot live!"

Say again?

Consider:

"'Without Thee, I cannot live!' Whatever our small practice, belief, or experience may be, nothing can alter the plain fact that God, the Spirit of spirits, the Life-giving Life, has made or rather is making each person reading these words for Himself; and that our lives will not achieve stability until they are ruled by that truth." (E. Underhill)

Can the follower of Jesus doubt this? Without God, we are hopelessly lost are we not?  Is not our complete and utter dependence upon Him perhaps the uppermost reality governing our lives?

Sure, but what has that to do with "nominating committees"?

Well, only the truly loyal readers have made it this far in a post about "nominating committees" (which is really about God), so let me reward you with a parable:

A little girl goes to school.  Her lunchbox in hand having been lovingly prepared by her attentive and thoughtful mother.  At lunchtime, the girl devours the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, small bag of Cheetos, pickle spear, oatmeal cookie and juice box.  The banana, however, gets tossed into the garbage.  Same as always.  The girl isn't a fruit lover.

And this is a picture of us.  Saying we need God; saying in a voice of triumphant piety, "Without Thee, I cannot live!" Then proceeding to open the lunchbox of what God has prepared.  We pick through and consume what we desire and chuck the rest. We never stop to consider the far greater wisdom of a Parent who has prepared these things (all these things) for us.

So . . . "nominating committees"?

Ah, yes.  Here we are. Well, what exactly has God prepared for us?


1Co 12:7-19 ESV  To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.  For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,  to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,  to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.  All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills . . . .  For the body does not consist of one member but of many.  If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?

And also . . . 

Eph 4:4-7 ESV  There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--  one Lord, one faith, one baptism,  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

God has provided a Body.  The Church. And my point is simple (though I've certainly taken the scenic route to get here).  When we presume that we do not need the Body, when we arrogantly cut ourselves off from noses or fingers or kidneys,  when we foolishly set out to conquer the world as solitary ears or hair follicles or even as a covenanted coalition of knuckles,  then we (to brazenly mix metaphors) are chucking items from the lunchbox carefully and lovingly prepared by our Parent, the Father.  We may say "'Tis but a speckled banana," or (switching back) "merely an ear lobe" but in the act of chucking we are not simply saying, "I don't need bannanas or ear lobes or church planters or Christians who care about the homeless or ESL teachers or "black" churches or "white" churches or Pentecostals or Calvinists or __________ -- No, we are saying something far different. Something much more serious.  We are saying, "Without Thee, I will be just fine!" For when we reject what He, in infinite wisdom and love, has prepared, we reject Him.  But really, we are dead without Him. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "Without Him, we cannot move an inch!"

So it is upon this foundational truth that all great Christian "nominating committees" through the ions of salvation history have been built.  Or, at least, should be.  Why? Because it is the noble task of the "nominating committee" to say to the Church (or to their little corner of it anyway),

"Everyone, this is Sam. He's a deacon down at XYZ Church. God has given him such and such gifts and experiences.  You need him and Sam needs you, and we'll all be richer, fuller, healthier and happier with him in the lunchbox."

Over and out.

Building Bridges: Perspectives on Baptist Unity (Reviewed)

WARNING: If you are not a Southern Baptist, you might find the following very uninteresting.

Here from the seclusion of my secret personal retreat getaway, I was able to polish off the little book by David Dockery and Timothy George on Southern Baptist unity.  The book is entitled Building Bridges: Perspectives on Baptist Unity [link is to free e-book version!] and weighs in at a mere 64 pages.  In short, let me say that I found the book to be powerful, insightful, and the kind of thing that I hope and pray is embraced broadly throughout my denomination.

Why did I read this book?

Baptist Faith & Message

Ordinarily, many of you know that I spend my energies writing about missiology, contextualization, Hinduism, diaspora and the like.  So, you may be surprised to find me reading a book about Southern Baptist identity.  However, these days I find myself with more and more of a voice among my denominational brothers and sisters.  I train and supervise new SBC church planters; I help to lead one of the largest local Baptist associations in the country; and I pastor two Southern Baptist churches.  Very recently, I've also been invited to serve as a part of a new Southern Baptist North American Mission Board project called "Send Chicago".  Send Chicago consists of a coalition of about 18 missionaries, pastors, and other leaders who are tasked with seeking to develop strategies for church planting in Chicagoland.  I've been to a couple meetings thus far.  Actually, it was the most recent one that stirred in me a desire to read Building Bridges.

What does it mean to be Southern Baptist in Chicagoland?

During our most recent coalition gathering -- the first official one -- the question was asked, "What does it mean to be a Southern Baptist church in Chicago?"  After a bit of discussion, there was a followup question, "What makes Southern Baptists different from other Evangelicals in Chicago?"  This second question was immediately met with an answer from a member of the group that just about made me fall out of my chair, "We preach the word of God!" Astonished, I wondered if as a group we were actually suggesting that only Southern Baptists were preaching the word of God.

My contribution to the ensuing conversation was a challenge that we not make "planting Southern Baptist churches" the end for which we labor in mission.  Rather that we make our focus extending God's Kingdom, reaching people who don't know Christ -- you know, that which Christ actually calls his people to do.  We will plant SBC churches as a means to that end.  I shared with the group that it wasn't the building of our denomination that got me out of bed in the morning, but the building of Christ's Kingdom.

Well, I certainly didn't have the last word and the rest of the conversation around the room on the topic was anything but decisive.  We have much work to do -- that we must do.  Theological, missiological, racial, economic, political, historic, traditional, and ideological elephants abound, stomping around the room, begging to be talked about.  And the question that rang out in all of the discussion that day, that spontaneously emerged from the rather chaotic proceedings and then sort of lingered there was this, "Why are you Southern Baptist?"

For me, the answer comes very quickly from my heart.  It is a family thing.  Not that my biological family was Southern Baptist.  No, but I came to know Christ in the Southern Baptist context in Oklahoma.  Michelle, Jon, Becky, Boyd, Dan, Jim and many others who established, brought me up and mentored me in the faith were all Southern Baptists.  I was baptized, licensed, and ordained and sent out as a missionary by Southern Baptists. And, I should say, I love standing in the tradition of Lottie Moon.  So, it is my heritage and my family.  We live in a culture of leavers and I have been encouraged to jump ship many times over the years. But in spite of the many, many problems I see in our huge denominational family, I just don't believe that leaving is right, helpful, or godly.  I believe we must "test all things" and "hold on to what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21) and try our darnedest to fix the rest!

But, still, what does it mean that I am a Southern Baptist?  Are there reasons besides loyalty to a family and heritage that keep me Baptist?  The answer is yes, but I don't want to spend any real time on that today.  Instead, I want to point especially my Baptist readers to the book Building Bridges.  I commend it to you and believe that God would have the SBC embrace the message therein.  The call that Dockery and George have made is to renewal rooted in a "retrieval" of our historic roots as Baptists, as Protestants, and as Christians.  They call for a renewed Baptist unity (in-house) as well as a "candid ecumenism" of conviction in the service of unity in the universal Church for the sake of world evangelization.  Two quick quotes are due here.  First, regarding Baptist unity:

"We must recognize that Southern Baptists have historically reflected considerable diversity.  While we do not hold out doctrinal uniformity as a goal, we do call for renewed commitments to the inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of Scripture with an accompanying commitment to a hermeneutic of acceptance over against a hermeneutic of suspicion, as well as a re-establishment and reaffirmation of the Gospel center" (p. 33).


Regarding ecumenism:

"A model of dynamic orthodoxy must be reclaimed.  The orthodox tradition must be recovered in conversation with Nicea, Chalcedon, Augustine, Bernard, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Pietists, and the revivalists. In sum, our Southern Baptist identity must be rooted in the consensus fidei of the Christian Church . . . . We must take seriously the biblical call to unity in accord with the Nicene affirmation of the oneness and universality of the Church" (p. 33).


If you are a Baptist with an identity crisis, read this book.  It will help you.  If you are being bugged by Baptist elements that think you just aren't Baptist enough, read this and memorize some of its pithier quotes.  I think it is just right on at so many points.  For the record, there is good mention of issues related to the "Conservative Resurgence" and Calvinist v. Arminian disputes.  When you finish the book, you should feel that the conversation has just begun however.  Much more needs to be discussed.  The issue of race was barely touched.  Gender isn't really mentioned.  Sticky subjects like alcohol use, church polity, and "speaking in tongues" were not specifically referenced.  Again, we have much more work to do, but I am thrilled that Dockery and George have boldly and insightfully gotten the ball rolling.

[P.S. - Actually, I noticed that this book came out in 2007.  However, free copies of it were distributed at the most recent associational meeting of Chicago Metro Baptist Association.  That was the first time I saw it.  I'm happy to do what I can to give the worthy title a little more attention.]

Is Heuertz's "New Ecumenism" Sufficiently Christocentric?

I've just finished reading an article by Chris Heuertz called "The New Ecumenism: Becoming the Living Body of Christ."  Chris is one of a growing number of self-proclaimed Evangelicals I know who are more or less championing a kind of ecumenical spirit. I'm doing my best to listen to them and understand what they are saying, but I'm still struggling. I'm not fully on board at this point.

In Chris's article he speaks mostly about traditional divisions between Catholics and Protestants. He shares some personal experiences within his family and ministry and how working through and joining together with each other, they've been able to move closer to Christ as the center. But I have a few honest questions:

1. Chris speaks rather negatively about "doctrinal lines" as if to suggest that none should exist. He describes this as an essentially evangelical effort to determine "who's in and who's out." I want to agree to a point that the demand for absolute theological conformity has often been taken to ridiculous and sinful extremes. But is Chris suggesting that no lines be drawn at all? Perhaps such talk appears safe enough when speaking of Protestant/Catholic relationships, but what about Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals? Is Chris suggesting that we throw the flood gates open for any and all who call themselves Christians? And if not, on what basis would he exclude some and include others?

2. Chris shared that the incorporation of some Catholics into his ministry resulted in a strengthening of it. I don't want to challenge that; however, he continues to say, "The only hurdle we really experienced was at the communion table. Other than that, community carried on . . ." I find this a troubling statement to simply breeze by. The indication I get is that the incorporation of Catholics and Protestants together in a mission agency resulted in conflict around one of the central aspects of worship -- Communion. I wish Chris would have elaborated on this. I'm not sure how a group of people could be said to be experiencing truly Christian community without taking the Lord's Supper together.

3. Why does Chris label the "tendency to reject other traditions" as a Protestant one? Weren't Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church rather against their will? Aren't Catholic and Orthodox leaders every bit as dogmatic and "divisive" as Protestants?

4. In speaking about the idea of moving towards theological unity, Chris asserts that reductionism is bad, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't go on to do just that. For example, he writes, "We can all agree that God doesn't want children's sexuality exploited and commodified in the commercial sex industry. Discovering theological unity in that tragic space is easy. So we stay in those obvious places and inch our way closer to one another based on what else we can agree on." But Chris doesn't do anything to explain what makes such an issue an "obvious place" theologically. What makes this "easy" and another issue difficult? Is it simply deemed easy on the basis of a kind of straw poll among self-proclaimed Christians? I understand the practical draw to such thinking, but I'm unaware of any Biblical justification for it. And then what happens when a professing Christian suggests that he/she doesn't exactly agree with this "obvious statement"? It may seem far-fetched, but we're having to deal with something very near to that right now. What does Chris's ecumenism do with such a person? If the answer is to throw them out, upon what basis? If its only a matter of majority view, then we're no better off than when we started.

So, I'm left at the end of Chris's article feeling that he simply hasn't provided a sufficient Christocentrism to build a real Christian unity. To simply say that Christ must be the center doesn't mean that He really is. For it means something to be a follower of Christ. It has doctrinal and theological ramifications as well as necessary practical and missional commitments.  I don't claim to know for sure what those are but sincerely believe that the Lausanne Covenant goes a long way in capturing these.  Anyway, my mind is not at all closed to the pursuit of ecumenical unity and I deeply appreciate the heart behind what Christ has shared, but I'm just not convinced that he has done enough to really show us the way forward.

Thoughts?

The Mythical Link between Contextualization & Syncretism: Lausanne Theology Discussion (7 of 7)

Welcome to the seventh of seven articles in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group's paper on "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World."  If you've not had a chance to read the paper, you can do so by following these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

You can also read all seven parts of this series here.
__________

3. Regarding the Whole World (continued)

And last (but not least), I want to share a word of appreciation for what is said in this paper regarding world religions and the issue of contextualization.  In particular, may the whole Church latch on strongly to this statement:

“We need to repent of approaches to people of other faiths that reject or denounce their existing religion as wholly evil or satanic, with no effort to understand, critique and learn, and to discern through genuine encounter, friendship and patient dialogue where there may be bridges for the gospel” (p. 28, full version).

Let me say directly that I am personally counting very much upon the Nepalese, Indian and Bhutanese delegations to take this statement back to their contexts.  As one who has endured much grief as a direct result of just such a prejudice while working in the Hindu context, I need my South Asian brothers to sound this call to the South Asian Church.  

Related to that though is my continued concern that while the LTWG paper affirms those who are pursuing contextualization, it still does so in a way that lends credence to the myth that there is some kind of an inherent link between contextualization and syncretism.  I reject the notion that such a link exists and would suggest that no evidence can be shown to demonstrate that those theologically orthodox Christians who intentionally pursue contextualization are in any greater danger of syncretism than Christians who do not.  On the contrary, I believe that honest and balanced analysis will find even more syncretism (if we are defining this term as a sinful conformity to “pattern of this world”) in local churches that haven’t made any intentional effort to contextualize the Christ-life in their context.  The reality is not as the C1-5 scale suggests, that continued pursuit of contextualization inevitably leads to syncretism.  Rather, I would contend that, providing the contextualizer begins on theologically solid ground (an unwavering commitment to uphold the Bible), that the pursuit of contextualization actually serves to produce a much more thoughtful and theologically rich expression of Christian faith and practice than otherwise.   But alas, I cannot go any further into this right now. 

Question #7 – Upon what evidential basis does the LTWG feel it necessary to warn about syncretism in the same sentence as it mentions contextualization?  Doesn’t this sentence only serve to affirm an unfair prejudice against contextualization by repeating the unproven notion that contextualization and syncretism are especially and intrinsically linked?  

Okay, okay there is much more that I could say.  I’m already kicking myself for spending this much time on this.  My little blog post has evolved into a full week of posts.  So, let me wrap it up. I greatly look forward to reading and interacting with your responses.  May the Spirit enrichen and use this conversation.

Environmentalism & Missions: Lausanne Theology Discussion (6 of 7)

Welcome to the sixth of seven articles in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group's paper on "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World."  If you've not had a chance to read the paper, you can do so by following these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

You can also read all seven parts of this series here.
__________

3. Regarding the Whole World

The final section of the LTWG paper seeks to answer the question, “What is the World?”  This is also capably accomplished in calling our attention to the world of physical creation, the whole human race, and the world as “an interlocking web of systems and structures that perpetuate the effects of our falleness and sin” (p. 30, full version).  I have here two items to highlight. Let me take only the first today.

First, I was profoundly impacted by the section on “The World of God’s Creation.” Christian environmentalism has tended to make me very nervous.  Still now, I have great concerns about the environmentalist movement that seems to be very often driven by political agendas and ideologies that do not arise out of or even appear compatible with a Biblical worldview.  I think we have to be very careful in this regard.  But the biblical theology on this issue that is encapsulated in the LTWG’s paper is compelling.  In particular, I’d like to draw your attention to a paragraph on p. 25:

“Many Christians’ understanding of the gospel seems to start in Genesis 3 (“We’ve got a sin problem”), to end in Revelation 20 (“There is a day of judgment coming”), and then presents Jesus as a means to solve the first and escape the second . . . . But it is not the whole of the gospel, for it does not tell the whole biblical story.  The Bible begins with creation (Gen. 1-2), ends with a new creation (Rev. 21-22), and presents Jesus as the one through whom God has reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to himself through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:15-23).  The gospel is good news for creation, for the reason that the gospel is the good news of what God as done in Christ to undo all the effects of human sin and satanic evil and to redeem his whole creation.”

Well, that has just fundamentally moved me in my thinking on this issue.  I’m not at the finish line yet, and I look forward to reading other papers on this topic in the future.  But, this has me thinking quite a lot.  In particular I have found that it has been good for me to consider what I anticipate redeemed creation (new heavens and new earth) to be like.  That is, in the same way that mission has become for me about “presenting everyone complete in Christ” (Col. 1:28)--just as they will be in heaven, so perhaps I should be thinking of stewarding non-human creation in the same vein.  This is something of an “already / not yet” way of thinking about the earth.  Could there be a legitimate component of mission that is focused on moving the fullness of the earth towards God’s ideal which will only be fully realized in eternity?  Hmm. . . perhaps.  If so, what kind of practical goals should flow out of such a mission?  Initially, the following has come to my mind:

·         Certainly eternity will feature clean air, land, and water.
·         The new creation must be a place that is safe and habitable.
·         The new creation will be free from disease.
·         The new creation will be bountiful in resources.
·         The new creation will reflect the creativity of God through biodiversity.

Question #6 – How can the Church reframe the issue of environmentalism and take the lead in cause of “creation care” so as to ensure that we are working towards a truly Biblical vision of creation, the world, and reality?

Local Church or Local Franchise: Lausanne Theology Discussion (3 of 7)

Welcome to the third of seven articles in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group's paper on "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World."  If you've not had a chance to read the paper, you can do so by following these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

You can also read all seven parts of this series here.

----------

2. Regarding the Whole Church (continued)

Also in the section devoted to defining the Church, I found an interesting warning.  

"Of course every church ought to understand and live out its essentially missional identity as God's holy people in the world.  But we want to stress that the church exists for God, and should not be used as a convenient local franchise for the delivery of external strategies, objectives and targets." (p. 17, full version)

As I said, a very interesting paragraph.  But, I'm left scratching my head a bit.  What exactly is meant here?  I’m sure I could speculate, but I wonder if there are some specific examples of this that members of the LTWG has in mind.  If so, I think it would be very helpful to know what they are.  I don’t mean that we need very specific details (names, addresses, etc.).  No, but what does this look like?

Question #3 – What does it look like when churches, denominations, or other Christian entities use the local church as a “franchise for the delivery of external strategies, objectives and targets”?  What specific dangers along these lines are most commonly manifest around the world?  What does this tend to look line in the context of large and also small local churches?

Confronting Deficient Concepts of the Gospel: Lausanne Theology Discussion (1 of 7)

When I began writing my reflections on this paper, it was only supposed to be a brief blog post.  However, it quickly evolved into about seven pages.  So, now, I’ve decided to break it up into seven distinct posts.  So, today will mark the first of seven days of posts in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper.  It won’t be the only thing I’ll be posting, of course.  But I hope you enjoy and benefit from the series.  Each post will feature a key question that I actually really want to hear from you on.  I’m not just putting the question there as a decoration.  So, please to leave your comments.

Before I launch off into my own thoughts on this subject, let me first say that I've taken the liberty of creating a place on the Lausanne Global Conversation for the express purpose of generating broad and global conversation surrounding this important paper.  You can go to that place and join the conversation by clicking here.

Now, what I'm talking about today is the paper that has been officially submitted by the Lausanne Theology Working Group for the 3rd Congress on World Evangelization taking place very soon in Cape Town, South Africa.  The paper is the fruit of a tremendous amount of work by many of the great theologians and leaders in the global Church and is designed to sort of "fill out" the famous Lausanne Movement slogan, "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World." This they have done primarily by reflecting Biblically on the phrases, "whole gospel", "whole Church", and "whole world." Asking basically, what does the Bible say these things are?  The LTWG has done an impressive job and, by God's grace, has really provided the Church with an invaluable piece of theological reflection.  I strongly recommend to my readers that you read this paper yourself and consider sharing it with your various circles of influence.  I can testify that the Sunday night we spent at TIBM studying this just recently was one of our more fruitful times in God's Word as a church.

You can read this profound and stimulating paper by follow either of these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

----------

Now I'd like to move on to raising a few of the specific questions and reflections that I have regarding the LTWG paper. 

1. Regarding the "Whole Gospel"

For me, this first section was the most helpful (out of three extremely helpful sections), because it did the difficult work of providing a broad Biblical answer to the question, "What is the Gospel?"  The insight that the term "gospel" (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) often means at least slightly different things at different times in Scripture is invaluable. If we are to give a full answer to the question, "What is the Gospel?", we must pay attention to and adequately represent all of these nuances. When the Bible as a whole is enabled to answer this question, we find the following (which I've reworded from the LTWG paper):

• The Gospel is the story of Jesus Christ in whole Biblical context.
• The Gospel is the reality of the new, reconciled humanity manifest in the existence of the Church.
• The Gospel is the saving message of Christ's death and resurrection and all God accomplished in that.
• The Gospel is the fact that we can be changed, transformed by the power of God.
• The Gospel is the proclamation of truth and the exposure of evil.
• The Gospel is that God is as He is.

While it is true that these six answers are quite overlapping, they nevertheless each highlight an important dimension of the gospel which much not be neglected.  Oh that God would permit that this broader and more Biblical definition of the Gospel overwhelm the Church and overtake the all-too-popular and dangerously narrow simplifications of the good news!

Question #1- How do we effectively challenge deficient definitions/explanations of the Gospel which are often so deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of individual Christians and even built into the infrastructures of denominations and mission agencies? (for example - "word of faith" or "prosperity" gospels, or the overemphasis on making converts at the expense of true discipleship)

Why Contextualize? (Part 3) Pleasing God

As we continue to consider theological foundations for contextualization (there will be four in total before I’m finished), let me provide a third consideration today.  You’ll recall that already we’ve established that the imitation of Christ requires the imitation of Christ’s incarnation through the pursuit of contextualization.  Also, we’ve seen (last week) that the Bible believes that contextualization is necessary for reaching the lost.  A third Biblical motivation to pursue contextualization is found in our commitment to please God.

3. The Commitment to Please God

As followers of Jesus, we want to please God (Eph. 5:10). Now, this third theological impetus for contextualization is very closely related to the first two in that it is certainly pleasing to God when His people imitate Christ and it is pleasing that the lost be reached.  However, I wanted to list this as a separate reason for the pursuit of contextualization because I believe that the case can be sure that God is pleased with the preservation of cultural distinctiveness among the various people groups of the world.

My reasoning here is based primarily on John’s revelation of heaven/eternity.  Now, interpreting Revelation is not always considered a very straightforward thing to do.  But I’m not interested in pinning the tail on the antichrist or predicting when the Cubs might finally win the series.  I just want to consider a couple of ideas from Revelation very briefly and highlight in them some thoughts about the preservation of culture.  

“Every nation, tribe, people and language” 
Here is a recurring phraseology in the book of Revelation (e.g. 5:9-10, 7:9-10, 10:11, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15) that sometimes has positive and sometimes negative connotations.  Depending on the context, it either refers to the comprehensiveness of God’s salvation or else His judgment.  In either case, we are to note that there is not a people group, language, geographic location, village tribe, or political entity to which the reach of God’s unfolding redemptive plan does not extend.  Of particular interest to us are those positive references (especially 5:9-10 and 7:9-10) which highlight the extent of God’s salvation to all peoples.  These references have been famously (e.g. here) used by many as Scriptural foundations for developing mission strategies that focus on reaching all “people groups” (Piper, 1993).

The argument, which I too find compelling, is based on the fact that God has already revealed to John that a countless multitude consisting of those from every tribe, people, language and nation will be ultimately saved.  Thus we may with confidence state that it is God’s clearly revealed will to save some from every people group, and may have faith that our work among unreached people groups will not be in vain since the ultimate success of such endeavors is an already established fact.  That is, an assumption is made that John literally observed distinct ethno-linguistic groups in his revelation of heaven—that he didn’t just mean “a whole bunch of people.”

If we accept this assumption to be true, and I think we should, I believe it proper to consider another application.  For John to have observed distinct ethno-linguistic groups, he must have observed something that distinguished them from each other.  What was it? Of that we can’t be certain.  However, it seems to be the case that, on some level, God chooses to preserve cultural elements – at least to the point that John was able to marvel not at a homogenous, numberless mass, but at a gloriously diverse gathering of every nation, tribe, language and people.

"The Glory and Splendor of the Nations”
A second scene to consider is near the end of John’s revelation.  Here we have the dust of numerous plagues and judgments settling and the emergence of God’s final, glorified Church – His bride.  There is the New Jerusalem, a kind of eternal dwelling place for the redeemed of the Lord, described in breathtaking beauty.  And, at the end of chapter 21, we see a procession of the redeemed going into that city (21:24-27).  Light is emanating from the Lamb and the nations (read: “people groups”, Gk. “ἔθνη”) are walking by that light.  The mental image is something like a parade as each people group marches in.  They are accompanied by their leaders, the magnificent “kings of the earth” and each nation brings their own distinct glory and honor into the city of the King of Kings.  

I see in this image a pretty clear indication that the redeemed from every people group will bring elements of their distinct cultural heritage into God’s eternal Kingdom.  To be sure, these will be those elements, perfected by the Spirit’s sanctifying work, that reflect the manifold glories of God (cf. Eph. 3:10).  There is little Biblical evidence to suggest that after this procession, God will assimilate all this cultural distinctiveness into one culture par excellence.  However, even if this were the case, it remains that in what may be considered to be chronologically “preliminary” scenes of heaven, there is some preservation of cultural distinctiveness.  Does this mean that in heaven we can expect to taste Ethiopian injera, view Balinese painting, or dance to Nepali lok songs? I don’t know.  But I do enjoy the speculation.

“Because God Likes it”
My point in bringing out these Revelation texts is to seek to make the case that in God’s sovereign plan of redemption, He fully intends to preserve cultural distinctiveness on some identifiable level into at least the initial stages of eternity.  What Ralph Winters declared to the first Lausanne Congress proves true.  God has not intended:

"to merge the whole family into a single culture . . . . I see the world church as the gathering together of a great symphony orchestra where we don’t make every new person coming in play a violin in order to fit in with the rest.  We invite people to come in to play the same score – the Word of God – but to play their own instruments, and in this way there will issue forth a heavenly sound that will grow in splendor and glory to God as each new instrument is added.” (Winter, 1974)

And if we ask the reason why God is not trying to merge all cultures into one, we are compelled to believe that there is something about the distinct people groups of the world – each one of them – that He simply likes.  He likes the Beja, the Amdo, the Rajbansi, and the Karenni.  I don’t know what He likes about them.  If it is Beja coffee or Karenni clothes – I can see why.  But I’m eager to watch the parade on that great day when the Amdo of China and everyone else bring their sanctified, perfected and unique splendor before our common King.

From this perspective, we may find a great impetus for the pursuit of contextualization in mission rather than that more historically prevalent missionary impulse to reject and discard cultural forms deemed “pagan” by those who often don’t fully understand them.   If we go into a context with the assumption that there are things here that God likes – that there is a glory and splendor of this people that He wants to preserve—won’t we be more cautious about what we reject and more passionate in our pursuit of Christ’s incarnation?  
Okay, more next week when I explore a fourth and final (probably) theological impetus for pursuing contextualization in mission – our need for the whole Church.

Works Cited

Piper, J. (1993). Let the Nations be Glad: The Supremecy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Winter, R. D. (1974). The Highest Priority: Cross-Cultural Evangelism. The Lausanne Movement.

Why Contextualize? (Parts 1 & 2) Incarnation & Evangelism

Last week, I stressed the Biblical emphasis of obedience over against pragmatism in our mission methods.  That is, we should prefer to conform to God’s will rather than pursue numerical “success” in missions.  Today, I’d like to very briefly outline several reasons why such a preference should compel us to pursue contextualization in mission.  Now, while my particular area of interest is in contextualization among Hindus, these principles are universal in application.  The question is, “Why should we pursue contextualization in mission?”  Let me provide four Biblical reasons, though only the first two today.

1.       The Imitation of Christ

As followers of Jesus, we want to be like him (Rom. 8:29, 1 John 3:2), and the simple fact is that Christ practiced contextualization in his own earthly ministry.  The prologue of John tells us that Jesus, the Word, became flesh and dwelt among us.  The incarnation of Christ consisted of God taking on human flesh, human limitations, human culture, human ethnicity, human context.  And the Lord didn’t go to every culture and every nation at every time in history.  He went to one place, one culture, at one time.  In particular, he went to the Jewish people of Galilee about 2,000 years ago.  Furthermore, he didn’t go as a foreigner.  Rather, he spoke the language, ate the food, wore the clothes, practiced the traditions and customs, knew the songs and dances, celebrated the festivals and in every way lived as a full member of that context.  To be sure, there were elements of the culture and society that Jesus challenged, but always emically – as an insider.


Mark records a revealing incident (chapter 6) in which Jesus spoke in the Nazareth synagogue.  The critical crowd that listened to him responded to Christ’s convicting speech not as though rejecting an outsider, but, on the contrary, as neighbors shocked at the seemingly audacious remarks of one of their own.  “Is not this the carpenter,” they marveled, “the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:1-3).  Clearly, the Scripture teaches us that Jesus went “all the way” in contextualizing his self, his method, and his message to his mission field.  Those of us who desire to imitate Christ in our mission praxis must take very seriously the importance of imitating His incarnation.  From this perspective then, the pursuit of contextualization becomes spiritual discipline for the missionary.

2.       The Desire to Reach the Nations

With Paul, so many of us can say that the love of Christ constrains us to engage in this ministry of reconciliation that we call world evangelism and missions.  Our hearts are broken for a lost and dying world whose only hope is the risen Christ.  Since this is the case, we must carefully listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scripture on the topic of contextualization.  For it seems clear that the Bible believes that pursuing contextualization is necessary for reaching the lost.  Where do we see this?


Brian K. Petersen has detailed a number of helpful examples in his article on the subject including God’s covenant with Abraham, the use of circumcision, names of God, and references to Daniel’s cross-cultural ministry (Petersen, 2010).  Any of these, along with a number of New Testament examples could be explored in great detail for their many significant implications for this topic.  However, I want to just focus on Paul’s own explanation for why he engaged in the pursuit of contextualization in mission.  In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes:


For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law . . . that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law . . . that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.  I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.  (1 Cor. 9:19-23)


Why did Paul engage in contextualization?  Very clearly, it was his inspired opinion that doing so would result in winning more people to Christ.  Now, let me say here that it isn’t my intention to contradict last week’s warning against preferring numbers to obedience.  Note here that Paul’s ultimate motivation is to share in the blessings of the Gospel, not simply to achieve numerical success.  Having said that, there is little doubt that Paul believed that contextualization would result in a greater sharing of those blessings as more people would be won to Christ.  In actual fact, there may be something deeper going on here than the accumulation of more converts.  What is clear is that the opinion of the Bible, and thus of the Holy Spirit, is that more people will be won to Christ as His ambassadors imitate His incarnation – the self-emptying, culture-adopting, flesh-crucifying incarnation—as they engage in mission.


I’ll save the next two reasons for contextualization for next week.

Works Cited

Petersen, B. K. (2010). A Brief Investigation of Old Testament Precursors to the Pauline Missiological Model of Cultural Adaptation. Rethinking Hindu Ministry II: Papers from the Rethinking Forum , 14-27.