categorizing

'holy'days 1 Corinthians abandoned acts adoption advertising apologetics apostolic apple art athiesm atonement audio authenticity baptism Bible Bible study blessing blogging books CCM Christianity Christian season church church planting city commentaries communion community compassion international concert confrontation contextualization cross culture culture making discipleship Ecclesiastes economics editorial education electronica emerging church emerging culture environment eschatology Evangelicalism evangelism examining extract'd family fatherhood food futurism Galatians Gospel Great Commission health hermeneutics history homosexuality hospitality humor hymns idolatry imago Dei incarnation incarnational independent music irreligion Israel Jesus John Jonah justification kingdom of God language leadership leading liturgy Mark Matthew media meme mercyview Metanarrative ministry missio Dei missiology mission missional missional church missional living Missional Manifesto missions missionSHIFT mobap movies multi-ethnic multi-site multiplication music my favorite songs news New Testament Old Testament organic orthopraxy parenting pastoring Paul Phillipians philosophy photography picture planning poetry politics post-Christendom post-Evangelical postmodern Poverty prayer preaching Psalms q & a quotes of note radio reflections relationships relevintage religion research resurrection Revelation reverse-engineering review roaring lambs sabbath sacraments sacred space sanctification science seminar sent sermons social issues social justice social networking songwriting speaking engagement sports technology television the 7 the art of... theatre theology tithing travel Trinity Tulsa twitter Uncategorized urban Urban Tulsa Weekly vacation video vision vodcast web web 2.0 work world issues worship

licensing

Unless otherwise noted at the end of a post, all content here is covered by the following copyright:

content top round

[This post is an entry in the Missionshift Book conversation happening @ edstetzer.com]

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium is an important book for those of us interested in the how the field of missiology impacts ministry in the 21st century. This week, we look at the late Paul Hiebert’s essay on mission’s present entitled, “The Gospel in Human Contexts: Changing Perceptions of Contextualization.”

==========

Hiebert begins his essay by challenging how little we take the time to study “systematically and deeply the contexts” in which we serve. (83) His concession that Christians, many times, impose their culture onto a receptor culture and thus, truncate the Gospel message is an important launching point for the sake of the discussion of mission’s present. Until we yield to the truth of this concept, we can’t proceed in our attempts to contextualize the gospel in a culture that is unlike our own. We live as monocultural beings in a multi- or sub-cultural world. As Hiebert says, “We do not stop to consider what aspects of our contexts come from our sociocultural and historical situations and what comes from Scripture.” (83)

In Hiebert’s essay, he attempts to plumb the depths of how contextualization has been used, examining unhelpful approaches such as non-contextualization, minimal contextualization, and uncritical contextualization. He concludes his essay by looking at a more constructive mode: critical contextualization or what he calls, missional theology.

According to Hiebert, non-contextualization takes place when we “come as outsiders and assume new converts will join and imitate us.” (85) Many will see the problems inherent in this method. In our attempts to contextualize the Gospel, we must admit that the process of contextualization should not and can not be “acultural and ahistorial.” (85) This is the misguided approach to “colonial” mission we saw in most Protestant missions in the early 20th century.

Minimal contextualization happens when we experience culture, language, and religious shock and we are compelled to deal with “others” and the question of “otherness” but ultimately don’t. (85) It is minimal because “we become aware of the depth and power of the people’s culture and the need to contextualize…the message…but we are afraid that this can distort the gospel.” (88) So, we stop short of the work needed to understand other cultures and our communication becomes “sender-oriented.” (89)

After the 1930s, uncritical or radical contextualization arose out of a growing awareness of anthropological insights that were observed in human contexts at the time. Unfortunately, this led to two beliefs. First, a conclusion that “we must measure communication not by what is sent by the speaker but what is understood by the listener.” (90) As Hiebert notes that in this paradigm, “…there is no way to test whether the meanings understood in one culture are the same as those found in another culture. There are no objective tests for truth.” (90). Secondly, pragmatism emerged in which we adopt which systems are most useful (also called cultural relativism). This was seen in the liberation theologies in the 1960s and 70s that were “untethered to the true intent of Scripture” and more recently, was seen in the Emergent movement that surfaced in the 1990s in which many in the movement assimilated itself deeply into culture to the extent there was no distinctiveness or “saltiness” and “lost its prophetic voice.” (107, 91)

A helpful correction materialized called critical contextualization in which Hiebert rightly cites was forged by individuals like Leslie Newbigin and the Newbigin-shaped, Gospel in Our Culture group, formed by George Hunsberger. The heart of this model is that the gospel “…is encoded in forms that are understood by the people, without making the gospel captive to the contexts.” (93) Hiebert continues, “in this view…missionaries are transcultural people…who come to serve the local churches instead of being rivals for power and positions.” (94)

So how do we enact critical contextualization? Hiebert suggests that there are three principles that will help: ontology (relating the transcontextual nature of the Gospel) , phenomenology (understanding the sociocultural context for Gospel understanding), and missiology (engaging culture with the transformative message of the Gospel).

Hiebert advocates that in ontology, we emphasize the Gospel is divine revelation to humans, “given in the peculiarities of history and locality but…given by God and reveals God’s universal message to all of manking.” (94) In other words, it is transcontextual and not “equated with any particular human context.” (94) Further, in phenomenology, we must strive to put the Gospel in specific sociocultural contexts for people to grasp it. According to Hiebert, this is done by studying Scripture and humans and building a bridge between them. Finally, in missiology, the “knowledge of the Gospel makes us responsible to share its message of salvation…with all people.” (99) And this gospel “is not just information to be communicated…it is a message to which people must respond.” (99)

One of the most hotly debated issues from Hiebert’s essay was the concept of the church as a hermenuetical community. Norman Geisler states, “How can local theologies have the right to interpret the gospel wrongly, namely, to distort the gospel?” (139) I think Geisler insinuates more than what Hiebert is trying to say here.

What does Hiebert mean by the church as a “hermenuetical community?” I think we should let Hiebert answer that.

In his section entitled “Studying Scripture on the Issue at Hand,” he says, “…as the church we are entrusted with the gospel. If we do not all study it together [emphasis mine], we will not be active participants in knowing and living it, and we may be led astray by lone individuals.” (97) Simply, the church as a hermenuetical community studies the word together so we can uncover our biases for interpretation. The community serves as a “check and balance” against the very thing that Geisler is concerned about — Gospel distortion. In fact, this approach places a high value on trust within the community to self-govern itself against Gospel malformation.

Michael Pocock makes a helpful distinction with what I sense Geisler is concerned about regarding “local theologies.” He says, “Theology is a human product; it has no claim to infallibility. It is what humans do in arranging and rendering revealed truth in understandable categories. Revelation has a magisterial use while theology has a ministerial function.” (108) There is a difference between “revelation” and “theology” and Geisler seems to be equating the two. Hiebert states, “…we dare not equate the gospel with any human theologies. Our theologies are partial human attempts to understand Scripture.” (92). Ed Stetzer adds, “Revelation is eternal, objective, absolute truth. Man’s attempt to explain it theologically are based in human language.” (159)

Pocock continues in clarifying what I believe is Hiebert’s goal for the hermenuetical community, “…Evangelical believers hope that the theology they construct corresponds as closely as possible with revealed truth…” (108). In fact, Geisler’s statement that “Would it not be better simply to claim that we do not know all the truth but that the truth we know is truly known?” gets at the heart of Hiebert’s thrust. (138) A hermenuetical community humbly enters the study of Scripture “claiming” that their interpretations may be biased (“we do not know all the truth”) to work together to develop a truth that can be “truly known.”

The irony in all of this is, as Stetzer shows, “Is Geisler…affirming he understands perfect universal truth and that his understanding is not culturally conditioned but absolutely true?” (162) Hiebert speaks of the “corporate nature of the church as a community of interpretation extends no only church in every culture, but also to the church in all ages,” and to this, Geisler states, “Roman Catholics smile since such a claim supports their position that even infallible Scripture needs an infallible interpreter.” (95, 139) Doesn’t Geisler seem to be placing himself in a “papal” position of authority here or at best, the purveyor of the process towards the best interpretation?

To be fair, Geisler is concerned with Biblical fidelity and so am I. But so is Hiebert. To this end, Hiebert would have done well to make a clearer distinction between the Gospel (which I would equate with the aforementioned idea of “revelation”) and the contextualization of the Gospel. At times, the line between the two was a bit gray, at other times, very clear (see Hiebert’s citation of E. Stanley Jones statement on p. 95)

Hiebert’s approach to a hermenuetical community reflects what John Davidson Hunter, in his book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, calls “faithful presence.” This posture towards culture is one of humility and grace. Geisler is concerned with Hiebert’s rejection that “other theologies and religions are false and must be attacked [emphasis mine].” (86) Geisler says, “If Hiebert means only that we should speak the truth in love to those who hold false views, then who would object? But truth is truth, even when not spoken in love…” (136)

For someone who is pushing for Biblical fidelity, why does Geisler posit it is sometimes appropriate to choose truth over love — even “attack” over love. Jesus was full of truth and grace. Truth only is a posture of an assertive (and probably, repulsive) aura . As Stetzer says, those who have held this view, “have rarely made contact with non-Western thinkers in an effective way.” (161)

So why does the conversation around, and further, the experimentation of contextualization need to continue? I believe Pocock and Stetzer crystallize the answer to this question:

“Where progress has been difficult over a long period, there must be room for experimentation and mistakes. Where there have been great awakenings, there have often been ragged edges that appear heretical to some, what Ralph Winter once called ‘the silver linings’ of otherwise dark clouds.”
–Pocock, p. 110

“This task of reaching out to other cultures is under the Holy Spirit’s direction. That task requires us being humbly certain of our own beliefs and methods, rather than arrogantly being so sure that we know what God would do and have us say in any situation…Crossing the barriers is more important if the world is our focus. We don’t accomplish this by throwing away the truth; we achieve this by holding the gospel close and climbing the fences with it in order to share it on the other side.”
–Stetzer, p. 158

[Note: The respondents also contributed to a healthy debate surrounding issues such as syncretism and the C-1 to C-6 contextualization spectrum but for the sake of space, I am going to hold off on entering those discussions. In short, I think there has to be a middle ground between Geisler and Pocock/Darrell Whiteman on the extent to which certain forms carry meaning. In some ways, I feel Pocock/Whiteman may go too far and Geisler may not go far enough but this review does not allow further conjecture.]


[This post is an entry in the Missionshift Book conversation happening @ edstetzer.com]

MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium is a timely book in the midst of the missional conversation we find ourselves in at the top of the 21st century. It’s a book that I hope gets the press it deserves because it is a indispensable resource for those wrestling with what it means to be “missional.” A big thank you goes to David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer for compiling this opus.

At a cursory scan, the book is moored by essays related to mission’s past, present, and future from three of the leading-edge missiologists of our time: Charles Van Engen, the late Paul Hiebert, and the late Ralph Winter. In response to these essays, Hesselgrave and Stetzer gathered a “who’s who” in the field of missiology to interact and debate about the issues therein.

In the coming weeks, I am going to respond to each section in MissionShift. Today, I would like to comment on the first section of MissionShift related to mission’s past.

=================

I have to admit that Van Engen is one of my favorite missiologists. His books, God’s Missionary People and Mission on the Way, are must-reads for any pastor, church planter, or missionary who is engaged in mission today. These books have informed my thoughts on how mission, the church, the Kingdom of God, and eschatology intersect, like few other.

Van Engen begins by showing us the plethora of ways the word “mission” is being used today — and thus the confusion surrounding the term. Some are attempting to use it correctly, while others are using it to “stand for any kind of new life, vision, vitality, and direction of the church — often with little or no theological or missiological reference.” (10)

I concur with Van Engen that due to this blurring, “it is especially important that the Christian church wrestle with its mission in the sense of articulating the reason and purpose for which it exists” because “a cohesive, consistent, focused, theologically deep, missiologically broad, and contextually appropriate Evangelical missiology has not yet emerged for this new century.” (10, 24)

Van Engen is the consummate historian in this essay, accentuating the important shifts in mission thinking in two millenia of mission’s history. He capably takes us through mission’s past by walking us through mission in the early church through the Constantinian era through the late 1700s circa William Carey through mission reconstruction in the 20th century.

Some will question (like essay respondents Keith Eitel and Andreas Kostenberger) the length at which mission’s past influences Van Engen’s mission present. But as Ed Stetzer notes in his response, the privilege of Biblical revelation does not “preclude us from gaining favorable insights from the history of the church…where God’s truth about the world and the people who live in it may be discerned.” (77)

One of Van Engen’s most important contributions in his essay is where he reminds us that the original Biblical meaning of the word “mission” — apostello and pempo — denotes being sent “forth to service in the Kingdom of God with full authority (grounded in God).” (11)

His point here is to highlight that mission is participating in the mission of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the sender is Jesus, whose authority “defines, circumscribes, limits, and propels Christian mission.” (12) This is a simple but profound subtlety in the debate over mission today. Who sets the agenda? Whose bias is inserted — the mission agency, the denomination, the sending church, the non-for-profit or something/someone else? Van Engen says, “Biblical mission is God’s mission.” (12)

So how do we let God set the docket for mission?

I believe we do this in large part as we see mission as robustly Trinitarian (as respondent Enoch Wan argues Van Engen is lacking — though Stetzer will later argue that Van Engen is not neglecting in this idea). Van Engen seems to purport this idea but I wish he would have been a bit more clear on this issue. To be fair, Van Engen leans toward this notion in a couple of ways:

1) First, he says “The church is sent by her Lord” and then goes on to say, “mission is participation in the mission of Jesus Christ…in the power of the Holy Spirit,”; I think we can synthesize his thoughts here to support a Trinitarian grounding of mission, but it’s not easily ascertainable (12)

2) He does cite David Bosch’s magisterial definition of mission from Transforming Mission in which Bosch says, “Mission [is] understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It [is] thus put in the context of the Trinity, not ecclesiology or soteriology.” (footnote, 24)

I believe that as we reflect and dialogue on the implications of a Trinitarian grounding for mission, contextual orthopraxy will emerge. These questions strike me as helpful questions to ask ourselves as we use the filter of the Trinity for mission:

–What does the story of God tells us about how God interacts with His people? How does this inform us on how to interact with people?

–How does the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus show us how to live in such a way that the Gospel is attractive to those in our spheres?

–How can we pursue the leading of the Holy Spirit to make prayerful, discerning decisions about mission in our contexts?

In summary, the most helpful respondent essays are from Stetzer, Darrell Guder, and Wan as Eitel’s is polemic in nature and the least helpful. Kostenberger’s response is generally helpful but also seems to show a paranoia that Biblical revelation is being usurped in the name of contextualization.

Guder specifically enriches the conversation by stating, “The authority of Scripture is not then defined so much by our anxiety about boundaries and guidelines but by the powerful way in which God’s written Word continues our conversion to our vocation.” (53) This reminds me of Tim Keller’s thoughts that the key to a Christian’s sanctification is not to tread into deeper theological waters but to come back to the Gospel found in the Word again and again. One of the by-products of this Gospel-wakefulness converts us to a community of faith that understands our vocation as missional.

Stetzer hits the nail on the head when he says, “For us to be biblical…in our reflections on the church’s mission, we must have a theological interpretation of the message of Scripture… (and) of our culture, and a theological application of the gospel to our culture.” (77) This Newbiginian-like trialogue of God’s story (Bible) and culture (context), and practice (contextualization via the local church) does not dilute Biblical revelation but rather enhances it to the glory of God flowing from Trinitarian mission.


“The church is the only cooperative society in the world that exists for the benefit of its non-members.”
William Temple

As I prepared to move to Tulsa to plant mercyview [Lord willing, a network of missional communities and expressions scattered all over this city and region], I had countless interviews “exegeting” the culture here, sitting under the wisdom of Tulsans from many different sectors: business, government, religion, etc.

Before I even visited the first time, I knew I was stepping into a highly churched culture. My research was confirmed as I talked with folks here. And in my conversations, it became very clear to me that new churches, for the most part, were contending for the same small slice of the pie that represents the “reachable” people groups.

I realized that Tulsa is in desperate need of a mobilization of Jesus-followers who are concerned about bringing spiritual and cultural renewal to the forgotten, the broken, and the wounded in the city; servant-messengers who are in the city, for city. Particularly, for those not-yet-Xians…

Michael Frost echoes this sentiment in this video:


This past Sunday, it was great to see new and familiar faces, to intercede for one another and the future of mercyview, to dig into the Sacred Text, and to dialogue at mercyview lab #4 [we have one more next week before we move into a new phase for our burgeoning community].

We are fervently praying that as we approach the end of the summer, the “culture” of mercyview is crystal clear and God will call together a group of men and women who have an overwhelming desire to plant the Gospel deeply in their hearts and in the great city of Tulsa.

Here is the content from the previous labs if you’re interested:

–-Lab #1: The Gospel: The Center of Everything [download synopsis here]

–-Lab #2: Salt and Light: An Alternative City Within a City, For the City [download synopsis here]

–Lab #3: A Missional People: Sent as Missionaries to be Witnesses [download synopsis here]

In Lab #4, we talked about how a center-city church, seeking the “shalom” (peace) of the city, can redeem culture. Here is a synopsis:

Introduction
[Jeremiah 29:1-13] [1]

–In Jeremiah 29, we find the purpose of the Babylonian exile for the Israelites was cultural assimilation and while the Jews were living in that place, as a counter-culture, they were to engage fully in life, even in the life of a city that was ostensibly opposed to God, “seeking the peace and prosperity” of the city.

–This may sound radical to us today but it is very much in accord with what Jesus deemed to be the second greatest commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). And It is right in line with the idea that Israel, God’s people at that time, was to be a “blessing for the nations” (Gen. 12:3)

A Biblical Theology of the City
[Hebrews 11:10 + Revelation 21] [2] [3]

God’s invention

–An Old Testament city would look like a human settlement surrounded by a fortification or a wall. This was very important because behind the wall, human society was very different than what existed outside of the city in the countryside.

–The average city in Old Testament times was 1000-3000 people and 205 people per acre (NYC has 105 people per acre). What made a city back then was not “bigness” but density, diversity, and mixed use (within 10 minutes you can walk to work, eat, learn, shop, live). The same is true for today’s cities.

–It is widely understood that when God tells Adam and Eve to “have dominion” and “fill the earth” he is directing them to build a God-honoring civilization. They are to bring forth the riches that God put into creation by developing science, art, architecture, human society. Therefore, God was calling Adam and Eve to be city builders.

–This new Jerusalem is the city is the Garden of Eden, remade. We began in a garden but will end in a city. God’s purpose for humanity is urban! Why? Because the city is God’s invention and design not just a sociological phenomenon or invention of humankind.

–City building is an ordinance of God just like work and marriage. God made the city to be a developmental tool, designed to draw out the riches he put into the earth, nature and the human soul at creation.

Cities develop culture

–Cities are the main creators of culture, values, and belief.

–Whatever develops in the center-city tends to have a profound effect throughout the rest the city, region, nation, and world. Influence tends to move from the center-city outward.

–In the latter half of the twentieth century in America, many churches left the cities and moved out to the suburbs. Today many evangelical Xians in the United States bemoan the fact that they have lost their influence on the culture. The reason is obvious: they are no longer in the cities.

How cities develop culture

1. The city as a place of refuge and safety

–It has always been a place where people come who are too weak to live in other places. When Israel moved into the promised land, the first cities were built by God’s direction as ‘cities of refuge’, where the accused person could flee for safety and civil justice. Thus God invented cities to be a sign of divine, not self, protection.

–Even today, people like the homeless, or new immigrants, or the poor, or people with ‘deviant’ lifestyles, must live in the city. The city is always a more merciful place for minorities of all kinds. Why? The density of the city creates the possibility of strong minority communities.

–Density creates diversity.

2. The city as a cultural “mining” center

–Even the description of the wicked city of Babylon in Revelation 18 shows how the power of the city draws out the resources of creation-of the physical world and of the human soul.

–Cities draw and gather together human resources and tap their potential for cultural development as no other human-life organization structure can.

–The city was designed by God to do, as an instrument of glorifying Him, by ‘mining’ the riches of creation and building a God-honoring civilization.

3. The city as the place to meet God.

–Cities are the key to evangelism in any area. Paul’s missionary journeys essentially ignored the countryside. When he entered a new region, he planted churches in the biggest city, and then left.

–Because of the diversity and intensity of the cities, urbanites are much more open to radically new ideas – especially the gospel. Because they are surrounded by so many people like and unlike themselves and so much more mobile and subject to change, urbanites are far more open to change/conversion than any other kind of resident.

Summary [4]

–We need to care about the center-city: We need to be concerned about the city, if for no other reason than our future is likely to be profoundly influenced by what happens there.

–We need to change our view of the center-city: It is not an evil place from which we ought to flee. Negative views are directly linked to disengagement.

–We need to understand the crucial importance of the center-city: We need to commit ourselves to living in the city. All true ministry is incarnational. We are unlikely to have much effect on the city if we are not living where we can be salt and light.

–We need to engage the center-city at many different levels: proclaiming Christ to individuals and communities, doing justice, engaging culture, and integrating faith and work

–We need to reach the center-city to reach the rest of your city, the region, and the world

–We need to reach the center-city to reach your own heart with the gospel: You will eventually come to see that you need the city more than the city needs you. Tim Keller says it this way:

1. In the city you’ll find a) people that seem ‘hopeless’ spiritually, and b) people of other religions or no religion and of deeply non-Christian lifestyles that are wiser, kinder, and deeper than you. This will shock you out of your moralism and force you to either finally believe the gospel of sheer grace, or give it up altogether.

2. In the city you will find that the poor and the broken are often much, much more open to the idea of gospel grace and much more dedicated to its practical outworkings than you are.

============

[1] Adapted from Allen Barth and Tim Keller, “A Vision for our Cities,” from Redeemer City to City.

[2] Adapted from Tim Keller, “A Bibilcal Theology of the City,” from Evangelicals Now.

[3] Adapted from Tim Keller, “City Vision” from UPL Consultation 2 mp3.

[4] Adapted from Barth and Keller, “A Vision for our Cities,” from Redeemer City to City.


I thought I would “roundup” the great posts happening over at edstetzer.com with the recent resurrection of his “Monday is for Missiology” series. This is really helpful stuff if you want to avoid the historical “naivete” that can tend to happen in the current missional conversation.

Here are Ed Stetzer’s thoughts as he sets up the series again:

Over the next few months leading up to missionSHIFT, along with introducing to you to the folks who are joining us at Ridgecrest to be a part of the missional conversation, I want to make sure that we continue to trace the roots of the missional debate historically and theologically. These posts will be a continuation of my “Meanings of Missional” series that has been on hiatus for a while. Okay, since October of 2007 (grin).

For many of you, this discussion may not interest you. Your focus is, “Let’s live on mission.” Fair enough– we will actually be talking about some practical discussion with some partners in the next few days. I don’t think this practical approach is a wrong approach– but I think that if we are to think deeply on issues of church and mission, it will require historic and theological reflection.

…When you look at the historical trajectory of the “church and mission” conversation, it was a deeply theological discussion. We must continue to filter this discussion theologically. In fact, I would say that missional must be tied– and I believe it is– to something inherently theological, particularly, the missio Dei. If not, it is just another descriptor in a long line of descriptors: church growth, seeker-sensitive, church health, emerging.

Here are the seven posts that Ed has written since the start up of the series:

*Monday is for Missiology: The Eschatological Dimension of the Missional Church
*Monday is for Missiology: The Church, The Kingdom, and Mission
*Monday is for Missiology: Caveats Regarding the Eschatological Language of Mission
*Monday is for Missiology: The Church on Mission for the Kingdom
*Monday is for Missiology: The Connection Between Missiology and Soteriology
*Monday is for Missiology: How and Why is God at Work Outside of the Church?
*Monday is for Missiology: One More Run at Salvation

As an added benefit to the series, Ed has invoked the help of some of the leading missional bloggers to weigh in on the issues he is raising on their respective blogs. This team is working through these missional themes as a part of the “Prologue to Missional Discussions” synchroblog and they are:

*Rick Meigs: The Blind Beggar
*Bill Kinnon: kinnon.tv
*Brother Maynard: Subversive Influence
*David Fitch: Reclaiming the Mission
*Tiffany Smith: Missional Mayhem
*Jared Wilson: The Gospel-Driven Church
*Jonathan Dodson: Creation Project

I would encourage you to check the discussion happening at their blogs. And don’t forget to register for missionSHIFT — it’s going to be a great time to continue to talk about all things missional. See you there…


“We must be global Christians with a global vision because our God is a global God.”
– John Stott

=============================================================

Last week, I posted on the importance of understanding that God’s mission is a global mission. I promised you some brand new and soon-to-be-released books that will help you put the “mission” back in “missional.”

Recently released:

Paul Hiebert: The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions

Product Description:

While the gospel is timeless truth, it enters into ever-changing and widely varied human contexts. In order to meaningfully communicate the gospel to particular humans, those involved in cross-cultural ministry need to understand people and the particular influences–social, cultural, psychological, and ecological–that shape them. Further, we must understand ourselves and the influences that have shaped us, since our own contexts influence how we understand and transmit the gospel message. Therefore, we must master not only the skill of biblical interpretation but also the skill of human interpretation. That task is the topic of this book, the summation of a lifetime of experience and thinking by a world-renowned missiologist and anthropologist, the late Paul Hiebert.

Timothy Tennent: Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first Century (Invitation to Theological Studies Series)

Product Description:

This unique text is arranged in three parts according to the Trinity’s roles, relationships, and activity. Tennent questions whether missions as currently conceptualized is adequate and he challenges the reader by building the book around key theological foundations such as “missio Dei” and the “new creation” vision for the global church. This volume will call and enable the reader to understand how missions is biblically and theologically basic to Christianity, and how missions is essential to living out an abundant and impassioned life.

Coming soon:

David Hesselgrave + Ed Stetzer: MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium (July 2010)

Product Description:

Veteran missionary David Hesselgrave and rising missional expert Ed Stetzer edit this engaging set of conversational essays addressing global mission issues in the third millennium. Key contributors are Charles E. Van Engen (“Mission Described and Defined”), the late Paul Hiebert (“The Gospel in Human Contexts: Changing Perspectives on Contextualization”), and the late Ralph Winter (“The Future of Evangelicals in Mission”). Those offering written responses to these essays include: Van Engen, Keith Eitel, Enoch Wan, Darrell Guder, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Hiebert, Michael Pocock, Darrell Whiteman, Norman L. Geisler, Avery Willis, Winter, Scott Moreau, Christopher Little, Michael Barnett, and Mark Terry.

Craig Ott + Stephen Strauss with Timothy Tennent: Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Encountering Mission) (May 2010)

Product Description:

This fresh, comprehensive text fills a need for an up-to-date theology of mission. It offers creative approaches to answering some of the most pressing questions in theology of mission and missionary practice today. The authors, who are leading mission experts, discuss biblical theology of mission, provide historical overviews of the development of various viewpoints, and address theologically current issues in global mission from an evangelical perspective. This readable yet thorough text integrates current views of the kingdom of God and holistic mission with traditional views of evangelism and church planting. It also brings theology of mission into conversation with ecclesiology and eschatology. Topics covered include contextualization, the missionary vocation, church and mission, and theology of religions. Sidebars and case studies enable readers to see how theology of mission touches real-life mission practice.


Michael Frost, author of Exiles and the upcoming, Jesus the Fool: The Mission of the Uncoventional Christ, is currently touring the U.S.

Frost is also the co-author of The Shaping of Things to Come and ReJesus with missional co-conspirator Alan Hirsch and serves as Vice Principal of Morling College and founding Director of the Tinsley Institute, a mission study center located at Morling College in Sydney, Australia.

As a part of his tour, Frost is speaking at local churches and this past Sunday, he spoke at Village Baptist Church in Portland on “Principles of Missional Living” from Acts 8. You can listen to the audio here.

John Johnson, lead pastor of VBC and also Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, Director of Doctor of Ministry program, Western Seminary, reflects on Frost’s visit here.

For kicks, here is a full-length video from Frost that I’ve posted before. This is one of the best explanations of the missional church out there:


Over the weeks to come, Ed Stetzer will be introducing the people who will be serving as framers for the Missional Manifesto that will be discussed as a part of missionSHIFT (the conference that I mentioned on the blog yesterday that I have had the privilege to work with him on) which takes place July 12-15 in Ridgecrest, NC.

Here is Ed’s first introduction:

First up is Eric Mason… better known as “Mase” to his friends.

He lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with his wife Yvette and two sons Immanuel and Nehemiah. He is also an adjunct professor at Biblical Theological Seminary. Dr. Mason received his Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM 2000) and a Doctorate degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (DMin, May 2007).

Eric is the lead pastor and co-founder of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to the church website, the mission of Epiphany Fellowship is simple: “We want to develop disciples.”

It goes on to explain:

We want to develop disciples that are able to minister in the culture and help new disciples to grow in God’s word in every area of their lives and shining the truth of the person of Jesus Christ to the glory of the Triune God. We cannot stress enough the realization that this Church will not be a “Hip Hop Church,” but a CHURCH.

Albeit we will be sensitive to the unique needs of those heavily influenced by that culture. The target group will be those from ages 18-44 who are unsaved or without a community of disciples of which to bond in a Theo-centric community.

We would like to see The Name of Jesus Christ Magnified by the credibility of the Church being reestablished in the world through Robust & Relevant Worship, Rich & Relevant Word, and Real & Relevant Witnesses (Eph. 2:20-21). We want to have inward depth, and be outwardly missional.

Here’s a little more about Eric. You can find a series of messages Eric did about the missional church in April of 2007 and February of 2009.

Back in 2008, he spoke at “Missional Christianity… Church Beyond Boundaries: A conference addressing theological and practical challenges for the future of the missional church” at Biblical Seminary on the subject of “Missional Church Planting in an Urban Setting.”

I first heard Eric speak at the Dwell Urban Church Planting Conference in New York City on the subject of “Dwelling Incarnationally.” You can hear the audio here. And, Eric is speaking this week at the Desiring God conference in Minneapolis.

Eric Mason is passionate about the mission of God in world, and specifically in the urban context. He is godly and humble. I am proud to serve with him as we move in conversation toward a better articulating what it means to be a missional church– and then encouraging one another to live mission-shaped lives.


Tim Chester, co-author of the must-read, Total Church (with Steve Timmis), writes regularly on missional issues on his blog. Chester is a leader in The Crowded House – an international family of church planting networks – and within TCH, he leads The Edge Network in Sheffield, UK. He is also the director of the Northern Training Institute and co-director of The Porterbrook Network.

Recently, Chester wrote about what it looks like for a Christ-follower to have missional identity. Read his thoughts:

Mission as identity

For many people mission has become an event. We have guest services. Evangelistic courses. Street preaching. Youth programmes. There’s nothing wrong with these things. But mission is more than a slot into our schedules. It is an identity and a lifestyle. Mission is about living all of life, ordinary life, with gospel intentionality.

Missional communities

We are called to be missional communities – not lone evangelists. The life of the covenant community is to be a light to the nations. ‘By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’ (John 13:35) Our love for one another reveals our gospel identity. The world will know that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to be Saviour of the world through the community life of believers (John 17:20-23). This does not primarily mean inviting people to meetings. It is about shared life into which other people are welcomed.

Scattered communities of light

Imagine a globe in darkness with one point of light. That was Israel in the Old Testament, one point of light in a dark world, drawing the nations to God. And New Testament believers are still be communities of light, drawing people to God. We still draw people in towards the centre. But the centre is no longer one geographic location in Palestine, but a hundred, thousand communities of light scattered across the globe. We are not be like a lighthouse, occasionally sending a beam of light across the city. We are to be communities of light and hope and love in a dark and broken world at street level, on the street corner.

Here is Chester speaking on this same topic at the recent Lead09 conference:

Tim Chester Session 1 | Lead 09 from Atmosphere Church on Vimeo.

I think it is interesting to note that Chester places missional identity in the context of community. I would go so far as to say that mission divorced from community really isn’t mission in its fullest sense.

When God said to Abraham in Genesis 12, “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing…and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you,” I believe He was saying that mission flows from within community. Oh, that we would be “communities of light” bringing people into the marvelous light of God’s grace.


I’ve been slow to get this up here on transformission but last week, my friend Ed Stetzer shared an exciting announcement that I’ve been talking about via Twitter for some time now in his post, “Missing the Missional Mark.” (In fact, that is why there has been little to no blogging for the last few months…)

In his entry, Ed said:

A few of us have talked and we are going to try to forge something of a definition (of missional) — at least for how we use the term. As part of that, later this year, July 12-14, I’m partnering with a few others to launch a new conference called missionSHIFT that I believe will help us with the discussion.

As a part of this conference, we are prayerful that a helpful statement can be forged on what it means to be missional. Several leaders in the missional church conversation (Keller, Hirsch, and others to be announced), who write about all-things missional, have already agreed to be framers for the statement and some of the framers will be at the conference for discussion and dialogue.

The intention of “The Missional Manifesto” is to allow the Scriptures to guide our understanding and involvement in the mission of God as it applies to the whole of life and doctrine. The document will strive to show how “missional” intersects with truths about the gospel, the local church, evangelism, missions, social justice, and contextualization, among other things.

The intent would be to say, “This is what we mean when we talk about being missional.” It is not our intent (or within our ability) to say this is what everyone should think or say about the term. Words mean different things (for example, “grace,” “justice,” and “gospel” all have different meanings to different groups). However, it is our hope that it will help us be clearer and more mission-shaped in our own thinking and practice.

I have had the privilege of working closely with Ed on this for the past few months so I’m excited to see this come to fruition. More about my role to come…

As Ed stated at the end of his entry, he is “resurrecting” his Monday is for Missiology” posts in which he will blog about all things missional. If you are interested in this conversation, this will be a great place to engage in discussion. This will also be the forum where we release additional names of those who are framing “The Missional Manifesto” and those who will leading our missional “labs.” Stay tuned…

Another way to get involved in the conversation is via Twitter. First, follow @missionSHIFT to stay up to date on announcements re: missionSHIFT. Second, if you have a comment about what missional is to you, make sure and use the hashtag: #missionSHIFT. Finally, follow the discussion on the tweet “wall” at the bottom of all the pages on the missionSHIFT website.

If you believe it is time for the church to engage in the mission of God, missionSHIFT will inspire and prepare you to cultivate a missional movement in your church and community. I want to encourage you to come to this conference.

If you are interested in coming, you can register here.


about me


Husband and father of four, university instructor, seminarian, church planter, and conference architect.

posting

commenting

archiving

recommending

supporting

international justice mission

bloodwater mission

invisible children

to write love on her arms

kiva micro loans

compassion international