Missions Misunderstood

Missions Misunderstood Has Moved

2008-03-16T13:23:00.004Z

Missions Misunderstood has moved to:
http://missionsmisunderstood.com

Please update your links and bookmarks, and don't be afraid to tell a friend.
Thanks for reading. I appreciate it.

-stepchild

The Sabido Method

2008-03-12T07:59:00.007Z

Have you ever watched one of those insanely melodramatic Mexican soap operas? You know, the ones with beautiful women, beautiful men, and lots of crying and screaming and face-slapping? You may not know this, but those telenovelas have great influence. Believe it or not, they are intentionally filled with subtle, even subversive messages.

In the 1970s, Miguel Sabido, a market researcher for a Mexican television studio, developed a way to influence audiences through storytelling. He started by writing a diversity of characters into the story lines of the popular serialized shows. He branched out from the "good guy/bad guy" architypes and introduced flawed (yet beautiful) protagonists that viewers could relate to. Every story, no matter what the plot, was a tale of change. The good characters would struggle with their secret badness; the bad guys would occasionally surprise everyone by doing something good. All of this, of course, had been done before (and, to be sure, better.)

Sabido's goal was to influence viewers in positive ways. He did so by having the characters in his soaps deal with serious real-life issues. He tackled racism. Sex. Abortion. Death. As his characters changed and grew through these challenges, his views changed and grew as well.

Through storytelling, Sabido engaged millions of people with his agenda. He got them talking about family planning, sexual health, and other social issues. Many people credit his efforts for the plateaued population growth in Mexico. In a way, it was propaganda; weaving social and political messages into popular media programming. In communication theory, it's called the "Sabido Method." No matter what you call it, stories are powerful influencers.

You might be more familiar with the Sabido Method than you think. Remember when your favorite sitcoms in the 1980s and 90s would air "Very Special Episodes?" Like when Blair from The Facts of Life was nearly raped, or when Kimberly Drummond from Diff'rent Strokes suffered from bulimia? The characters of Alex P. Keaton, Ricky Stratton, Punky Brewster, and Mike Seaver were all used to shape our social behavior and attitudes concerning everything from suicide to racism.

In life's soap opera, God's story, we are the characters. He uses the story arcs of our lives to incite, inform, engage, and influence. Being missional is publicly living our story instead of insisting on skipping to the moral at the end.

Getting Lost In The Story

2008-03-09T22:27:00.003Z

Why do millions of people around the world tune in every week (many are even willing to pay for it) to watch a convoluted, (half-baked?), confusing serialized television show about plane crash victims stranded on a mysterious island?

The story.

Questions. Unexpected twists. Attention to detail. Artistic nuance. Mythologies. Love. Danger. The unknown. Intentional lack of resolution. Good and evil. The Supernatural. It draws people in and it hold their attention. It evokes a response and inspires creativity. Communities are built around it.

Contrast that with most presentations of the gospel "story." A neatly packaged presentation that is clear, concise, and full of answers. A "subjective" third-hand account where the allegorical dots are connected by lines of propositional truth. It does little to intrigue and works to leave nothing unexplained. Our story sounds tired, contrived, and commercial.

We have a lot to learn about being storytellers.

Changing Channels

2008-03-06T19:05:00.000Z

From the early days of television through the 1970's, there were three television networks. They had no competition and total control over what Americans watched on TV.

Then came cable. 24 hours a day of news. Sports. Movies. Weather. Home shopping. Music videos. They focused on smaller markets, but gave people what they wanted to watch. Suddenly, people had choices. Satellite expanded the television universe to micro markets. The soap opera network. The game show network. Do-it-yourself home repairs. Extreme sports, classic sports, international sports. Poker.

Now the internet. YouTube. iTunes. Sidereel. Anyone can watch whatever they want, anytime. And not only watch, but connect with other fans and create their own content.

This is happening with mainstream Christianity as well. Splinters, spin-offs, and startups dot the landscape of American Christianity and provide an infinite number of ways for churches to connect and cooperate. Exclusivity is passé; most of the churches involved are aligned with multiple networks. "Loyalty" is redefined; churches maintain these associations only as long as they serve their intended purposes. Christians used to connect via centralized "broadcasts" such as denominations, personalities, or geography. Now they're connected via the "cloud;" allowing them to partner with others according to their beliefs, worldview, practice, politics, and interests. Some are pretty unique. Others are nearly identical.

The Southern Baptist Convention is NBC in the 1960's. Now there are hundreds of ways for likeminded believers to connect with one another. The Founders movement. Purpose Driven. Mosaic. Allelon. Acts 29. Glocal. The Missional Church Network. CBF. New Baptist Covenant. Emergent. The Antioch Church Network is a new channel to watch.

Why does all this matter?

Because it all comes down to influence. You don't need to be the president of anything to change everything for some people. Steve McCoy is a nobody in his church's denomination. To artistic, reformed-leaning, music-loving, post-denominational bloggers, he's a rock star. Follow his blog for a little while and you'll understand.

And because if you're dependent on one of the old broadcast TV-style networks, you need to find some new ways to connect.

The Identity Business

2008-03-04T10:37:00.004Z

Sure their computers are prettier and crash a lot less than everyone else's, but Mac users are more than just adopters of an alternative operating system. They're members of a club. If you've ever been evangelized by a Mac user, you know what I mean. It's more than a computer, it's a way of life. Mac users look at the world differently than PC users. They dress alike and hang out in coffee shops. All it takes for entry into the club is a thousand dollars (the cost of a MacBook).

Apple isn't just selling hardware and software; with every shiny new iPod and Mac they're selling identity.

Mark Driscoll is selling the same thing (for a lot less, though). You can see his admirers and devotees planting churches across the country. They're bold, they're sarcastic, they're unashamedly reformed. They major on the majors, like good theology, social action, and character. They drink, smoke cigars, and watch a lot of movies. They have iPhones, blogs and Flickr pages. They are unimpressed by denominations and traditions, and there are likely one or two of them planting churches in your area.

Sure, you could call members of Driscoll's tribe or the Mac Club "followers." You could criticize them for not being unique or original.

I say, why aren't more of us providing identity? People are looking for a way to make sense of their world, a way to understand who they are in relation to everything else. In Christ, we have that identity.

I think that would be good news for a lot of people.

The Least Of These

2008-02-25T06:20:00.002Z

So there's a homeless guy that you see around town pretty often. One day, he approaches you on the street, asking for money. You compassionately give him a couple bucks.

You know, the "least of these" and all that.

The very next day, you see that same homeless guy sitting on a park bench, obviously drunk, with a beer in one hand, and a cigarette in the other. He's still begging, but since he's intoxicated, he's pretty aggressive about it. Do you ever give him more money?

Surely someone would claim "stewardship," saying that it wouldn't be very responsible of us to continue "wasting" money on someone who obviously doesn't use it wisely.

Do the actions of others ever release us from our responsibilities as Christ-followers? Did the homeless guy deserve our help this first time, but not the next? Can accountability exist outside of a personal relationship? What is our motivation for generosity?

I believe that missional living requires that we demonstrate what it might be like to live in a right relationship with the world around us. The proper way to relate to sin it to confess it, repent from it, and run from it. The right relationship with all people is love.

What is the right relationship to a stranger in need?

Today I gave 20 euros (which, considering the current exchange rate, is something like $600 US dollars) to a homeless man who "lives" around our neighborhood. He was drunk, and had a cigarette in one hand. Giving felt like the right thing for me to do, but it really bothered me that the man didn't seem to appreciate it.

But Wait! There's More!

2008-02-20T19:41:00.004Z

Seth Godin says that all marketers are liars. If that's true (I think it is), then whoever produces those infomercials is the worst of them. I've never seen an infomercial that didn't insult our intelligence at every level- from the poor "acting" to the pseudo-talkshow format, it just reeks of disingenuousness.

The worst part of an infomercial isn't the lie they tell (namely, that for five easy payments of $19.99, whatever garage sale fodder they're hawking will make your life easier, healthier, and more effecient), it's the lie they don't even bother to tell: that the testimonial of their "celebrity" spokesperson is anything more than a paid advertisment.

Why does a paid endorsement mean less than one that is volunteered? Why is it considered an ethical issue when an author of a review fails to disclose his relationship to the product?

Sometimes I feel like my life is an infomercial for Jesus.

What Are You Waiting For?

2008-02-15T08:50:00.004Z

I've spent quite a bit of time talking with leaders of small, nontraditional churches in major urban centers in the United States. Many of them are just getting started in ministry and planting churches. I understand that starting a church takes time and energy.

So when I ask these guys about their vision for involvement in international missions, their answers tend to be something along the lines of,

"We're just getting started. Once we're a little more established, we'll launch into something like that."

or,

"We're small and don't have the resources that those big seeker churches do. For now, we're just going to stay local."

What do you want your church to be about? What message are you sending to your people by putting off missions off until you're older? Do you really think it will be easier for your people to get a vision for global involvement when you've been established for a while? Are resources an obstacle for God?

I say, start now. Start a church by rallying support for an international missions endeavor. Prayerfully select a place, a people group, or a missionary who is already on the field. Work together to develop a missional strategy to engage people with the gospel. If you don't have money, come part-time, associate with other churches and groups, or come and get jobs. Intentionally engage people on vacation, in the States, or online.

Start with global ministry, and watch what it does for your local ministry.

Starting now will establish missions as a priority for your church. It will help keep your focus outward, and give you something to work toward that has lasting kingdom significance. Not that you're "attractional," but global involvement is appealing for the kinds of people your church is meant for.

Besides, you're who we need in Western Europe. Forget the big churches who want to set up franchises around the world. We're looking for missional, relational believers who have some understanding of ministry in a post Christian culture. We need people who are creative, teachable, and anti-establishment. You're perfect for the job, so what are you waiting for?

If you were waiting for an invitation, here it is.

Prophecy by (Credible) Proxy

2008-01-30T10:02:00.000Z

A key part of our ministry is building relationships with the people God brings to us. God has often used us in ways similar to His use of Joseph in the Old Testament. Not so much in the "Pharaoh-naming-us-Vice-Pharaoh" sort of way; more in the sense of "I had a dream, what do you suppose it means?"

Our friends often confide in us concerning their struggles, fears, and dreams. This confidence gives us the opportunity to speak into their lives from (what we hope is) God's perspective. Like Joseph, we try to give God the credit for any insight we might have to share.

One thing that strikes me about Joseph's story, and about ours here in Western Europe, is that God doesn't always communicate by speaking truth to His people and sending them to tell other people that truth. Sure, that is a common occurrence throughout history (God told Moses to tell another Pharaoh..., God told Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh, all the prophets, etc.) But here, God reveals truth to Pharaoh, who in turn seeks out God's man for some help in interpreting that truth.

Joseph had built a reputation (at least in the cupbearer and baker communities) as someone who could interpret dreams. God used that to put him in a position to speak to Pharaoh. Many of the conversations we're having now are not resulting in individual salvations or churches being planted. Instead, they are being used to build our reputation as God's people in this culture.

"You want to know who has some insight into that sort of thing?" I imagine them saying behind our backs, "you need to talk to those believers."

God is revealing truth to them. Within the culture there is a great conversation about these truths- life, death, guilt, love, peace, justice. These are deeply spiritual issues that aren't being forced on them by outsiders. Unfortunately, like Pharaoh, the people of Western Europe do not recognize that the truths they struggle with have been revealed to them by the Most High God, the Author of all truth. That's where we see God using us; people are asking us for our opinions about life-changing truths.

Research and immersion put us in a position to recognize and call attention to truths in the culture. Relationships put us in a position to participate in the conversation. I like to think of it as "Prophecy by Proxy."

When You Can't Tell The Difference

2008-01-25T16:04:00.000Z

When it comes to promoting missions and mobilizing missionaries, we rely on photos. In casting a vision for what God is doing around the world to bring people into right relationships with Himself, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Or, in my case, about four blog posts.

It's unfortunate, but we often fall into the trap of resorting to stereotypes to illustrate our work. You've seen the photos; a thin, wrinkled old man, whose dark skin contrasts with his cotton beard, reaches for the Bible offered by a tall white fortysomething in khaki pants. A small group of smiling black ragamuffin children playfully hug a white lady with her hair in a bun.

I would love to see missional churches pay to send poor, inner-city believers from the States to minister to poor, inner-city families in other parts of the world.

I think that if we were serious about incarnation, it wouldn't be so easy to tell the difference between the "Missionary" and the "heathen" in a picture.

Nothing To See Here, Folks...

2008-01-20T08:22:00.000Z

We often have people express interest in coming for a visit to "see" our ministry. Some are church planters from the States, some are pastors of existing churches, some are missionaries in other places. We've had seminary students write papers on us, journalists write articles about us, and at least one grade school kid interview us for a class project. We're thankful when anyone shows interest in our work here, and flattered with all of the attention. Nevertheless, everyone who comes to observe our work first-hand sees pretty much the same thing: not much.

Our ministry is entirely relational. How many American pastors and missionaries can I introduce my friends to before they really start to feel like projects? We don't identify ourselves as missionaries. How many creative ways are there to explain how I know these strangers who are always passing through?

We spend time with friends in parks and cafes. Since we're planting simple churches, we don't have a building. We likely never will. We don't have an office (though we could really use one). Our team meetings take place in our homes.

Like I said, there's not a whole lot to see.

Some people understand that there isn't much to see. Some leave disappointed. At least two have accused us of "hiding" our ministry from the "public;" one praising us for protecting and nurturing our fragile relationships, the other criticizing us for avoiding accountability. It wasn't some conspiracy to keep people from seeing our work- there just nothing to see.

Truth in Acts 28

2008-01-18T13:40:00.000Z

Acts 28:28 "You may be sure that God wants to save the Gentiles! And they will listen."

This verse in Acts really bothers me. Paul is being quoted here, and it just doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't make sense because of the passage that comes just before it, where
Paul quotes Isaiah the prophet:

"You will listen and listen but never understand. You will look and look, but never see. All of you have stubborn hearts. Your ears are stopped up, and your eyes are covered. You cannot see or hear or understand. If you could, you would turn to me, and I would heal you."

So I'm trying to get this straight- God wants to save the Gentiles. The Gentiles will listen. They will never understand (it actually says that part twice!)

Here's why I dislike this passage so much- I have seen this to be true among the people of Western Europe. God wants to save people in Western Europe. He has brought us here to minister to them in love. He has a plan for them.

They listen. I've sat down to coffee with a national and talked about my faith for literally hours. They listen!

They do not understand. "That's great, for you" they say. "I guess that's one way of looking at it." "We have tried Christianity- look where it got us!"

If they could understand...
So many times I see hurting people who are desperate for healing. If they could understand, they could be healed. But they don't, so they aren't.

This verse bothers me because, despite all of my efforts, it is true.

Not Just Any Warm Body

2007-12-19T23:12:00.000Z

Many of us on the field are active recruiters. We are always looking for people who would be especially suited for ministry in Western Europe. Many strategists find new partners by talking about their people group. They describe the beauty of the culture, the proud history of the people, and the great spiritual need among them. The idea, I suppose, is that God would use the stories to stir the hearts of listeners and get them excited about being part of ministry overseas.

To most American churchgoers (even the really spiritual ones), people groups are all pretty much the same. Missionaries should be constantly talking about and advocating for their people group. That's how we raise support and awareness.

But as a recruiting and raising support aren't the same thing. Telling stories of a people group's plight can tug at the heart strings, but as a recruiting (and filtering device), it only helps us find the most sensitive and emotional members of our audience.

Recruitment is a funny concept, really. Are we looking for people to serve our people group or are we looking for people to join our team? In order to find people who are called, enthusiastic, and qualified to work with us, I believe we need to be casting a vision not only for local cultures and people groups, but also for our teams and strategies. A team that works well together and is committed to one another is worth a thousand that can't get along but really love their people group.

Takes One To Know One

2007-12-15T00:45:00.000Z

As I talk with other Christians about life and society and current events, it strikes me how suspicious we are of everyone. The atheists have taken over the public school system. The homosexuals want to turn all boys gay. The Mexicans are invading. The Muslims want to outlaw Christianity. Universal health care is communism. Don't watch The Golden Compass. The Mormons own Coca-Cola.

We're certain everyone is out to get us. Everyone surely has an ulterior motive and a hidden agenda.

Of course I'm aware of the scriptural warning about the dangerous activity of our spiritual enemy. I know that we aren't safe. We have good reason to be watchful, wary, and wise.

But I'm also wondering if our paranoia might be due, at least in part, to that fact that we aren't always the most up-front about our agenda. Maybe we distrust the people and organizations around us because we have a long history of misleading people about who we are and what we really want from them.

We're not just knocking on your door to say thanks for visiting our church; we want you to pray a prayer of salvation. You're invited to our fellowship, but we've carefully planned it as an entry point for you to join our church. We 're only giving out coats and blankets as bait to get you to sit through a sermon.

Why is it okay for us to do it but scary when others do? Does it make a difference just because we're right?

I wonder what would happen if we were totally up front and honest about our agenda. What about giving up our agenda altogether?

I suspect it might lead us to abandon many of our methods, approaches, and techniques.

Missions 2.0

2007-11-27T23:56:00.000Z

How are you involved in international missions? In the past, mission agencies gave you three options: pray, give, or go. Hopefully, you're doing at least one of these things.

I'd like to invite you to a fourth way to participate in what God is doing around the world. You may not be aware of this, but there is a way for you to build a personal relationship with an unbelieving person from an unreached people group that is free, requires no training or time off work, and doesn't require you to learn another language.

You can be a pen pal.

Thankfully, the internet has taken the old idea of corresponding with a complete stranger on another continent and made it, well, faster, cheaper, and more fun. Here's how you can get started:

1. Visit an international classifieds website like kijiji.com, craigslist.org, or tribe.net
or a social networking site like facebook.com, myspace.com, or any of the hundreds of similar sites listed here.
Classified sites tend to be a bit easier to manage (London's gumtree.com, for example, actually has a section titled "pen pals.") and are especially good if you already have an idea of what people group or city you'd like to connect with. For now, let's assume you're using kijiji.com.

2. Scroll to the bottom of the site, and select the local site of your desired country. Many countries have classified ad sites, but it people in Western Europe are so web-connected, these countries are a great place to find someone who is likely to correspond with you.

3. Register a username and password, if necessary.

4. Search through the classified ads to find someone with whom you have something in common. Amateur authors in Wales? A guitar player in Spain? How about moms in Dublin?

5. Post a response to an ad. Or, post an ad of your own. Maybe you'd like to swap recipes with someone in Basel or find a pen pal in Berlin who likes NASCAR. (Good luck with that one). Just be yourself! Remember: for you, this may be a strange and frightening way to make friends, but for them, meeting people online is a pretty normal thing to do.

6. Wait for someone to answer your ad. Many of theses sites will email you when you receive a response. Be sure to keep security in mind as you introduce yourself and get to know the person. Don't make promises you won't be able to keep.

7. Share life with your new friend. Don't treat this as a confrontational evangelism tool- let the person get to know you. For many Western Europeans, you may be the only practicing believer with whom they've had contact. Even those who know about Jesus are unlikely to have seen life in Christ lived out before them. They need to hear what a follower of Jesus thinks about all sorts of things. Tell your stories. Listen to theirs. Send photos. Have a voice conversation on Skype. You may eventually get to meet your pen pal in person some day.

Now, this isn't for everyone. If you're the type who can't stand to talk with someone with whom you disagree, please don't bother. If you're not willing or able to personally invest in a "virtual friend," this isn't for you.

I think there are a lot of believers out there who didn't even know this is an option. I imagine many of you that don't have the time or money or desire to go on a mission trip may be intrigued my the idea of meeting someone online for the sake of sharing life intentionally.

Who knows? God may use you to start an online church planting movement.

Pants On Fire

2007-11-05T16:02:00.000Z

As a missionary, I am tempted to lie on a regular basis. It may or may not surprise you to read
that statement, but its true nonetheless. What's more, I find the temptation strongest when I'm talking with a coworker, partner, or supporter. It all starts out innocently enough; someone asks, "How is your ministry going?" or "What are you seeing God do among your people groups?" For some reason, it's always difficult for me to know how to respond to these questions. And for some reason, I'm often tempted to offer a less-than-honest answer.

The lies that pop into my mind aren't usually grandiose- I'm not talking about making up a church planting movement or a new great awakening. No, my temptation is to elaborate with, um, ministerial hyperbole the things that are actually happening. You know, for effect. Perhaps what I'm tempted to offer isn't a lie, per se, but the result is the same. The only examples I share are those I've carefully selected. Certain details are emphasized. Some information is conveniently left out. Our small seeker group of four suddenly becomes a viable church plant of six. My casual interaction with national leaders grows into a full-blown partnership. I find myself taking credit for the successes of others by frequent use of the collective "we." Everything suddenly becomes over-spiritualized.

The temptation isn't limited to embellishing our successes. There's something super-spiritual about suffering on the missions field, so I often feel the urge to overstate the modest struggles we face in Western Europe. Poor customer service becomes enemy opposition, and a hard time at the immigration office is persecution. If life here is too easy, my obedience is somehow less pleasing to God and fellow believers.

Maybe the temptation to stretch the truth is rooted in our performance-based culture that encourages us to value activity over identity. Maybe it's my desire to be important or well-known. Whatever the reason, exaggerations and half-truths are trouble. Lying is one of those sins that tends to have the "snowball effect;" the liar quickly finds himself having to compose bigger, more elaborate, and (if it were possible,) more deceitful lies to cover the first one.

It occurs to me that a great deal of the misunderstanding is my own fault. How can I expect others to know and relate to my experience if I'm not being completely forthright? Besides, God's constant and protection and provision for my life means that there is always a truth to be told.

Step By Step

2007-10-10T19:54:00.000Z

Statistics. Demographics.
Lostness. Evangelization.
Need. Opportunity.
Resources. Support.
Trends. Movements. Reaction.
Creativity. Good ideas.
Common sense.
Duty. Tradition.
Ease. Difficulty.
Guilt, pity, fear.
Passion, compassion, desire.
Love.

We are constantly tempted to allow these things to dictate our missions activities. In many cases, these are the motives that were used to recruit us into sacrificial giving and to service. We all participate in different ways and for different reasons, but the things listed above can easily get us "ahead of God" and out of tune with what He is doing. As far as I can tell, the best- the only- sure foundation for how to know what missions is and how it ought to be done in my context is this:

Step-by-step obedience to the Spirit of the Most High God.

Not Yet

2007-10-06T01:58:00.000Z

God called me to missions in Western Europe by giving me a vision for what He could (would?) do among the people here. I was excited about being part of God's interaction with the postmodern, postchristian people of Europe. I really believed that God was going to start a church planting movement here, and I trusted that He was going to use me to somehow be part of that. That certainty of calling and purpose is what has kept me on the field.

But something is bothering me.

We still haven't seen it. Despite our efforts, prayers, and desires, we have yet to see God move in the ways we envisioned years ago. No city-wide house church networks. No major unity movements among the believers here. Years of studying the language and culture, sowing the gospel, building relationships, and speaking truth into people's lives hasn't produced the kind of fruit I thought we were called to.

Don't get me wrong; I know that the work isn't something that we do, and that God will do His will in His sovereign timing. Please don't remind me of William Carey or Adoniram Judson. I'm not discouraged about the number of people who are being saved.

I've spent months in introspective prayer and meditation, asking God if there might be sin in my life, or if my actions might be disqualifying me from His service. I'm begging Him to use me. I'm open to whatever He has for us.

I guess I'm just a little disappointed, that's all.

Experience Necessary

2007-09-28T13:11:00.000Z

I often hear believers decry the postmodern focus on experience concerning matters of faith. They usually decry the subjective nature of personal experience, and encourage people to look to the scriptures alone for divine revelation.

But life in Christ depends on "experience." Sin is realized when God's Spirit convicts. We realize scripture to be true, authoritative, and inspired by God when He illuminates it to us. Faith comes by hearing the word of truth. Salvation is being born again. All of these are experiences.

The Bible is a collection of human experience with God. Personal encounters, like visions, dreams and miracles. Calling. Rebuke. Incarnation. Revelation.

Our experience doesn't make truth true, it makes truth true to us.

A Church on Every Corner

2007-09-13T14:08:00.000Z

I recently read an interesting thing about Wal-Mart. It seems that in cities across the country, Wal-Mart stores are up-sizing from their regular old large retail centers to shiny new extra-large "Super Centers." In many cases, these new stores are right next door or across the street from the old stores.

The problem is that the distinctively Wal-Martian building design and layout (you know, gray and blue big-box warehouse with two main entrances and a chain-link fenced-in "garden center" on one side) makes it difficult for any other retailer to use the old buildings. So the old stores are sitting empty.

Some communities are now requiring that new Wal-Mart stores be built with future use in mind, with store designs that are more easily subdivided for varied uses should the current Super Center ever vacate to build, I don't know, what's bigger than a Super Center?

For some reason, this reminds me of church buildings.

Western Europe is home to thousands of church buildings. Cathedrals, basilicas, chapels, and temples that were once full of devout religious people now sit empty in every part of the continent. In the U.K., Some have been converted to pubs. In Italy, many are used a museums. At least European church buildings are pretty to look at.

In one hundred years, what will have become of your church building?

Whenever I try to encourage Americans to be church planters, they almost invariably say something like, "There's already a church on every corner." The problem, of course, is that these people are mistaking "church building" for "body of believers."

We certainly don't need more church buildings.

Homecoming

2007-09-02T01:20:00.000Z

Immigration is a huge problem here in Western Europe. Europeans fear (with good reason) the extinction of their own cultures through dilution with immigrant ones. Gone are the days of leaving one's home culture to adopt a new way of life in a new place. Turks are moving to Frankfurt and living as though they were still in Turkey. Moroccans in Paris are setting up Muslim prayer rooms and markets. The Chinese in Barcelona aren't bothering to learn the local language. These groups are already here in significant numbers, and they're demanding the right to build schools and places of worship.

In the flood of foreigners, Europeans are finally asking some good questions. What happens when the immigrant population grows to become the majority? Won't they want representation in local government? How long until they begin to impose changes that threaten the existence of European cultures? Not only are they asking questions, Europeans are also searching for solutions. A wall? Stricter controls? Exclusion from social services? Pour money into poor countries of origin? International identification databases?

All of these questions and proposed solutions, however, seem to ignore one major truth: the Indians, North Africans, and Latin Americans that enter the Union every day aren't invading, they're coming home. European immigration is unique in that these immigrants are coming from lands that not so long ago were colonized and exploited by European superpowers. The Spanish, British, and French sent "Explorers," "Missionaries," "Traders," and "Pioneers" to far-off places in an effort to expand their territory, discover wealth, and conquer potential enemies. They pillaged the land, plundered the goods, and raped the women. Now, generations later, their offspring are coming home to claim their birthright.

I wonder how immigration policy would change if we started to see the situation in this light. I bet it would lead us to send more money to developing and emigrant countries.

Call it "generational child support."

Churched Out

2007-08-19T23:11:00.000Z

Lately it seems that everyone I talk to is tired of church. Some are actively involved- teaching Sunday School, attending Bible Studies, even leading worship. Others have given up church altogether, opting instead for isolated and lonely personal ministries outside any organized body of believers.

These people are not where they need to be, but not because they are in sin. They aren't rebellious or angry. They are discouraged because the church as they know it looks nothing like the community of faith that we read about in the scriptures.

Churches are all about programs, events, and activities. You're a twenty-something married couple? Thirty and single? We have a program for you. Mothers of Preschoolers. Parents of Teens. Businessmen breakfasts, Scrapbooking, Golf, Church-league softball. The more you do, the holier you are. If we haven't seen you in a while, we question your spiritual maturity.

Church leaders desperate to grow their congregations don't know the people already in the pews. The gospel has become an invitation to church, and discipleship an altar-call. Why doesn't anyone ever say, "Wow, they must be doing something wrong for God to be cursing them with all those people in attendance."?

The result of the programs- and numbers-focus is a growing number of people who are churched-out. These are faithful people who have taught the Bible studies, led the mission trips, given their money, and visited the visitors. They know what goes into each big campaign (and how little comes out), and they don't have it in them to "put-on" another one. Now they are finished. Many drop out altogether because they don't see an alternative.

Maybe your mega-church should start a program for them.

The Difference Between Coming and Going

2007-08-09T14:54:00.000Z

It occurs to me that much of our missionary efforts today are carried out as though God wasn't on the field.

God doesn't "send" us. He calls us to join Him. There's a difference. If we think that we're doing something great for God, or that He (or the "nations") needs us in any way, we think too highly of ourselves.

Consider the terminology we use: "Reaching the nations for Christ." "Finishing the Task." "Building the Kingdom." "Engaging people." Because we haven't been careful to explain what they originally meant, these trite phrases have helped shape a human-centered missiology among many believers.

Few missions strategies include something like, "Get involved in the community and wait for God to bring us the people in whom He is already working."

Instead, we have people canvassing neighborhoods in search of anyone who will listen, and broad (and generic) "Sowing of the gospel." It's as though we were afraid that the God who called us to the field has left us to search blindly for what He might do.

Why do we view the role of the missionary as perpetually active ("reaching," "evangelizing," "sharing," etc.) and rarely passive ("being given the opportunity," "being used," "being led")?

Get A Hobby

2007-07-31T00:38:00.000Z

Get a hobby.

This is my advice for Christians everywhere, and especially those who are intentional about living out their faith in culture. For some reason, many believers act as though time spent doing anything other than witnessing and studying the Bible is time wasted. But those same people have an extremely difficult time relating to and interacting with nonbelievers. I say, get a hobby.

Think of all the people in your town, and all that those people are into. Shopping (malls, garage sales, eBay). Collecting (stamps, Beanie Babies, cars, antiques). Projects (art, crafts, home renovations, fund raisers). Sports (golf, softball, leagues and pick-up games). Clubs (book clubs, crafts, support groups). Video games. Blogging. Tattoos.

These "hobbies" are much more than that. These are the activities that define the people who participate in them. They spend lots of time and money on their hobbies, and they aren't alone. Even the most solitary of activities can foster a real sense of community among the people who participate. These are affinity groups.

To speak into- to influence- an affinity group, you've got to do more than just know about whatever it is they do. Mac users have some sort of internal radar that can identify a PC user from a mile away. Scrapbookers can find stories and memories in what you've thrown out as garbage. Civil War "reinactors, " well, they're a breed unto themselves. But if you aren't in, you're out.

These groups have their unique cultures, languages, and moral codes. If you had a hobby, you might be able to be a Light among other enthusiasts. You might be able to show fellow Lord of the Rings fans the Truth behind their favorite epic tale. You could have the opportunity to share Christ as your motivation for volunteering, giving, or playing. Perhaps you might find yourself in the middle of a group of people who enjoy great fellowship and never run out of things to talk about.

Or, you could read a book about how to engage lost people.

We've Lost the Plot

2007-07-20T13:26:00.000Z

Missions- (mish-uh ns) -noun: 1. a group of persons sent by a church to carry on religious work, esp. evangelization in foreign lands, and often to establish schools, hospitals, etc. 2. missionary duty or work 3. organized missionary work or activities in any country or region 4. a church or a region dependent on a larger church or denomination 5. a series of special religious services for increasing religious devotion and converting unbelievers: to preach a mission 5. an assigned or self-imposed duty or task; calling; vocation 6. a sending or being sent for some duty or purpose 7. those sent

I'm starting to realize that the greatest problem facing Christian missions today is not money, not manpower, not strategy, and not even the physical and spiritual opposition to our work. The problem with missions is that we don't know what it is. The concept, the very definition of the word, is interpreted and applied by so many people in so many ways, I think we've lost the plot.

To the world, missions is church people feeding the poor and building church buildings. To the casual churchgoer, missions are those trips the youth group takes every summer. To the volunteer missionary missions is sacrificing time and hard-earned money to travel to a distant place to conduct sports camps and backyard Bible clubs. To the long-term and career missionary- well... they obviously have no idea what it is.

For the sake of my calling and work, I'm going to work on defining the ministry and role of the missionary.

I'm Not Doing This For You

2007-07-16T03:50:00.000Z

So I've had a couple of inquiries about the "new" "trend"(it's really neither, but more on that later) away from full-time, professional missionaries and toward volunteer and short-term mission endeavors. I've made no secret of my own discomfort with being a professional missionary, so some of my readers ask if I'm excited by the potential shift toward an alternative that might facilitate broader involvement.

I'm not.

What I do is not something you can do on a week-long visit to the Old World, no matter how many language-courses-on-tape you've listened through. The cultural immersion required for relational and incarnational ministry is a long-term investment. I believe in the short-term involvement of volunteers, and I expect divine appointments through which God can affect tremendous change, but I believe that hit-and-run evangelism will not communicate the gospel to Western European peoples better than sharing life with people over time. We need both long and short-term people on the mission field in order to be effective in contextually-appropriate ministry. I'm not special, but I'm here.

With that said, people (especially those who support me) need to realize that I'm not doing what I do so that they don't have to. Sending money to me (through my organization, of course) is not what you get to do instead of being a missionary yourself. The Commission is not one you can or should hire out, and I'm not your stand-in. In fact, if you give to missions for any reason other than obedience to God, please stop. We don't need your money.

A missions organization asking about the "trend" toward volunteers is like a travel agency asking about the "trend" of customers using the internet to make travel arrangements. The democratization of missions activities means that the professionals no longer have a corner on the market. We need to take extra measures to spell out the benefit (relevance?) of career missions. If people don't see the point, or see better way (say, missional expatiratism, or incarnational immigration?), of course they're going to pursue it.

Heck, if we've got professional missionaries wondering about the validity of professional missions, maybe we're not doing a very good job of rationalizing our system.

What's It To You?

2007-07-07T16:40:00.001Z

The Gospel. The "Message." The "Good News." Whatever you want to call it, it is considered the basic information of evangelism. Most people agree that whatever it is, it's surely a good thing to share with people, and many believe that it's even better to take to those people who have not heard it before. Christians talk about it and practice passing it on. Most would say that it is the core of the Christian faith. The problem, in my opinion, is that few of us really agree on what the gospel is and why it's so important.

To me, the gospel is God's story. It is the summary of who God is and how He normally interacts with people. It is the knowledge that evokes our response to salvation. But to me, the gospel is much more than information. It is a person. Life in Him is beautiful and terrible at once. It has a power and a profundity that goes beyond just the notion. I believe it must be experienced to be believed.

This means that despite what our training, evangelistic materials, and denominational leaders say, the gospel is not always "Good News." Sure, in the grand scheme of things, the fact that God made a way to relationship with Him through Jesus is good news indeed. But for many people, the gospel isn't "Good News" at all. For them, it is bad news; that they might not have everything figured out, that all that they've struggled to accumulate and achieve is worthless.

The gospel is not, in my opinion, the "minimum" that must be believed in order for someone to be saved. It is not a set of principles, concepts, laws, or "truths." The gospel does not save, it is only a description of the possibility of salvation. It is not something that we can ever finish sharing; there is no end to mark the completeness of it's presentation.

So the questions remain: "What is the gospel?" and "Are we talking about the same thing? In an age where we've reduced our faith to an objective soundbite summary of supposedly life-changing information, what are we talking about?

What's the gospel to you?

"Christianized Medicine"

2007-06-24T16:26:00.000Z

Controversial documentary filmmaker is publicizing "Sicko," his new movie about health care in the United States. During his appearance on the daytime talk show "The View," Moore commented that because Jesus taught us to take care of the widows, orphans, and needy among us, perhaps we should start referring to universal health care ("socialized medicine") as "Christianized medicine."

It seems like a lot of believers I know are against public health care. I think that it's a shame that people living in the United States (working people, at that!) can't afford to go to the doctor when they're sick. I find it odd that believers who don't have a problem lobbying for the government to ban the things they're against (homosexual marriage, abortion) would be opposed to government doing something that Christians should be in favor of (paying for the care of sick people).

Don't Forget the "Why"

2007-06-18T15:18:00.000Z

I've always been taught to do what Jesus would do. So much so, that the question of "what" Jesus would do completely eclipsed the concept of "why." Jesus was selfless and always put other people's needs before His own. He spent time in public with people who were known as sinners and drunks. Jesus kept the law, turned the other cheek, and kicked the capitalists out of the temple. Why did He do these things?

"What?" is the question of the obedient. "What do you want me to do?" "What is right?" "What does the Bible say?" It is vital that we know the "what," but for the past couple of years, it's the "why" that's haunted me.

"Why?" is the rebel's question. It implies conditional obedience pending personal approval. That's why frustrated parents answer "why?" with "Because I said so!" Leaders answer it with "Because I'm the boss." People who are interested in maintaining the status quo consider "why?" to be disrespectful and insubordinate.

"Why?" threatens the authority of a leader (especially if he doesn't know the answer!) Addressing it can be difficult, time-consuming, and can reveal shortcomings and inconsistencies. Nevertheless, "why?" is a question we should be asking, because the power is in the "why."

Asking why is how we come to know God in a personal way. We don't really know Him until we begin to understand why He does what He does.

Once we start asking "why," we shouldn't ever stop. Too often, we settle on a reason or explanation and never revisit the question. We accept a logical and well-presented argument and move on. This is why people in the pew believe that we should do missions will bring Jesus back and why people on the field buy into the lie that anyone's eternity depends on missionaries. Questioning "why" protects us from legalism, complacency, and meaningless tradition.

Why not ask "why?"

It's Really Quite Difficult

2007-06-04T15:14:00.000Z

Sometimes when I talk to people about missional/relational ministry and church planting (you know, as opposed to program-oriented, attractional, subculture growth), and what my work here in Western Europe looks like, they are left with the question:

"So you get paid to hang out with people and drink coffee?"

"Yes," I reply. "Actually, I do."

But you've got to know that spending time with nationals is really quite difficult. First there's the fact that the language they are speaking is not the language you grew up speaking, but instead something you decided to try to learn well into adulthood. Understanding requires effort. For me that usually means physical fatigue, which isn't so conducive to cross-cultural communication in a smoke-filled bar at two o'clock in the morning.

And then there's the awkward question of what to talk about. Movies? Sports? The weather? It's hard to find commonalities across cultures. You could go the easy route and bring up politics, but that doesn't always end well, as you might imagine. I usually end up going through my well-rehearsed routine of lame jokes and feigned interest in European Football.

So then I'm left with questions. For some reason, the inevitable lull in a conversation always freaks me out so that I turn into Larry King with the badly planned Q&A. I panic, and my mind can't think of any questions that require more than a yes or no answer. I repeat the same question but reworded to prove that I didn't understand the answer the first three times. My life is one of those awkward scenes from any of Ben Stiller's movies.

But I've been through training. I should know better. My default should be to take an active listening posture and to delicately repeat the last three words of any of my friend's comments and nod knowingly but so as to avoid the appearance of agreement. I want to show that I'm interested while remaining ambiguous about what he's actually saying so as not to agree with something I disagree with. My face is trained to show utter fascination with whatever my friend is saying. I'd never want to let on that a boring person is, might be, you know, boring.

So sure, maybe I have the dream job- "throwing parties and telling stories." But it's really quite difficult, as you can see. Now, If I could only figure out what to do on vacation...

Missing the Trees for the Forest

2007-05-28T08:30:00.000Z

Many of our partners come to Western Europe to work alongside us and are overwhelmed by the sin that they see practiced and even glorified in these cultures. Entire segments of the population find their identity in the sin that characterizes their lives. For many of our co-workers, it can be overwhelming to see such blatant disregard for all things that pertain to holiness. Recently, one volunteer commented, "Back home, people at least have the decency to try to hide what they're doing!"

Many well-intentioned church planters and evangelists become so distracted by the sin around them, that they lose sight of the people. Their message changes from "Good news! There is hope in Jesus!" to the familiar "Bad news! You're going to hell, sinner!" Of course, they're right. Sin separates us from the Creator. Repentance is the vital response to salvation. I can see how it could be tempting to focus on preaching against sin.

But lost people don't need to stop sinning. They need Jesus. In fact, without Jesus, lost people are incapable of curbing their appetites for sin. They are slaves to it. At best, they could learn to exchange the unacceptable sin in their lives for the hidden, "hey, nobody's perfect" kind that is more acceptable in Christian circles. Sin is in our nature. It is the jail cell we're all born into. The only escape is new life in Christ.

Besides, even if unbelievers could (they can't) modify their behavior to match (outwardly, at least) a lifestyle becoming of a Christian, it wouldn't matter. Not sinning doesn't get us any closer to salvation. Why then, would we ever focus on people's sin? Why would we exchange the message of redemption for one of condemnation? Why would we act as though it was our job to convict people of sin?

The Missionary Kid

2007-05-25T15:01:00.000Z

You've heard stories about missionaries suffering through difficult living conditions. You know that nearly all of them struggle through the processes of language learning and culture shock. Some have been ridiculed for their nationality, others have are persecuted for what they believe. Few would complain about these trials; after all, they signed up for this job, right?

You know who didn't sign up for the job? The children of missionaries. Missionary kids go through everything their parents do (and usually more), but they don't always have the choice of opting out of "suffering for Jesus." Their parents may do it all the time, but nobody takes MKs seriously when they play the "It's God's will" card.

Many missionary kids go to sub-standard schools where they are teased and humiliated in languages that they don't understand. They have a hard time relating to their peers and many end up being socially inept as the result. They are emotionally traumatized by ongoing identity crises and constantly feeling like they don't belong. More than we'd like to admit end up resenting their parents and the God who called them to the field.

Is it okay that a missionary's children suffer for the sake of his calling? I don't know.

I believe that if God calls a person to missions, He will also, in some fashion, call their spouse and children. I'm not sure how it all works, but I figure that God knew when He called me what sort of family I would one day have.

MKs are amazing. They are almost always mature for their age, and wiser than they should be. Most know the reality of the unseen spiritual activity all around them, and are therefore more spiritually aware than "normal" folks would be. They, being constant outsiders, develop compassion for outsiders and a servant's attitude for those in need. MKs usually grow up to be great missionaries. I think we should talk about them more than we do.

An Oxford and a Pair of Dockers

2007-05-19T20:27:00.000Z

Since the demise of the short-sleeve pastel "missionary shirt" (you know- the one with two pockets on the breast and two at the waist), the button-down Oxford shirt with casual chinos has been the uniform of missionaries around the world. Some people like to spice it up a bit with an embroidered logo. Others dress it up with a shiny belt and pinstriped shirt. More than a few dress it down with hiking boots (or white sneakers) and a baseball cap. The outfit would seem to be the perfect attire for any situation that a missionary might find himself in.

Should missionaries dress like the people to whom they are ministering?

As foreigners, we will always be different from the people around us. But if some of those differences can be minimized by changing our shirts, shouldn't we do it? When the bright, colorful sneakers with the white tube socks come walking up, most European nationals check out. What if dressing the part makes our message and transformed lives seem a little less foreign? I'm not talking about allowing missionaries to dress provocatively or immodestly (both concepts extremely relative, by the way) in the name of contextualization. By writing this post, I'm not refusing to submit to the authority of IMB leadership. I have nothing against my Dockers-wearing colleagues. I'm not a liberal.

I'm just asking.

In some cases, it seems clear that adopting the traditional style of dress is a necessary part of incarnation and cultural integration. Wearing robes, dashikis, muʻumuʻus, burqas, and whatever they call those barber-smocks that Pakistanis wear, all seem like the price of admission into the culture for missionaries. But those are all cases where the people wear more clothing than we typically do in the States. What about those cases where it is the custom of the nationals to wear a loincloth or less?

What if dressing like the nationals means wearing Hugo Boss, Prada, or Dolce & Gabanna? In Western Europe, fitting in can be expensive. What if dressing appropriately for the cultural context means having to upgrade from Old Navy to Burberry?

Virtual Missions

2007-05-14T07:57:00.000Z

Not so long ago, internet chat rooms were mostly populated by perverts and turbonerds. The current generation of young adults, however, has moved into the neighborhood and changed the rules. They've never known life without computers. For them, meeting people online is a normal part of life. They have real and meaningful relationships with people that they only know virtually.

Why not plant online churches as part of our global missions efforts? I'm not talking about evangelistic websites, comment-thread debaters, or hordes of E-vangelists copying and pasting Bible verses into site guestbooks. I mean commissioning real missionaries to engage unbelieving people in every corner of the earth through the internet. I believe that real churches could be planted through virtual efforts that mirror our real work on the field. Contextually appropriate gospel presentations. Relational discipleship that is both practical and biblical. Indigenous worship among communities of committed believers.

All it would take is a little training of committed cybernauts and some time. "Virtual Partners" could start to see their MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr pages as platforms to engaging online social circles. Blogs and message boards are great forums for the exchange of ideas and sowing of the gospel. Affinity-based websites are visited by people from all around the world. Social networking sites make it easier than ever for people to connect.

Some might assert that the anonymity of the internet makes true intimacy impossible. That may have been true in an analog age, but these days, people welcome the anonymity as security to share their most personal thoughts. Others might be concerned that comment threads on public blogs and boards are a poor place to have meaningful conversation because there's so much room for misunderstanding. This isn't so much a problem for lifelong internauts. They are adept at concise, meaningful (to them and their kind) conversations in multiple ongoing and overlapping encounters.

Globalization has made English (well, a form of English) the common language of the world wide web. That makes initial contact with different people pretty easy. Why not have partners start their ministries by finding a national to teach them the language of the focus people group? People group research would take on new meaning if the source material was a member of the people group in question.

I'm working on a couple new job requests. I'm looking for some new people to be full members of our team who only come and visit a couple times a year. They'll go through orientation, learn language, and build relationships with people here through the internet (without quitting their day jobs). If you're interested, send me an email.

To Change or to Enrich

2007-04-27T07:16:00.000Z

In the U.S., our supporters tell us that being a missionary is the highest calling. They say that moving overseas to plant churches is of eternal significance. To them, missions is telling people about Jesus. That's what they ask about when we talk: How many people have become Christians? How many churches have you planted? They see missions as a spiritual endeavor with spiritual effects.

Here in Western Europe, if I were to tell people that I'm a missionary, they'd ask me why I'm not in Africa or India passing out food to starving children. They'd assume that I'm a bleeding heart who wants to build schools and educate people about HIV. To them, missions is about meeting physical needs out of a spiritual motivation.

Two different understandings of missions. The goal of the first is to change people; the aim of the second is to enrich them. I've decided to be the second type of missionary.

I'm not buying into the idea that we can separate out the spiritual needs from the physical ones, or that it's okay to focus on one and ignore the other. I don't think a preaching a sermon is better than giving diapers to a poor mother. I think that passing out water to thirsty people is good evangelism, even if the bottles don't have tracts attached.

Don't get me wrong. Making people's live better doesn't just mean passing out coats and blankets. It means boldly speaking truth in every conversation. It means teaching, encouraging, challenging, giving, and serving. I believe that God can use me to bless people to repentance.

As goals, "change" and "enrichment" make for very different approaches to missions.

On Pause

2007-03-28T10:40:00.000Z

I appreciate all the encouraging notes and comments I've received during my unplanned blog silence the last couple of weeks (months?). I'm sure I've lost some readers by not posting in a while; after all, who wants to keep up with a blog that is never updated? If you're still watching this space, thank you.

A couple of months ago, I experienced something that has never happened to me. I sat down in front of the computer intending to write another soul-searching, thought-provoking post (thought-provoking for me, anyway), and the strangest thing happened: nothing. I couldn't write. For some reason, everything that I wanted to write seemed boring, redundant, petty, annoying, worthless, or just silly.

My newfound writer's block may have been due, in part anyway, to several conversations I had with readers. One was asking for my advice on starting his own blog. "How should I do it if I don't want mine to be as focused on denominational politics as yours?" he asked. That got me thinking; Is my blog about denominational politics? That's certainly not what I ever intended!

Another faithful reader told me that lately my posts had been lacking the "edge" that he had originally found so attractive. "I used to love when you'd really let people have it on your blog!" he said. I've never wanted my blog to be that, ever. I'm not trying to sling accusations or publicly challenge anyone about anything. This guy obviously hadn't perused the comments sections of any of my posts; if he had, he would have seen what an inept debater I am.

The most interesting comment I've received lately about my blog was from a new reader who told me that he had stayed up all night one night reading every post I had ever written. "You kind of repeat yourself a lot." he said. "Your posts are good, but you seem to be saying the same thing over and over." I tried not to point out that his two-sentence comment was itself redundant.

The thing that bothered me about his comment was that I agree with him. What's the point of writing once a week about how uncomfortable I am as a missionary, and how much I think the people in the churches back home misunderstand me? Why fill the (virtual) pages of a blog with complaints and things that only serve to discourage those within my organization?

So until I come up with something worth writing, I won't be posting here. Thank you for reading, and for participating in the discussion.

Does Culture Count?

2007-02-02T15:58:00.000Z

A key element of our missiology is our understanding of what heavenly worship will look like. This will affect the degree to which we value the individual cultures of the nations. It seems that most of us tend toward one of two extremes. Of course, I simplify here for the sake of discussion.

Multi-cultural Church: A people group's culture is of eternal significance in that the unique attributes were built into it by God and that He is glorified by an expression of faith and worship through that cultural lens. In other words, people can and should be discipled within their own culture because God wants to be worshiped by different people in their different ways. In missions, these are the folks who go to great lengths to learn their people group's language and customs, and make efforts to blend into the culture in order to minimize the differences between them and the people. Most of the questions about what the church should look like are left to be answered by new believers.

A-cultural Church: There is a biblically-mandated "culture of the church" that runs contrary to the culture of the world. A people group's culture is therefore not something that should be respected, as most of it needs to be "taken off" upon salvation. In missions, these "a-cultural church" church planters tend to worry less about losing their American accent or living like the nationals, and rely more on the power of objective truth of the gospel as they share it with people who are different from them.

I'm sure that you find your own opinion somewhere in-between the "multi-cultural church" and "a-cultural church" positions. Nearly all of us would say that a church should be indigenous- that it should be contextually appropriate to the culture. People should not have to learn English or wear western clothing in order to hear and understand the gospel. When it comes to "the nations," most would lean toward the "multi-cultural" understanding of the universal church.

On the other hand, we understand that the church is necessarily marked by a distinct "Kingdom culture" that often conflicts with societal norms. Equality, unity, compassion, discipline- the culture and values of the church make it stand out from the world. We cannot be judgmental, controlling, greedy, bitter, or materialistic, no matter how ingrained these vices may be in our culture. Jesus sums up the "culture of the kingdom" with a lot of His, "You've heard it said... but I say..." comments. The church's culture is not natural to sinful humanity. It is counter-cultural.

So we see that we need some good balance of indigenous and Kingdom cultures in the churches we plant. Consider, however, the West. Whenever the conversation turns to church planting in a postmodern, post-Christian context, people seem to run to the "a-cultural" extreme of the argument. "You can't be postmodern and a Christian" some would say. "They cannot use words that we consider to be profane," they say. "They must dress appropriately" they think, and "if they're ashamed to call it a church, than it isn't a church." (These, by the way, are near quotes of what I've heard missionary colleagues and supporters back home say whenever I try to discuss what the indigenous church might look like in Western Europe.)

In Revelation 7, John recounts the vision God gave him of multitudes worshiping Jesus. The countless hoards of people, John writes, were "from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. " For many of us, that same vision is what drives us today, together with the desire to be part of what God has said is certain to happen. We want to see the diversity of God's children unified in worship. But not everyone sees the value and beauty of culture, especially when it comes to missions in a culture that seems near to our own.

I believe that the indigenous church in Western Europe, made up of mature, faithful believers, will look very different from the traditional churches that can be found here today. I believe that a follower of Christ in this culture will think very differently about gender roles in the church, alcohol use, experience of real supernatural activity, and celebration of worship, fellowship, and community than most of the churches that send me. I think that's okay, because to me, culture counts. It's the "language" we use to understand and relate to the world around us, and it allows us to worship God in a way that is real and meaningful to us.

The CPM Storm

2007-01-28T12:38:00.000Z

In keeping with my complete inability to leave well enough alone, I'd like to illustrate the point of my last post. Some of you will be surprised to learn that there was, in fact, a point to my last post.

"Church planting movement" is the term we've adopted to describe a phenomena in which many, many churches are sort of spontaneously planted and those churches quickly turn and plant other church-planting churches. In many ways, a CPM is like a storm (or an earthquake, or a drought, or any other "act of God"), in that it is something only God can do. We cannot cause a CPM to happen any more than we can cause a tidal wave or instigate a hurricane.

It makes no sense, then, to set as our goal something that we cannot do. Yes, I've heard about the importance of having a "God-sized" vision, but a vision and a goal are not the same thing. To continue with the illustration:

We can prepare for a storm. When the weatherman warns us and the sky turns dark, people run to the store and buy water, plastic, duct tape, and granola bars. This is how many of us "prepare" for a movement of God, CPM or otherwise. We get a hint that God is working somewhere, and we rush to get ready. We write requests for volunteers and we notify the prayer networks that we're going to need extra coverage. We put unresponsive people on the back burner and concentrate our energy where the action is. The problem, in my opinion, is that rushing to facilitate a CPM is not the kind of strategy that called people should depend on.

Why not? Because only God knows when and where He's going to make it rain, and whether it will be a slight drizzle or a torrential downpour. I think that's why he called me to Western Europe well in advance of whatever it is He's going to do. This wasn't a "priority" area for the IMB. There were places with more "strategic significance" and higher "concentrations of lostness." But He know what He was doing, and I trusted Him, even though I haven't seen the results I'd hoped for.

Which brings me to another type of readiness that we should consider. It's the long-term, not a cloud in the sky, "wait for it... wait for it..." sort of approach. It is modeled for us by Noah in Genesis 6-8. When people saw this old man building a giant boat in the middle of the desert I'm sure they called it insanity. I think we should apply it to missions, and call it "nonstrategic obedience."

God gave Noah a vision of the deadly waters that would flood the earth. That was something only God could do. Noah's goal, then, was not to create a storm, but to build the boat. His goal was a big boat full of the people and animals God told him to take inside. His strategy was to build the boat exactly according to God's detailed instructions.

Church Planting Movements are a vision, not a goal. Proclaiming the gospel, teaching people to obey, living as incarnational witnesses- these are goals. Our strategies need to get us to these goals. Focusing on Church planting movements distracts us from doing the things God has instructed us to do because we assume that we know how God wants to take us to the vision He's given us. We start to see our goals as means. We should make disciples because God told us to, not so that we can facilitate a greater movement.

Getting ahead of ourselves (and God, if it were possible) is pretty common for us. We love people in order to share the gospel with them, and we share the gospel with them in order to plant a church. We plant a church in order to start a CPM, and we do that in order to "finish the task" and glorify God (and bring Jesus back). I say, let's let go of all the "next things" that we think may happen. Let's focus our attention on who God has brought us today. Let's obey regardless of whether a CPM starts or not. It would be like building an ark whether the floodwaters came or not.

Now I'm left with the question of the vision. Are we sure that God told us that He was going to start church planting movements all around the world? How long do you suppose Noah would have worked on the ark without seeing evidence that God was getting ready to bring the storm? How long will our people (trusting the vision as it's been cast by our organization) continue to pursue a church planting movement before they should start to question that vision? If it's from God, we should never give up. If it's just a good idea, we should change course immediately.

Where Are The CPMs?

2007-01-25T16:15:00.000Z

Our regional (and organization-wide) mission and strategy is to "facilitate a Church Planting movement among people groups and/or population segments greater than 100,000 people and less than 2% evangelized. In past posts, I've taken issue with the definitions of "people groups" and "evangelized," and I've voiced my confusion over the seemingly random numbers that guide our strategic decisions.

My question today is this: where are the church planting movements?

Church planting movement (CPM) is a term the refers to those instances in which multiple church-planting churches are planted among a people group. Such an occurrence would certainly be an act of Almighty God, and would transcend any program or campaign that we could initiate. This is how it happened in certain parts of Asia fifteen years ago.

Eleven years have passed since the CPM strategy was adopted by the board. Faithful men and women have poured their lives into the people to whom they've been called. They have been trained, equipped, led, encouraged, and prayed for. They have learned language(s), adapted to culture, and made efforts to partner with other Great Commission Christians in an effort to facilitate a CPM. Despite all their efforts, the IMB's missionaries to Western Europe have not yet seen such a movement.

Where are the CPMs?

Everyone seems to have a theory as to why we haven't been effective at fulfilling this vision. "We don't pray enough," many have said, or "we've gone about it the wrong way." Some have suggested that we haven't cooperated enough, others say we've cooperated too much. I've heard our current situation blamed on poor language skill, not enough "broad seed sowing," and sin.

These theories are usually followed up with solutions. A book to read. A model to study. A formula to follow. We need to fast, pray, repent, work harder, or bring over more personnel. "If we only had 50,000 more people praying, then we'd see a CPM."

I refuse to believe that the reason we aren't seeing Church Planting Movements is that we just haven't gotten it right yet. I'm tired of seeing good, faithful people feel pressure to produce something that is totally out of their control. We have people on the field that feel like complete failures because they haven't seen God re-create what He did in Asia, and it weighs heavily on them. It's time to re-evaluate our strategy and goals.

Prayer: The More The Better?

2007-01-23T10:14:00.000Z

I had a great conversation the other day with a colleague about prayer. As missionaries, we know that prayer is vital to our work, and consider raising prayer support a major part of our work. I think that if you asked any of us on the field how many people we wanted praying for us, most of us would say, "As many as possible!"

But our conversation got me thinking about prayer in our missions endeavors. We say that prayer is important, but why is it important? We say that we need all the prayer support that we can get, but what does that mean?

I recently read an article about Church Planting Movements. In it, the author outlined the "12 reasons we aren't seeing church planting movements in Western Europe." At the top of the list was "lack of prayer." If we had more prayer, he reasoned, we might really see God move.

So how many people do we need to pray, and how often? Where do we get the idea that more praying is better? Yes, I know that the purpose of prayer is to change our mind, not God's,
but why is it better to have five thousand people praying than to have five hundred? Where do we get the idea that more is better?

Mourning Day

2007-01-02T11:59:00.000Z

Have you ever noticed that we celebrate the new year, but we never really mourn the end of the old one? Maybe it's our optimistic nature. We look forward to a new year, a fresh start, another chance. We make resolutions and goals. We anticipate the great things that are bound to happen in the coming year.

I think we'd do well to close the year with a day of mourning. Make it December 31st; that way it'll really give us something to look forward to on January 1st. It would be a day where everyone takes time to consider the passing of time. Most of us do it anyway, but we reflect alone and try to cheer ourselves up with a kiss as the ball drops and watching bowl games.

Every year is full of things that dramatically affect our lives. We meet new friends, argue with family, learn new skills, waste money. Why not take a day to remember loved ones who died, new ones who were born, and all of the books we read? (If we really want to mourn, we should think of the hours of our lives we wasted watching "Prison Break.")

For believers, a remembrance is a part of life. The day we forget where we were when we met Jesus, and where we were headed without Him, is the day we lose our understanding of the power of grace. Repentance and confession require remembering the sin in our lives. Our memory of the wrongs we've committed and the consequences of our actions are what keep us from making the same errors over and over. We do it before we take communion, why not take a day for corporate reflection?

I'm not saying we should dwell on the past, but I do think we ought to remember it. What better way than to make it a holiday? We could have parades with bands playing the year's music, and floats that depict the year's events. Everyone could dress in black, and we could give apology cards to people we wronged. We could start a tradition of only eating leftovers and deleting all of the year's email. Who knows? We might even get another day off work. Of course, we would need a catchier name than "Mourning Day." That would never work.

Between 2% and Porterhouse

2006-12-28T10:31:00.000Z

My team had an interesting discussion over the last couple of days. This isn't as remarkable as it might sound, but while most people spend Christmas talking about football and shopping, our team talks about ecclesiology. Who says we aren't committed to our jobs? (And no, there is no truth to the rumor that we deliberately discussed "work" issues in an attempt to justify paying for a turkey dinner out of our "Office Expense" accounts.)

I've posted before about my frustrations with communication and word definitions. It seems like every attempt we make at defining or describing what we believe (and why) is lost as the words we use are co-opted by others who use those same words to put a new face on traditionalisms. We've even confused ourselves as we struggle to work through the implications of what we say we're about. Our conversation this week, for example, began with this question: When one of our friends becomes a believer, can we really disciple him/her in their existing social structure?

Conventional missionaries today have begun to adopt the terms "relational," "incarnational," and "missional," but their thought on evangelism and discipleship is usually something like this: Missionaries share the gospel, nationals hear it, some reject it, others respond. Those who respond are then grouped together to form the beginnings of a "church." Another school proposes to switch the order to "group them and win them," in order to disciple people within community.

Our collective experience has taught us that although this sort of "winning/grouping" approach to church planting sounds like a good strategy, it actually does quite a bit to hinder the "indigenousness" of the foundation that we lay. Individual believers are separated from their natural social groups and placed into these artificial, "Christian" ones for the sake of support and encouragement. But that separation greatly reduces the new believer's influence in the relationships he/she had, and because the bulk of his/her spiritual transformation takes place in private (church), it has little positive impact on the community. It doesn't take long for these new Christians to be so far removed from their own culture that they need to be trained to interact with their lost friends.

So we, despite using the same words, have tried to do things a little differently. Our team's idea has always been to disciple people from wherever they are spiritually to maturity in Christ, without removing them from their existing social environment. Our discussion this week began with a current situation. A friend has recently shown some interest in Jesus. We can see him opening up to us and to the faith we're always talking about. We pray that he will soon be saved. Naturally, this friend lives a lifestyle that does not honor God. He is addicted to drugs and he regularly participates in "trance parties" (Raves put on by "Shaman" DJs who use techno music to entrance partygoers in a pagan spiritual frenzy that sometimes last days and days). Let's say he becomes a believer- can we leave him in that environment and expect him to grow in his faith and be an effecting witness to the people around him?

Again, most people would say no. They would argue that this friend needs to be removed from the dangerous situation so that he can overcome the sin that has bound him, and grow in his faith. I disagree (You expected as much).

I say that the role of the missionary (and yes, this is different from what most would say,) is to serve as spiritual "life-support" for the new believer as they struggle to work out their salvation within their own cultural context. This might mean that we meet with a national believer to disciple and encourage them, but we never "invite them to church." Instead, we pray for God to move among the new believer's circle of friends. We instruct him/her in righteousness, allowing the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin. We encourage him/her to share their faith, and pray for the day when God moves among his/her sphere of influence to plant a church there.

But nobody does it this way. For most of us, this approach is too messy, too limited, and it takes too long. What if they never feel convicted about certain sins? What if they never know another believer? What if, ten years down the road, they're still struggling with basic holiness and remedial theology. How long can a believer survive on only spiritual milk?

It seems to me that our discomfort with Christians who are struggling to make sense of their faith has led us to impose a behavioral conformity that ignores the personal tension that salvation brings. When drug addicts and homosexuals get saved, we require that they immediately stop being those things, and start acting "Christianly." From the outside, it would seem that we interpret the word "repentance" to mean that upon salvation, a person must suddenly exchange public sins for private ones. You cannot be a drug-using, foul-mouthed, homosexual Christian, but an over-eating, gossip who struggles with lust just has "a few things to work on." Is Christianity only about (openly) sinning less?

Leaving a drug addict in a circle of drug addicted friends might seem like a bad idea, but it would allow the addict to see how his newfound faith applies to his real life. It would also allow his friends to see his personal transformation first-hand and allow them to actually participate in it. The power of salvation is most evident when it contrasts with the stark reality of the situation from which we are saved. The soil in which a seed takes root is sufficient for that new plant.

Continuing the thoughts of my previous post: what we need is not more Christians trying to "reach" the "people of the world," but more "people of the world" trying to work out what it means for them to be a Christian.

One Punk, Under God, On TV

2006-12-19T18:13:00.000Z

A couple of weeks ago, I itunsed the first episode of "One Punk, Under God," a six-part documentary on the life of Jay Bakker (Jim and Tammy Faye's son). It basically tells the story of his unique childhood (growing up in a Christian theme park?) and his life now, as the pastor of Revolution, a church he started in an Atlanta bar. Whether you're a fan of Jay's or not, the series is something that's been needed for a long time. Specifically, it's a creatively-made look into the life of a real person who is struggling to make sense of his faith.

For some reason, any time an evangelical gets in front of a television camera, he/she feels the need to preach a sermon (or a political speech, but that's another post). The problem is that television evangelists have been around for a long time. Their crazy theology, bad hair, and pleas for money have inoculated the world against any bit of truth that they might present. Most end up on the Tonight Show punch line end of a scandal. All that telling and so little showing has left people with spiritually debilitating assumptions about the gospel and it's relevance to real life. Now, here comes Jay Bakker, who is honest about the messy side of his life in Christ, and millions of people (many for the first time in their lives) see someone who calls himself a Christian but doesn't presume to have all of the answers.

Again, my point here is not Bakker's show. There's been lots of talk in the blogosphere about his theology, and some are concerned that he's not a good representative of the faith. I say we need to present more "real live" Christians (good examples or not) and fewer talking heads on the "O'Reilly Factor." To me, this is the incarnation that's been lacking for some time now.

So why don't we see more documentaries like this one, or like Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" series, done by believers? It's not like we don't have the equipment- how many of our churches have crack A/V teams?

This summer, we're bringing in a team of media students to do just this sort of thing. I've got some really creative, interesting, and articulate team members who will be the subject of this short series we're going to do. I don't want them to preach, and we'll edit out any prepared remarks. We're looking for authentic Christianity as it's lived out in real life. The goods and the bads, the highs and the lows.

I think that's what's been missing from our "witness."

Does God Still Do Miracles?

2006-12-13T09:43:00.000Z

One of the things I've noticed over the years is how much more accepting missionaries are of spiritual things than are most of the people in the pews back home. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the fact that here on the field, we're forced to rely on God for everything; we depend on Him for understanding, direction, and personal identity. Few of us have big churches or strong Bible study groups for support. When God moves in the States, He's competing with all the other "Christian stuff" that the church is into. When we see Him at work on the field, we take note; God allowing us to see what He's doing is affirmation to our calling and motivation for our perseverance.

So to the Godly (yet sheltered) people at home, us missionaries might come across as a little bit "charismatic." Just a little "liberal." Anyone who has struggled to learn a second (or third, or fourth) language believes that God still moves supernaturally through languages. If you were to ask the majority of Southern Baptists in the U.S. whether God still does miracles, I bet most would say yes, but few would be able to give examples from their own lives.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I know that there are people in the States who are very much in tune with the Holy Spirit, and see supernatural things all the time. I just wanted to point out another are where I feel misunderstood.

So does God still do miracles? Real miracles? Make time stand still? Raise people from the dead? Plagues? Restore sight? Smite deceitful, disobedient people? I think He does.

Reached

2006-12-10T10:11:00.000Z

What do we mean when we talk about "reaching people?" Is it the same as telling them about Jesus? What makes a people group "reached?" Having heard the gospel? Having access to it? Having a viable church planted among them?

The IMB's current strategy is to "engage" (send missionaries to) people groups that we classify as "unreached" (less than 2% evangelical) and that also have populations of 100,000. Using the 2% rule, there are thousands of unreached people groups that number lower than the 100k minimum. Nevertheless, the IMB does not actively seek to send missionaries to work among these smaller groups. Why not?

It seems to me that these numbers were picked by IMB marketers to provide a goal for our organization that was ambitious, yet attainable.

I'm Not Asking

2006-12-07T10:26:00.000Z

Every Christmas season, the International Mission Board launches its annual fundraising campaign, "The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering." All of the money raised through the drive goes to missions. That's the money that pays our rent and covers our ministry-related expenses. If you are Southern Baptist, I would encourage you to give generously.

--------------------------------------------------

The above paragraph is true. It also happens to be the only that way I, as an IMB missionary, am allowed to ask for money. The Board has clear policies against "solicitation of funds." These rules make sense for an organization that does not require its workers to raise their own support. Were we allowed to, I'm sure at least a couple of us would make a career of raising money (for ministry, of course) . This would be a distraction from church planting, to say the least, and would result in what amounts to competition between missionaries for funding. In order to avoid such chaos, I cannot, and will not, ever ask for money.

Despite the restrictions against soliciting funds, there is quite a bit of "channeled monies," and "designated offerings" floating around the mission field. I'm not insinuating any wrongdoing here. The logical limitations on my freedom to ask for money does not preclude Stateside sponsors from offering it to me. It happens quite a lot, actually. A partner church might ask, "What are some of your ministry's financial needs?" An extended family member who hasn't spoken to me in years might try to assuage his guilt for never having shown even the slightest interest in our work here might ask, "You doing okay money-wise?"

The answer is always: "If you'd like to contribute financially, I'd encourage you to give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering."

But there's something more I need to say here. Something that you, dear reader, need to know: None of us are getting rich as missionaries.

The cost of living here in Wester Europe is high. Add to that what we spend on hosting parties and going out with nationals, and joining clubs/gyms. On top of all that, there's the trip back to the States every once in a while, and, well, you can imagine how difficult it can be to respond with the party line when someone offers money. Of course my Starbucks habit would love a little extra pocket change.

I'm not asking for money. I don't want it or need it. But I have a suggestion: give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and then consider paying for a missionary's family to fly to the field for a visit.

We don't get to see too much of our families while we're on the mission field. We usually chalk it up as one of those small sacrifices God has called us to. But many of my colleagues have never had their parents come to visit. There are MKs on the field who have never met their grandparents. It's expensive to fly half way around the world, so if you really want to minister to us, by our parents a plane ticket.

Think about how great an encouragement it would be for a missionary to have a church send their parents for Christmas. Consider how far such a gesture would go toward making our people on the field know they are appreciated. Sponsored family visits would help family members back home get an idea of what we're talking about when we share stories of our life here. They would be able to pray more specifically for our ministries. They would know what we go through. They would stop wasting their money sending packages of peanut butter (which, by the way, we can actually get here)! The parents and siblings of missionaries would be even better missionary advocates in our churches, and they'd be able to help our churches keep up with what's happening on the field.

We could even make it a big, shiny new denominational program. Operation: Missionary Family (or some other, pseudo-militaristic task-oriented brand name.)

Messed Up Missiology

2006-12-03T10:34:00.000Z

"No one has the right to hear the gospel twice, while there remains someone who has not heard it once." - Oswald J. Smith

I ran across this quote on a colleague's website. I'm not sure who Oswald J. Smith is/was, and I'm not particularly interested. His sort of guilt-inspired, task-oriented, logic-based, marketing-ploy, pop missiology is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to in my last post. It has infected our understanding of what missions is, who God is, and how He works.

Let me be clear: My concern is not necessarily with current missions strategy, it's with our missiology. What, you might ask, is the difference? It has to do with motivation; both ours- in what guides us in service, and God's- in what He's doing globally and why. Just as the practice of our faith is determined by our theology, our mission strategies are derived from our missiology. So I'm not talking here about whether we use tracts or Jesus Films or relational approaches to church planting. I'm not even talking about whether we should even be trying to plant churches. My contention is this: We have bad missiology.

For starters, we make an unnecessary distinction between "missions," and, well, everything else. Why do we apply Luke 10:2 ("the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few") to missions, but not Luke 10:27 ("love your neighbor as yourself")? Where does our understanding of missions come from?

Take the quote above, for example: "No one has the right..."? What does that mean? Is hearing the gospel a right? Is it a privilege? I guess Mr. Smith would say that the first time is a right, and the second a privilege. What biblical support do we have for either?

Is the goal of missions that people hear? What about incarnation? Discipleship? Is missions nothing more than proclaiming the gospel, giving people "a chance to hear" it? Many missionaries approach their work as though missions was about spreading information. Surely we need proclaimers, and it is a vital part of missions, but I believe it is only a part.

(Another part, one that we rarely focus on, is worship as missions. John 12:32 -"I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." I get that He's alluding to the cross, but I think that worship is underrated as a missional activity. Maybe that's another post...)

Back to the quote: is it really ours to decide who should hear and who should not? Even after years of proclamation, are we ever in a position to say whether a person (or people group) has heard the good news in a way that they can understand and respond to? I believe that the Spirit should guide all of our evangelistic efforts, and that He should be the one to lead us in when to share, and with whom (and when to keep quiet!)

I cannot accept a missiology that essentially puts us on "auto-pilot" in terms of to whom we should go. The second we assume where and in whom God is going to work, we get ahead of Him and disqualify ourselves from full participation in what He's doing. This missiology is essentially either/or; missions is either relating to those people that God leads us to, or it is targeting the next "lostest" people group according to our statistics and research. It cannot be both, because the second assumes a monopoly on the first. How else can we explain so many of our workers feeling called to work among "reached" peoples?

God is at work redeeming humankind to Himself. I believe that missions is crossing cultural barriers to be part of that. Until we seriously rethink our missiology, we will continue to build our strategies on a broken foundation.

Thoughts On The Task

2006-11-26T09:00:00.000Z

Every six months or so, I have to post my thoughts on "the missionary task." In my opinion, this is the single most important topic that no one is talking about. In another attempt to incite some discussion, I've also posted this to the Church Planting Forum.

Below is an outline of my current thoughts on "the Task." Please forgive my over-use of quotation marks.

Since my appointment and move to Western Europe, I've wrestled with the conventional understanding of what has come to be known as "the Missionary Task." I've prayed about it, read about it, googled it, and blogged about it, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the topic. I'm sure this is due to the fact that most of us (Christians, that is) already have the thing clearly sorted out in our heads.

I begin by admitting that my current perspective on the subject is likely wrong and would certainly be improved by some honest discussion with brothers and sisters who are obediently participating in the task. My question is simple: what is the nature of "the task?"

The question is important because most of us are heavily involved in ministries that have been planned around a particular understanding of our calling, goals, and purpose. "The Task" is the missiological idea that has led us to concepts such as the "10/40 Window" and "Frontier missions." It's led us to move our focus and resources from "reached" areas (despite the harvest) to "unreached" ones. It's led us to rely heavily on statistics and models for our missions strategies. I'm not sure we've got it right. Here's why:

-The Great Commission is a call to Go and make disciples. Does it necessarily have to be a "finishable" task? When I was a kid, my mom was always telling me to make my bed and pick up my room and eat my vegetables. Turns out she wanted me to do it every day. It would have been silly of me to say (as I'm sure I did), "Mom, I'm almost finished with the task you assigned me."

-Some of you will want to pull out your Greek lexicons and start chanting, "ponta ta ethne" or something like that. I see the use of the term "all nations" (Matthew 24:14, 28:19-20, Luke 24:46-47) as a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. Here's a blog post about this.

One verse that also uses the "all nations/every nation" terminology is this one that tells about the Day of Pentecost:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nationunder heaven." -Acts 2:5

I find it odd that this one doesn't usually figure into the discussion. Does it mean that there were literally Jews in all nations? Or is it saying "of the nations in which there were Jewish people..." If the former is true, the "task" was completed at Pentecost!

-To me, the concept of a "Final Frontier" assumes a static world. I blogged about this here. There are new people groups being born all the time that have their own unique languages and cultures.

-It also seems to assume that once a nation is "reached," it will always remain so. I work in Western Europe where in many ways, our work is to reintroduce the Gospel to people who are inoculated against it.

-As far as I can tell, "the Task" we're called to is nothing less (and nothing more!) than a step-by-step following of the Holy Spirit. But the IMB has scrapped that for something more practical. It's like we read the instructions Jesus gave in Matthew 28:18-20, and we say, "Okay folks, you heard Him: All nations. Let's get the job done!" I address the question "What's it gonna take?" here.

-It seems to me that we can fulfill the task (obediently going as God leads), but we're not really going to "complete" it. I'm okay with that, because I think it requires us to be more dependent on Him, instead of developing some game-plan to finish something that He never assigned. A task of world evangelization isn't enough, in my opinion.

These are, roughly, my thoughts on the subject. I've always wanted someone to discuss these things with me, and to clarify my thinking where possible. What do you think?

Relationality

2006-11-20T15:40:00.000Z

Just for fun, I’ve addressed the disagreements raised by cafeaddict on my last post (Who, by the way, is challenging my post just for the sake of argument. He/she mentions that they actually agree with my post). If only cafeaddict could find the shift button for capitalization…

stepchild, since you no longer have any dissenters on your blog, (By the way, I have noticed that, and I intend to find some traditional thinkers and poke them with a stick or something in order to incite some kind of discussion. Maybe another post about alcohol…) i am going to play the devil's advocate althougth i TOTALLY agree with you... (Here’s hoping people read this disclaimer!)

relational evangelism will never accomplish the task. The task cannot be (and was never meant to be) “accomplished,” “completed,” or otherwise, “finished.” The “task” (and I do hate that word) is a call to obedience, which entails making disciples, preaching the gospel, loving people, and worshipping with our lives.

it is too slow. If, in our rush, we get ahead of God, our work is in vein. god didn't call us to make friends, he called us to make disciples. The teacher/disciple relationship is just that- a relationship. Have you considered that Jesus spent lots and lots of time with twelve guys over the course of three years? do you honestly think that every person jesus encountered was his best friend? No, and I’m not talking about becoming best friends with everyone. That would be time consuming, tiring, and get really expensive around Christmas time. he taught people sometimes for a day, sometimes for a minute and then moved on. he sensed those who were spiritually receptive and targeted them. Yeah, I’m not sure about this one. What qualifies a person as “spiritually receptive?” For me, anyone who would want to spend time with a foreigner who’s always talking about Jesus is obviously receptive to some extent. Did Jesus really “target” the seekers (or anyone, for that matter)? he didn't waste time with the rich young ruler. he gave him a choice and when the money loving guy chose his riches, jesus chose another subject. Yeah, the RYR walked away. But what if he hadn’t? What do you suppose Jesus would have done if the guy had continued to follow Jesus around?

all you postmodern people say that everything is about relationships. you site jesus as your example, yet when i examine the evangelism techniques of jesus, they reflect the "street evangelism" approach more than your "i just don't want to take a chance and offend someone" approach. I’m not sure Jesus used any “techniques.” It does seem to me that he was relational and personal with people, though. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were Jesus’ friends. The disciples certainly had profound relationships with Jesus, even Judas. Have you ever noticed how many different answers Jesus gave to the question, “What must I do to receive eternal life?” He met people where they were, and for me to do that, I have to get to know them.

As for offending people, I’m all for it. The Gospel is, after all, offensive. I’m just not convinced that people are being offended with truth very much these days, especially in Western Europe. It seems that they’re being offended by other things, such as the attitudes of the messenger, and way that the “message” is being delivered. Prepared, pre-packaged evangelism seems powerless and trite to the people I know here, and it seems that way to me, too. When Jesus addressed people, it’s obvious to me that in that moment, during that encounter, they felt like the most important people in the world. That’s what I’m going for in relational ministry. No just to tell people that they’re loved, but to show them as well.

i get tired of hearing you guys say that it isn't right to get into relationship with someone just to share the gospel with them, as if doing that were underhanded. well, i will have you know, that the most loving thing we can do is share the gospel with people. The problem is the conditionality of a relationship that is built on expectations. Anytime there are ulterior motives, the relationship is less than authentic. “I’m your friend and I want you to know the Lord” is different from “I’m your friend because I want you to know the Lord.” Unfortunately, the world knows Christians as “I won’t be your friend unless you come to know the Lord.” so the more people i meet with the objective of sharing the gospel, the more loving i am. how can it be a bad thing that i want as many people as possible to be in heaven with me? Wanting people to go to heaven is a good thing, but it’s hardly the goal of evangelism. The goal is reconciliation with the Creator. My problem with the idea of just “getting the word out” is that the Gospel is more than just information. If you’re just wanting to preach the truth, nevermind the context or people, you might just as well broadcast it live over the radio and go home. Add to that the idea that here in Western Europe, we’re not just introducing Christianity, we’re reintroducing it to an emerging culture.

we have so little time and our task is so enormous. The “task” is not overwhelming for God, is it? Will He return before His perfect timing? Woe to the people who’s eternity depends on you and me! we need to be telling people about jesus not going to the movies with them. Going to the movies with people is a great way to tell them about Jesus. A discussion afterward can provide excellent opportunities to share the Gospel explicitly, and to comment on the movie from Christ’s perspective. relational evangelism in my opinion is a cop out. As “drive by” evangelism is in my opinion. It’s much easier to “preach” a message and move on than it is to invest in relationships. we don't want to do the hard stuff so we justify our disobedience with the fluffy relational excuse. The hard stuff? Passing out tracts is easy compared to long conversations in smoky bars at three in the morning. Going to parties, getting involved in people’s lives, trying to be a viable example of what life in Christ might look like for the people around us, that’s difficult.

what say you stepchild? That say I. Thanks, cafeaddict, for being the lone voice of dissent on this otherwise boring and unnecessary blog.

Relationalism

2006-11-17T10:59:00.000Z

I hate buzzwords. One that is widely used in ministry is "relational." What does that mean? I've heard people that do surveys and questionnaires describe their ministries as "relational." Does a brief encounter on the street count as a relationship? Why does everyone feel the need to talk about relationships, even if they don't (or can't) build and maintain any?

Our team has a relational approach to ministry. We really think that God can use authentic relationships to build the kingdom here in Western Europe. We focus on our relationships with God, one another, and with nationals. Through these friendships, we can show the good news that we consistently share with the people that God brings to us. For us, relationships are the context for discipleship.

Our relational approach isn't some attempt at relevance, or us trying to makes Jesus cool. For us, real relationships are what's been lacking in our own spiritual journeys. We're tired of shallow ("How are you? Fine, thanks. You?") interactions that gloss over our struggles and only end up making us feel more isolated. We're relational because it's what we need. We know the power of the Gospel through our relationships with God. We know the Truth of scripture through our relationship to it. We know love through truly loving relationships.

Of course, some object to the idea of "relational ministry." It's too limiting, some say. Others contest that efforts toward building relationships with non-seekers would be better spent on those people who are "closer" to salvation. The problem with only building relationships with people who we see moving closer to faith is that the relationship is then conditional and motivated by results. It's like the car salesman who's your best friend until he realizes you aren't really going to buy a car today.

Another reason people are skeptical about relational church planting is that we don't have any great models of the transition from "friendships" to "churches." So you've got a group (or a couple of groups) of friends. How do you lead those people to faith, and how can they then learn to be a body of believers?

I'll let you know how it works out for us.

By the way, our team's favorite passage of scripture that talks about relationships is Romans, chapter 12. On the subject of love, Paul writes: "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." v.15

Get Out Of The Way

2006-11-05T14:25:00.000Z

I've posted about this before, but I've been hearing and reading a lot about "contextualization"of the gospel. If you've every read my blog before, you likely know that I believe that we the church should do all that we can to minimize the cultural differences that hinder the communication of love and truth to the people around us. If that's what you mean by "contextualization," then call me a "contextualizer." The more foreign we are, the more foreign our message will seem. Context is important.

The other day I spoke with a friend who was concerned after reading my post "The Uncanny Valley." This friend thought that I might be too caught up in trying to make Christianity "hip" or "cool." I clarified my opinion for him, and we agreed that "contextualization" in the sense of trying to make Jesus seem "cool" is really a bad idea. The reason it's bad is simple: we're not cool. Especially this friend I was talking to.

There is a difference, then, between cultural translation of the message, and assuming the cultural appropriateness of a model or practice of the faith.

That's the problem with models of church or ministry or evangelism; they're only good during the life of the cultural context for which they were designed (and usually, not even that long.) The rate of change is so great these days; subcultures and population segments are moving "targets" (forgive me for using the word). I believe we should model (insofar as we're able) what life in Christ might look like in our cultural setting, but we've got to remember that the best people to decide what church might look like in any given culture are the people of that culture.

I have been targeted by many Christians. Churches tailor their programs to meet my needs without bothering to ask what they are. Bible study resources are written for my demographic in order to help my walk. Evangelism experts call me ineffective, and blame it on my laziness for not going, my fear for not being bold enough, or my ignorance for not figuring out the "5 Simple Steps to Effective Soul-Winning." I identify with the people most of you call "targets" and "contacts."

If you're comfortable with your current expression of your faith, good for you. I'm not; but please don't think I'm asking you for help with that. Stop trying to make church relevant to me. Teach me what the Bible says about church, and get out of my way. My friends and family will wrestle with the cultural implications. Teach me what you understand to be God's directive concerning leadership, worship, gifts, and service; leave it to us and the Spirit to work out the practice. Train me in truth, but don't expect me to look, act, dress, talk, or think like you.

Thank you.

Taking Advantage

2006-10-29T20:08:00.000Z

Backyard Bible Clubs. Youth Camp. Sports ministries. If you do any of these as evangelistic outreach, I've got a question for you: are you taking advantage of children?

Yeah, I know- you came to faith through VBS when you were six years old. If it "worked" for you, it can't be that bad, right?

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that a group of Muslims come to visit your town. They're prepared with snacks and games and crappy little crafts with Popsicle sticks. They blanket your neighborhood with fliers announcing: Games! Clowns! Snacks! Crafts! Fun!

Or say you don't see the fliers, but you're at the park with your kids. There you are, minding your own business, eating your Chick-fil-a picnic lunch, and said group of Muslims approach your kids with balloons and puppets and invite them to participate in their Backyard Koran Club. You look around and see veiled women hanging around the playground. Young peachfuzz-bearded men picking teams for a game of non-competitive Red-Rover. How would you feel?

My European friends have convinced me: children's "ministries" are a dangerous thing.
The problem is that we put children in a position to be overwhelmingly influenced by us. We orchestrate situations full of "positive" peer pressure. We give gifts and Kool-Aid and ask them to give their hearts to Jesus. Is this fair? What are the long-term affects of child evangelism?

You might disagree, and quote Mark 10 (Where Jesus said, "Let the little children come unto me.") I'm just not sure that meant "Dupe the little kids into saying the Sinner's prayer."

Remember youth camp? We take impressionable 13-17 yr. olds out of their familiar surroundings, and keep them in a controlled, "Christian" environment, where they are taught by super-cool counselors. They get no sleep, they eat trash, and every evening we coax an emotional response out of them through hours upon hours of pep-rallies ("We love Jesus, yes we do, we love Jesus, how 'bout you?!"), guilt-trip sermons ("Come, nail all your sins to this cross."), and endless "Just As I Am" invitations. Is this fair? These are children! We don't want cigarette and beer companies to advertise to them, but it's okay if we do?

You might say, "Yeah, but we're right! Don't you want to see children come to faith?" Of course I do. But I want everyone who comes to faith to do so without coercion. I want a generation of born-again believers, not "I-said-the-prayer" cultural Christians. I want parents to know that we care about them and their children, whether or not they become Christians. I want parents to know what we're teaching their children, and how, and why.

I believe the word should be taught to children. We should be telling Bible stories, sharing difficult truths, and praying with and for our children. But I think child evangelism, and it's commonly practiced, is wrong.

I guess I probably won't be invited to speak at any youth camps when I'm home on furlough next year...

The Uncanny Valley

2006-10-26T09:05:00.000Z

I live in the Uncanny Valley. No, this isn't the name of a pseudo-luxury, prefabricated housing tract; it's a techno-sociological theory proposed by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970. The theory basically states that a robot that looks and behaves more realistically humanlike will evoke a more positive and empathetic emotional response from the human beings that interact with it. The "valley," then, refers to a strange thing that happens when a robot is very nearly human, but not quite; at that point, the differences between robot and human behavior become magnified and obvious to the point of being repulsive. "Rosey" from the Jetsons was cute. Haley Joel Osment in Steven Spielberg's 2001 film Artificial Intelligence:A.I. was just freaky.

Obviously, this theory normally applies to robots. Recent uses of computer-generated imagery (CGI) in television and film, however, has brought a whole new application to the Uncanny Valley theory. Back in the seventies and eighties, the "special effects" in the original Star Wars films drew audiences in to George Lucas' fantasy worlds. The fake "polar bear" on last week's episode of Lost just seemed cheesy. The funny thing is that Chewbacca was obviously a guy in a furry suit, while the bear was much more realistic.

You might have guessed that the Uncanny Valley theory applies to missions, too. When we first arrive to our places of service, few of us are going to be mistaken for locals. Our clothes, our language, even our posture, give us away and can be real barriers to positive interaction with nationals. It doesn't take long, however, for the halfway intelligent missionary to realize that he or she can do a lot to minimize some of those differences. A change of clothes, an adjustment in habits, and a closed mouth will get one much further along in terms of being accepted by people. These efforts are usually noticed and applauded by the host culture. "Look, the silly little foreigner is trying to learn our language!" "Let's invite the Americans over for dinner and watch them squirm when we serve them snails!"

But there comes a time when we become almost national. We reach a level of language and behavior that closely resembles the local culture, but we never fully arrive. In some ways, this is actually worse for our acceptance in society. When we approach a bank teller or shop keeper they expect us to be able to communicate and understand as a native would. At that point, when we stumble over a word or reach the limits of our vocabulary, our foreignness really stands out. Little things like lazy vowel sounds and eating with one hand in your lap suddenly become jarring to nationals. We might as well be wearing a baseball cap and white tennis shoes.

For this post, I borrowed heavily from Wikipidea, which has an excellent entry on the topic. The post there says of expatriates,

"...the transition from Western European culture to the culture of the United States might put a European in the middle of the uncanny valley, whereas if he or she had experienced an Asian culture, he or she would be instead at a point in the first curve, before the uncanny valley."

This is the sort of thing they don't teach in missionary training. We come to the field thinking that our hard work toward contextualization will pay off, and that we'll become at the very least acceptable outsiders. Nobody ever told me, "Just wait until you're nearly fluent- that's when nationals will really start to make fun of your accent."

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to minimize the differences between us and the people we minister to. I believe that our approach must be relevant and culturally appropriate. I just wish someone had told me about the Uncanny Valley- how frustrating it is to live there, and how hard it is to move out. I'm going to assume it's because no one wanted to burden me with that potential discouragement, and not because so few of my colleagues ever integrate into to their host cultures...

Painting Ourselves Out of a Corner

2006-10-17T12:01:00.000Z

I've mentioned before that our approach to ministry is essentially relational. The firmly established social structure where we live, however, has made it difficult for us to meet people and make friends. We tried walking up to strangers, consistently hanging out in the same cafes, and joining a local gym. None of these have opened any relational doors for us.

We've known for a long time now that people don't like to feel like targets. We're not to comfortable with targeting people anyway. So here's a counter intuitive lesson we've learned: if you want to meet people, stop trying to meet people.

Just like the hard-to-love loners in high school that were nice enough, but so annoying no one could stand them for very long, we were trying too hard. Our focus on wanting to befriend the people around us was freaking them out. It wasn't until we stopped trying that God brought us some significant relationships.

Of course, it isn't enough to stop trying; we had to focus our efforts and energies somewhere else. We were a team of fairly creative and semi-artistic people anyway, so we poured ourselves into our art. Painting, writing, and photography are usually pretty solitary endeavors; but they don't have to be. We started visiting galleries and studios, just as we had done before, but now as mostly-serious artists, not as outsiders trolling for "contacts." We started taking art classes to improve our technique, not to try to find a captive audience to evangelize. We joined clubs and creative groups, we made arrangements to show our art and publish our work.

Guess what happened? We started meeting people. We're making friends.

We're moving beyond, "This is my friend from the fish stand at the market" to something more real. We're beginning to move in circles with people with whom we have a lot in common, and our work is opening doors for spiritual conversations and open presentation of Good News. We're being invited in to creative groups whose existence until now we only suspected. Art both shapes and reflects the culture. It's exciting to come into contact with the people involved, and for them to welcome our participation.

Who would have guessed that the best way to meet people would be to stop trying to meet people?

Is There Room for Me?

2006-10-02T08:02:00.000Z

These days, everyone is talking about the SBC's recent steps (and ongoing trend?) toward narrowing parameters of cooperation. Denominational leaders are redefining what it means to be a Southern Baptist in order to "defend the faith" from liberalism. They seem to think that without them, we'd all be heretics.

Some bloggers are asking whether we've gone too far in restricting the parameters of who is "in" and who is "out." Others are insisting that we haven't gone far enough. Through all of the discussion, the boundaries are drawn and redrawn, and I get the feeling that I'm no longer welcome. I can't help but wonder, "Is there still room for me?"

For many, it all comes down to the question of inerrancy of the scriptures. I affirm that the Bible is without error, but I also believe that many of our interpretations are in error (or at least incomplete.) Others show their allegiance to the SBC by stating their support for the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (which I signed), or by emphasizing their thankfulness for the "Conservative Resurgence." While I agree with the doctrinal position of the "Conservative" players in the Resurgence, I believe that their "hostile takeover" tactics were unChristlike, and essentially negated the good thing they intended. I believe that we as a convention are suffering the consequences of the worldly and divisive approach both sides used in their battle for the "doctrinal purity" of the SBC. It's true that most of us today affirm that the scriptures are without error, but many (most?) of us no longer trust our leadership. We are known for what we oppose. We are marked by division, gossip, and a need to be right. We act as though it is more important to demolish the people we disagree with instead of working to restore them.

My political views don't follow the party line. I believe in the sanctity of all life (not just legally innocent life), so I'm against abortion and capital punishment. I do not believe that a preemptive war can ever be considered just. I believe that with our great material blessings come an obligation to help the people among us who are less fortunate (even if it's their own fault). While many church leaders are excited about the political influence they think they might have, I think we need to be careful to retain a separation of religion and State; joining the two is only fun when you're the favored religion.

I'm a fan of simple, organic churches. I don't think we need professional clergy, buildings, or Sunday School programs. I don't think "what works" is always good, nor do I think bigger is necessarily better. I believe in the autonomy of the local church, even if it means that I might have to associate with a body of believers that do things differently than I'm comfortable with.

I'm frustrated with the way money is handled in the SBC. Giving to the Cooperative Program is not, in fact, the same as giving to missions. I think that we're going to have to make some major changes, because churches are not going to continue to pay for fancy denominational buildings or to support missionaries they don't know.

I don't think that theological training is the answer to all of our theological problems. I don't care about denominational politics, or who knows who in the Convention. I disagree with the recent resolution against drinking. I think that the State Baptist "news"papers are a waste of time and money.

These are the differences that I continually run into between me and many outspoken Southern Baptists. You'll notice that very few of the things I've outlined here are doctrinal. Nevertheless, these are things that we debate and discuss.

I'm not sure who gets to define the boundaries for "in" and "out." I suppose it's the men in positions of convention leadership and influence. I don't think I've even met one of them in person, yet I get the feeling that they're trying to get rid of me. Because of the differences I've listed here, they don't want the money that they administer going to support someone like me.

My question is this: Is there room for me?

Arts and Sciences

2006-09-20T18:20:00.000Z

We read church planting books, we go to seminars, and we study models, strategies, and formulas. We are driven by statistics of measurable lostness, reached-ness, and saturation. We calculate number of personnel, availability of resources, and total cost involved.

When it comes to missions, as with the rest of Christianity, we've tried to make a science of what is essentially (and necessarily), an art.

According to the unquestionably reliable Wikipedia,

Art: "...is the product or process of the effective application of a body of knowledge, most often using a set of skills..."

Science: "...is an attempt to explain the complexities of nature in a common, known and replicateable way."

While I'm not entirely certain that "replicateble" is even a word, I am convinced that the scientification (also not a word) of missions is the main factor that keeps us from knowing and participating fully in what God is doing around the world.

Most of the great artists in the world started as apprentices to great artists, not to great art teachers. Art lessons begin with philosophy; the master instills in his student a vision of why he creates, and then goes on to share how he creates. But a student will never be considered himself an artist so long as he is content to only copy the master's work. No, he's got to take what he's learned and use it to express his own creativity, applying the master's wisdom while creating a work that is uniquely his.

Discipleship cannot be taught in a classroom. Reading a good book by a proven and experienced church planter is not enough. We need mentors. We need current practicing disciple-makers to be teaching and leading others as they make disciples.

If I could have a conversation with someone of the IMB's Board of Trustees, this (among other things) is what I'd say. We need to radically rethink our approach to training and equipping disciple-makers. The bar has been set way too low. It isn't enough to have a seminary degree or to have signed the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. We need to be mentored. We need leaders who are currently in the thick of cross-cultural ministry to guide us in wisdom and that long-lost art of missions.

Until we have such a network of relationships, we will not be able to guarantee the theological integrity of our work. We will continue to be criticized by seminary professors and denominational politicians. We will remain on the sidelines of what God is doing around the world because we are debating the science of Christianity and mission while the artists are being used to build the Kingdom.

Encore

2006-09-15T12:51:00.000Z

In my last post, Welcome to the Big Show, I tried to stress the importance of making ministry as personal as possible by keeping events small and culturally appropriate. Still, there is something I'd like to add:

I'm not against big events because they don't "work." Many people have come to faith in Christ through crusades and circus-tent revivals. Pizza parties and sports camps and choir performances have all been used in evangelistic endeavors. But I wonder how often we think about what affect the medium might have on the message.

I've posted about this before, but is there a difference between sharing one's faith through a gospel music concert and sharing it over dinner in someone's home? Might the message be inadvertently changed by the means of presentation? Maybe it depends on the cultural context. If the message is preached with a bad accent, or with an aggressive tone, or using some cheap gimmick, is it the same message?

I believe that God is sovereign. He also gives us the responsibility of instructing others in the Truth. What if a generation of believers came to faith through Peer-pressure summer camps, "Judgement House" Halloween parties, and "Thanks you, I see that hand" invitations? Would we have any reason to be concerned about their understanding of the gospel?

Welcome To The Big Show

2006-09-12T15:09:00.000Z

A key element to many (most?) church planting strategies is what I call "The Draw." The Draw is an attempt to attract and engage people, usually in the form of some sort of event. A concert, a game, some kind of activity for the kids... anything to gather people so that interaction can occur. I've heard of church planters talk about organizing sports tournaments, throwing pizza parties, and bringing in a group of mimes to perform in the town square.

Events can be pretty expensive, and usually require a lot of hard work to put together. Add to that the governmental bureaucracy found in most Western European countries, and putting together an event can take over your life.

Unfortunatley, we waste a lot of time, money, and energy on events that seem like a good idea. They might even attract masses of people. But what then? Preach the Gospel over the sound system and call it good? Hold an Altar Call? Most of the time, big events fail to get us any closer to a personal interaction with lost people that door-to-door cold calls. Five hundred people come to your Sandi Patty concert. Maybe you get their names and contact info. What next, "Spamming for Jesus?"

And now, dear reader, you are likely anticipating a diatribe of disparaging remarks about events and those who organize them. You know: "What's wrong with you people, don't you know that mimes are scary?" or "Bringing in a group of High Schoolers to perform a series of offensively trite "Christian"skits in the mall is lame."

But not this time, reader. I've learned that there are better ways to challenge the tactics of my coworkers than spouting off, "What on God's green earth made you think it was a good idea to pass out 'Jesus Hearts You' yo-yos on the Metro or bring in Kirk Cameron to autograph copies of Left Behind DVDs?"

No, this time, I'm going to be affirming. Today I offer encouragement.

Events aren't always a good idea, but they aren't always bad, either. I understand that you're desperate to meet people with whom you can share the gospel. I understand how hard it is to break into the existing social structure, especially when you're a professional missionary with poor social skills. Believe me, I know.

Why not try to keep events small and personal? Instead of renting out a concert hall, try your living room (or better yet, someone else's?) Instead of shelling out the big bucks to bring in Mercy Me, why not invite a local musician? Events can be great tools for building relationships that extend into local social structures. Throw a party, and invite a friend to invite his friends. There's power in the interaction of a lost person with a believer. It's easier to love people from close-up.

How about doing everything you can to avoid the "bait and switch?" Don't put together a movie night that is actually a presentation of the Jesus film. If any of the people you invite have actually seen a real movie, they're either going to question your taste in movies, or feel totally deceived. Don't call it "open discussion," "free to all," or "Family Fun Night," if it isn't any of those things.

We're learning the importance of getting involved in activities that are already going on in the community. If you go to a movie with national friends, you could have a great opportunity to pick out Truth from the film and talk about it over coffee afterward. Through this we're finding that our host culture is full of Truth and wisdom and indirect references to the Creator. Tapping into that really goes a long way toward presenting the Gospel not just as "We have a message for you and your people," but as "Hey, look, we're part of a Divine Conspiracy, in which God is using all of creation to call you to Himself."

The Draw is good, just be sure we're doing it on the right level. I say, keep up the events. Let's just be sure that we keep things as real, honest, and personal as possible.

You Are What You Read

2006-09-06T08:57:00.000Z

A couple of weeks ago, David Rogers tagged me with a game that asked me to list some books I've read recently. It sort of made the rounds through the blogosphere (again), and many of my fellow bloggers had played along. There are categories, such as "One book that changed your life" or " One book you'd want on a desert island." I posted my answers on the Stepchild blog, but that's not the point. The point is that it took me a very long time to decide what books to list, and not for lack or plenty of recently read books.

At first, I filled out the questionnaire without putting too much thought into it. Nobody really reads that blog anyway. It was while I was proof reading that I hesitated. Every book I had listed was "Christian." Every one. I stopped to think for a second. Was "Searching For God Knows What" my favorite book ever? Would I really want to read "A New Kind of Christian" over and over if I was stranded on a desert island? Had any "Christian" book made me laugh (on purpose), ever?

My mind flipped through the pages of some of the great literature I've had the privilege of reading (and -in the case of university- skimming): Dickens, Hawthorne, Steinbeck. These guys wrote books. Most "Christian" books are glorified how-to manuals or sermons I'd never sit through. They don't really move you, and if they do, it's likely because you've been lulled into a "Christian" coma by the garbage they sell in the local Bible bookstore.

How else can you explain 16 books in the "Left Behind" series?

So I went back to the book list game, and I filled in the blanks with non"Christian" books. Real books. And while I admit that I left out my favorite C.S. Lewis title just out of spite, I like to think that my "secular" list is more honest. Those are the books that have affected the way my imagination works. The best part about them, Poe and Salinger, is that they changed the way I think without actually setting out to do that.

When I think about it, nearly every "Christian" book I've ever read was written in an attempt to influence the way I think. It's evident by the text (no matter what the genre) that most of the authors are trying to teach me something. From the beginning, they set out to change my mind about something. Instead of telling a story for the sake of the beauty or honesty of it, they start with an agenda and go from there. How to have a better understanding of ministry or steps toward the full Christian life. Even the biographies are trying to convince me that so-and-so was a good man or that what's-his-name was what a Christian ought to be.

Beauty. Good story-telling. True creativity. These things, if you can find them at all in "Christian" literature, are accidental.

So I think I'm happy with my list as it stands. I did include one "Christian" book after all. Sure I've read some great religious books. Some have influenced me quite a bit. But despite all their zealous attempts at making me a better Christian, they remain largely forgettable compared to truly good books.

They Nothing Us

2006-09-02T15:40:00.000Z

I spoke with a friend the other day who is constantly on his guard against what he perceives as a secular aggression against him as a Christian. In other words, he's concerned that adulturers, homosexuals, drug users, and democrats all hate him and are out to take away his freedom. According to him, they all have an anti-Christian agenda and want to actively recruit our children, impede our ministries, and make us look bad.

I am aware that we as believers have serious opposition. I know that we face an enemy that doesn't rest in his campaign against us. However, I know many non-Christians. I even know some anti-Christians, and a couple of gays. I've had long conversations with them about my faith. Guess what? The vast majority don't hate us.

They nothing us.

See, for a person to hate another person requires something. You've got to put some energy into hating somebody. It costs you something. Hate means you care, just not in a good way. All of the nonbelievers I know do not even think about Christians, much less care enough to really hate us.

Most of the lost people I come across expect to be judged and persecuted by the people who do call themselves Christians. Some don't even know that serious followers of Jesus even exist.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be on our guard. I'm just not sure we really understand who our enemy is.

My Favorite Part of My Job

2006-08-26T21:13:00.000Z

My favorite part about my "job" is hanging out with people. Even if it's just sitting across from a friend in a coffee shop, I enjoy being in the moment of spending time with them. Any time that I have with a national is a gift from God. Really. There's no way someone would want to spend time with me other than God compelling him do do so. I am literally that uninteresting. It actually took some time for me to get used to having people from here call and invite me to hang out with them. For the first couple of years, it was all I could do to keep from asking "Why are you asking me, of all people?" But God called me here to minister to people, so I know what (Who) motivates them.

I love that subtle pressure to think of something interesting to talk about, to keep the conversation going with witty questions and by showing interest in the other person. Eventually, you get to the kind of casual interaction that is so natural that you don't mind the times you run out of things to say. At that point, you're in a constant attitude of prayer as the Spirit prompts you to say the right thing at the right time. My friend shares about a struggle; I want to express my sympathy without coming across as condescending. He thinks out loud about world events; I learn what's important to him. I want to encourage him in the Truth, so I'm prayerfully considering what he needs from me. It's in that relational balance and personal human interaction that ministry really happens, and Truth is shared. People don't feel like targets, and I don't feel fake.

And the best part about it? I'm intentionally in touch with God, who knows both my friend and me inside and out. I don't have to guess what he needs; God already knows. There's not some terrible spiritual drain on me, because God uses my friend to minister to me as well. I open up and share personal struggles, I honestly relate the difficulty of working out my faith, and he sees, first hand, what life in Christ is like. These are the times I see God working. I'm reminded what He's called me here to do, and I'm humbled as I remember that I'm insignificant in the whole process. I am thankful that I get to interact with nationals. That's my favorite part of my job.

That's Not What I'm Saying

2006-08-15T17:51:00.000Z

This is part 76 in my long-running series about word definitions...

Whenever someone shares a fresh perspective, or wants to challenge the status quo, he or she is bound to be misunderstood. It starts like this:

Copernicus: "Hey guys, I'm thinking that maybe the Earth isn't the center of the solar system."

Well-Intentioned Misunderstanding Guy: "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Joshua 10:13

Misunderstanding Guy #1: "Are you saying that all of the astronomers that have gone before you are stupid? How arrogant!"

Misunderstanding Guy #2: "Oh, so you're throwing out the entire concepts of planets, then? I suppose we're all floating around in space on figments of our imagination, then."

Misunderstanding Guy #3: "You're a liberal."

Misunderstanding Girl: "Why are you so negative all the time?"

Misunderstanding Old Guy: "When I was your age, I used to think the Earth revolved around the Sun, too."

Misunderstanding Guy #1(again): "I defy you to prove your theory."

Anonymous Misunderstander: "Yeah, but the Earth is still round."

Of course, I'm no Copernicus. While I realize that what I write here is neither fresh nor challenging, I run into the same sorts of trouble. Say I question a commonly held missiology. Someone is bound to accuse me of being proud or ignorant or both.

The worst part of the misunderstanding game is having to preface everything I'm trying to say with everything that I'm not saying. People read one bit of a post and jump to conclusions. If a key word is used or some vaguely familiar reasoning is appealed to, the labels come out and the communication ceases. That's why we can't talk about miracles without adding the disclaimer: "I'm no Charismatic, but..."

"I affirm the Baptist Faith and message, but..."

So someday, I'm going to put together a book that contains all the things I'm not saying. By questioning the wisdom of a rule, I'm not being disrespectful of those who set the rule. When I say that we need to live out our faith, I'm not saying that we shouldn't tell people about Jesus. Don't get upset when I write "I'm uncomfortable calling myself a missionary" or "I don't go to church" until you know (or at least have made an effort to know) what I'm actually saying.
If you have a question, please ask! That way we can discuss what's being said, instead of arguing over what isn't.

Picking On a Commenter

2006-08-14T12:22:00.000Z

An anonymous commenter on my last post disagrees with the distinction between home culture "missions" and what I'm calling "host culture missions." You can thank him for this post. Unless, of course, you actually like this post. I which case, please thank me.

My assertion: If the word "missions" means "telling people about Jesus" or even, "Sharing one's faith by living out a culturally relevant evangelistic lifestyle," then we need to come up with a new word for cross-cultural, um, "missions."

Let me be clear: I do not believe that international ministry is any better or more important than home ministry. Ministry to people of your own culture can be as difficult as crossing cultures, and there are many similarities. But they are not the same. Sure, there are culture differences between New York City and, say, Paducah, Kentucky. I think I experienced worse culture shock when I moved to the Midwest than I did moving to Western Europe. But kids in Dallas watch the same television shows and get their news from the same news outlets and eat the same cheeseburgers as kids in Boise. The commonality of influences serves to lessen the culture barrier.

I know I've got it easy here. I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a culture that has absolutely nothing in common with my home culture. I live in Western Europe, in a country that westernized, civilized, and modern. Despite all that I might have in common with the people here, I am not like them. I did not grow up with the same influences and national experiences they did. This means that for me to share my faith in a way that makes sense to them, I must translate my relationship with God and it's impact on my life into their culture.

By the way, if you're out of touch with your home culture, it's because you've taken measures to insulate yourself from it. We should all be students of the cultural context in which we minister, and if you don't have anything to talk about with a lost person, you're to blame.

A Game of "What If?"

2006-08-02T23:48:00.000Z

I'm sure this might sound like a poorly disguised attempt to find a job, but it isn't. Not exactly, anyway. Lately all I can think about is what I would do if I weren't doing, well, whatever it is I do. Maybe it's that everyone is on vacation for the month and the city is empty. Maybe I'm having another third-to-mid-life crisis or something. Whatever the cause, I can't get this thought out of my head: If I were to pack up and move back to the United States, what would I do?

I'd want to live in a city. I'm addicted to the fast-paced urban jungle life. The suburbs would bore me and a rural setting would kind of freak me out. After years of simple/house church, I certainly couldn't ever go back to the traditional sort, so I'd have to find some like-minded individuals to be my spiritual family and to help me plant other spiritual families. That much I'm sure of.

I would definitely get a job. I'm not really skilled at anything, so I'm not sure what I'd do, exactly, but I'm really not comfortable as a professional minister. What sort of job requires no special skills, pays well, and would allow plenty of free time for me to plant churches? Other than the job I already have, I mean. I could wait tables, or serve coffee, provided I didn't have to remember orders or actually make the coffee. I guess there's always politics.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of being on the field is the isolation. Email and prayer newsletters can't make up for the years of my experience here while life has marched on there. My friends and family back home don't know me, they remember me. Needless to say, I don't have a lot of "contacts" that could help me find a job or get involved planting churches. It'd be like starting from scratch.

The other big side-effect of being a missionary is financial. We are well taken care of here. The IMB does a tremendous job of making sure that we have everything we need, and even a lot of things we don't need. Despite the complete support of the faithful people who send us, it is very difficult to save money on the field. Some of it has to do with how expensive it is to live in Western Europe. More of it has to do with the cost of flying home on vacation. More than I'd like to admit has to do with the fact that we have Starbucks here... Starting over in the U.S. would be an expensive endeavor. A car. A house or apartment, at least enough to pay the rent until I got a job. Thinking about money gives me a headache.

Anyway, this question of "life after missions" is really bothering me. Even though I'm not planning on returning to the States any time soon, I feel like it's a question I should have answered or at least thought through. Just in case.

Vocabulary Exchange

2006-08-02T09:51:00.000Z

It's time to change the lingo of missions. (Including the word "missions.") Really. Hardly any of the words that we use to talk about cross-cultural ministry accurately describe the work of our people on the field. Many of our words actually work against us. Take, for example, the idea of "reaching" people. What does that mean? I know what we mean when we say it (at least I think I do...), but I've heard it used to describe many of very different activities. The term is too ambiguous to allow for any sort of meaningful communication.

When we say "missions," we make it sound like we're part of some military operation. Yeah, I'm aware of the war analogies and imagery in the Bible, but using militaristic words like "target," or "strategy" only go to reinforce the erroneous mentality that people are our enemies, and that we're here to either "hit them and run" or stay as an occupying force. Neither is good missiology.

Instead of the role of "Strategy Coordinator" what about "Contextualizer?" Or "Cultural Translator?" These sorts of terms better describe the real work of a missionary, and they leave out the militaristic/political word, "strategy."

"Church Planter" would be okay if we were talking about God.

"Evangelism." For the vast majority of believers today, it seems that the word "evangelism" has come to mean "preaching a summary of the Message." I think it's sad that we're not creative enough to come up with a word in our own language to describe the process by which the Good News culturally translated, shared and received. On our team, we use the term "Sharing Life" to refer to this process. We work to get involved in people's lives, knowing that as they get to know us, they will also get to know our Savior. We live in such a way as to support everything we say about Jesus so that (hopefully) it all makes some sense to them.

"Volunteers." Technically, this one is appropriate, since we use it to refer to people who come to work with (for) us at their own expense. I'd prefer the word "partner." A volunteer is someone who is doing you a favor. A partner is serving out of obedience, and therefore has equal stake in the work of the ministry. The term also helps narrow the difference between the professionals and the laity.

The biggest reason to change our missions vocabulary is that it isn't biblical. Why don't we call our "M's" "Disciplers?" or "Disciple-makers?" Maybe something like "Proclaimers" to describe the ongoing announcement of the kingdom. I like "Workers;" not as a substitution for "missionary," but as a good way to describe God's people doing what they were created for, and doing those things that cause the people around them to glorify the Lord.

A new vocabulary would help shape our general attitude toward the Commission.
I think it would also help us do a better job of communicating what we're doing on the field, and what God is doing among the people of the world.

What "missions" words would you change? What replacements would you suggest?

Kill Your Church

2006-07-26T16:18:00.000Z

Steve McCoy killed his Missional Baptist Blog last week. It was a great forum for missional folks to connect with likeminded people and discuss everything from theology, ministry, culture, and whatever else we wanted. I am thankful for Steve's hard work in maintaining it, and always keeping the discussion fresh and interesting. While I admit that my favorite comment threads were the ones where some wacko would come in and make a couple of crazy remarks and Steve would end up banning him, I think it's really cool that he shut it down.

Why? Because he says that it served its purpose. His blog networked many of the missional leaders in the States and on the mission field. We've worked together to define what we're about, and we've shared ideas of how that might look in the real world. Now, most of us have our own blogs, many of which feature the same comments we were making on his site. Missional Baptist Blog had done what Steve set out to do with it, and now it is time to move on. I think we could learn something from that.

What if all the pastors that read his blog stood up in front of their churches this Sunday, and instead of preaching a sermon, simply announced that they were going to let the church die? Something like: "Folks, I have an announcement to make. We're selling the building, and I'm getting a job at Home Depot." I think it would be a great thing. I'm wondering if most of our churches haven't already reached their expiration date.

Has your church built up leaders? Do you have a real spiritual family that is missionally active in the community? Have you subdivided into Bible Study groups or cell groups? Maybe it's time to shut everything else down. You don't need a building. You don't need professional ministers. You don't need any of the programs that you've got going on. If the system that you've maintained has served its purpose, shut it down.

I believe that this sort of thing is what it would take to make "Christianity" as we know it in the 21st century make sense for me, and I don't think I'm alone.

I Wish You Knew

2006-07-23T09:58:00.000Z

I've just finished answering D Birchfiel's "Seven Questions." You can read my responses at OKpreacher, assuming that he decides to post them. One of the questions he asks is, "What do you wish Southern Baptists knew about your ministry?" That was the most difficult question for me to answer; not because I didn't have anything to say, but because I had such a hard time narrowing it down to just one (or two...) That, of course, got me thinking about all that I wish the people that send and support me knew about missions in general, and our ministry specifically.

Here's a list of things I wish you knew:

-We appreciate you. I know that there is no way I would be on the field if it wasn't for your monetary support, and no way I'd be able to stay here without your prayers.

-Missions is not the same as evangelism. It seems like so many of us confuse the two. Missions is more than gospel proclamation, or even sharing Christ across cultures. It is about incarnational living that demonstrates what life in Christ might look like for people in the host culture. We call it cultural translation, and it's hard to quantify.

-We cling desperately to emotional, financial, and prayer support that you have committed to us. When we hear about divisive arguing and politics among the people we depend on, it makes us nervous.

-We don't send three-color printed brochure newsletters anymore. We blog. If you read our blogs, you can get a better idea of what life is like for us.

-We feel like dorks. We are a bunch of nobodies that God sent to other places. Sometimes I wonder if He wasn't just sparing you from our presence in the States! It makes us uncomfortable that you would allow us to represent you on the mission field.

-We expect you to do the same thing we're doing. Granted, most of you don't have to learn a new language, but your job really is the same as ours. Only we have better medical coverage.

-God is working overseas. He's doing amazing, supernatural things that constantly remind us of His presence and grace. We see it on a regular basis. Forgive us for not consistently sharing it with you, it's just that sometimes we think you wouldn't understand.

-We like when you ask questions about our work or otherwise show interest in what we're doing. It reminds us that we're part of a bigger family, and that our ministry matters to someone.

So I guess those are some of the things I wish you knew about our ministries. Now you know.

Thank You

2006-07-14T00:22:00.000Z

It happens every week. The shiny silver saucer floats down the pew, picking up fingerprint smudges and wadded-up bills. Or maybe your church uses those velvet bags with the wooden handle horns that jingles with change and does cartwheels as it's passed from hand to hand. We call it the "offering."

You put in some money, 10% of your income, maybe more. Maybe less. You give some pocket change or a check, you might even use pink little envelopes that have your name pre-printed on them next to little boxes you can check if you read your Bible that week or brought a friend to church with you. You might give with joy, celebrating God's provision. Maybe you give begrudgingly, out of duty or guilt or tradition. Or maybe you're excited to give, knowing where the money is going and how it will be used.

Thank You.

Thank you for giving money to support us. I know it isn't really us your giving to, but God. But without your gifts, we couldn't be here. Without the faithful giving and cooperation of God's people back home, we wouldn't get to know the blessing of seeing God work in these different cultures. I have benefited from your generosity. I have been able to follow God's lead in my life and represent you on the mission field. He is using your obedience and sacrifice to support mine. I understand that with your support comes great responsibility. I don't deserve the funding I receive. I haven't really earned the trust you put in me. But I know how important it is for me to be a good steward of that support, and to administer the money in a way that pleases God, and extends the Kingdom.

Thank you.

How Do You Know?

2006-07-13T23:32:00.000Z

A few days ago, I took part in a great discussion about faith. A Catholic, an Atheist, an Agnostic, and I (sounds like the beginning to a bad joke) sat around a table in the smoking section of a cafe that was really too small to go to the trouble of designating "sections." We took turns sharing what we believed, but mostly what we didn't believe, and we let everyone speak their mind. After that, we sat in silence while we all processed how differently each of us approach and express our spirituality. The Catholic is religious, but hardly spiritual. The Atheist is spiritual, but in a soulful, dreadlocks and hemp poncho sort of way. The Agnostic is not so much religious as superstitious. As usual, I presented myself as spiritual but not religious. When I say it that way it makes me sound like such a rebel.

After the silence, the Agnostic (appropriately) asked us, "But how do you know?"

Looking back, I'm not exactly sure what she meant by the question. I guess I wasn't the only one guessing, though, because we each took turns answering a different version of it.

"You know a religion is right for you when it is such an influential part of your family and cultural history," the Catholic answered. "Common sense should give you some clues," said the Atheist, accidentally sounding snobbish. "You just know," was the only answer I could come up with. I immediately wished I had come up with something better, you know, more evangelistic.

But then I got to thinking, how do I know? Jesus is the Son of God. He is the Way to the Father. Salvation is found only in Him, and He came that we might have real life; I believe all of this to be true. But how do I know?

I know because I have been convinced by supernatural means. I believe something that is unbelievable because something unbelievable happened to me. I know I have been born again in the same way I know I was born physically. And I know because in Christ, I am not the person I would otherwise be. I know because God has opened my eyes to the spiritual reality.

The national language differentiates between two types of knowledge. One can "know" something in the factual sense of the word. I know where the bank is, I know my phone number, and I know how to drive a car. But there is also another type of knowing, one that explains one's relationship with the subject. This type of knowing starts with an introduction and deepens in familiarity through time and experience. I know the store keeper. I know the city.

Next time I sit down with the group of friends, that's the word I'm going to use, and that's what I'm going to tell them. "You know..." I'll say, "Ever since our talk about our faith a couple weeks ago, I've been thinking about that question..." And that's when I'll tell them how I know.

Vietnamese Takeout

2006-07-01T20:46:00.000Z

Despite the fact that people are always telling me that history is important, I've never really been a history buff. In fact, I learned nearly everything I know about history by watching Hollywood movies. I didn't even know about the Apollo 13 thing until, well, Apollo 13. Forest Gump taught me about three Presidents, Elvis Presley, and the Black Panthers. Saving Private Ryan exposed me to the horrors of World War II... okay, so maybe Tom Hanks taught me all the history I know.

Anyway, I read something the other day about how a large percentage of the homeless population in the U.S. are veterans of the war in Vietnam. Many of them came home after the war and were never able to integrate back in to American life and culture; at least not enough to hold down a job and support a family. I guess it would really change a person to be recruited by his country (or worse still, drafted) into the military, trained to kill people and blow things up, and sent off to fight Asian Communists. I can't imagine how war must affect a person. But I don't think that war is the only reason we can still find veterans walking down the middle of the street talking to themselves in obscenities at three o'clock in the morning. I think it's America's fault.

I think that Americans weren't really all that into the fight against communism in the first place, and when President Johnson sent all those boys to Vietnam, the country was indifferent. While they were gone, Americans decided they were against this unwinnable war, and began to resent it. They protested against it. And when the boys came back they weren't welcomed with the ticker-tape parades like the heroes of WWII. No, they were showered with shouts of "Baby Killer!" and other mean things. No wonder the soldiers didn't fit in when they got back. They did exactly what they were trained and sent to do, and when they got home, we blamed them.

Sometimes it seems like that same sort of thing happens to missionaries.

Now I would never even consider comparing the experience of a soldier fighting in a physical war to what we go through on the field. Especially not those of us in Western Europe. The comparison I'm making is not to the effects of the battle, but to the necessity of support from those who sent us, and the profound effects of anything less than total support.

My recruitment to work for the IMB began when I was four years old. It was a denominational program called "Mission Friends," and we were taught about brave IMB missionaries who left their homes and went to live among the primitive tribes of Guatemala or wherever. My missions education continued throughout my life: Royal Ambassadors, Sojourners, Centrifuge. They told me what missions was, and how it was done.

So I "enlisted." I felt God's calling and made the decision to enter "full-time ministry," whatever that meant. I went to a Baptist University for training, and then on to Seminary. Both trained me well in the ways of church planting, Bible scholarship, and cross-cultural communication. The IMB put me through a crash-course orientation, and I was off to the "Foreign Field."

We hit the ground running. We sought out Persons of Peace and worked to learn the language and engage the culture. We started groups and shared our faith. And it affected us. We worked to live out our faith in this foreign context, and it changed us. Doing what we were sent to do had the side effect of allowing us to see ourselves from another perspective. We found it harder and harder to relate to the fat, lazy American Christians and their fat, lazy American Christianity; so full of themselves and their politics and their megabuildings. We began to resent being sent by religious people that wanted us to set up American franchise churches and who threw money at us to "just do our jobs." We grew frustrated with the increasingly restrictive rules that they imposed without any regard for the impact those rules might have on our ministries. We are becoming jaded.

It wasn't until the first time I returned to the States on vacation that I realized that the churches, those same people that cheered us on and prayed over us at our appointment, had changed, too. New missions trends, theories, and ideas had swept through the Christian subculture, and the focus had moved on to different unreached people groups. Missions-minded churches were still sending volunteers, but they craved something more "extreme." Some churches focused only on local "missions," buying into the idea that overseas ministry is only for rich megachurches. The majority seems to think that by getting involved in IMB politics and trustee antics they are somehow supporting us and furthering the kingdom work. The churches sent us, and then for whatever reason, forgot us.

Now missionaries compete with other missionaries for support. We talk up our flashy new programs to try to get volunteers to come to us and not to Central Asia. We tell stories of how hard it is here to legitimize our work, to prove to you that we, too, are doing real missions. We print up professional-quality prayer cards to attract your attention to our photo on your refrigerator.

Jesus, the... Liberal?

2006-06-25T10:25:00.000Z

For the last few days, I've been reading about Jesus in the Gospels. (I got the idea from Mentanna) I've been thinking about how all followers of Jesus see Him through their own cultural lenses. All of them. And I'm struck by the idea that our different interpretations of Jesus can be so, well, different.

Reading just the Gospels has challenged my perspective on Jesus. If you read about Jesus without reading the rest of the Bible (not that we should...), you would likely get, well, a different Jesus. You might get a Jesus who is:

Pro-taxes (Render unto Caesar...) Matthew 22:21
Concerned about helping the needy (Especially widows and orphans) Matthew 25:40
Anti-violence/war (Turn the other cheek) Matthew 5:39
Anti-religion (Rebuked religious leaders) Mark 12:38-40
Concerned with Personal Health (Healed the sick) Mark 8:22
Against Unethical Capitalism (Money-changers in the Temple) Matthew 21:12
Remained in the Jewish tradition (His religion was Jewish, not Christian) Matthew 12:35
Made and Drank Alcohol (Cana Wedding) John 2:1-11
Grace instead of Judgement: Luke 6:36-38
Forgiveness over Justice: Luke 6:28-30
Told stories instead of preaching sermons: Matthew 13:34
Left the meaning unclear: Mark 10:4-11
Never planted a church...

This Jesus would be called a "Liberal" by some believers today.

Anyway, just an observation. I understand that we should look at all of Scripture, but I'm wonder how much of the "Christian religion" is based on the teachings of Christ.

The Perfect Team

2006-06-22T08:38:00.000Z

The guys in boy bands aren't usually friends that grew up together, singing barber-shop quartet songs on the street corner for tips. No, they are strategically selected by professionals through shopping mall casting calls that attract thousands of talented applicants. 23 seconds to prove you've got the right stuff, and then "Next!"

"We've got the 'Bad' boy, the sporty one, the funny one, the good dancer... We need the cute one!"

In a lot of ways, putting together a church planting team with the IMB is a similar process. We know what we want before we know who we have. Our time on the field and Spirit-led strategy tell us what sort of team we need on the field. A strong self-starter. Someone with administration skills. At least one who is gifted in evangelism. A couple that can lead us in prayer. In our minds, we put together the perfect church planting team designed specifically for the location, culture, and strategy. Like a missionary boy band. We write personnel requests for each of the positions and then let the organization handle the selection process.

Which is good until my "Already has the language, gifted in teaching, experienced graphic designer." request is filled with a "Willing to learn the language, gifted encourager, slightly interested in design" applicant. Hey, we can only send people who apply. Then there's that balance: Someone with experience, but not so much that they come in thinking they've got all the answers. Young, but not immature. Outgoing, but not annoying. Flexible, but reliable. I've been thinking a lot about what it would look like if I could put together my "dream team." Guess what? It would look a lot like the team I've got now. Here's an example of who I'm looking for right now:

ISC Couple. (Career workers are over-rated and expensive)
Age: 28-34 (Young, but not too young)
From: California (Outside the Bible belt, with postmodern worldview)
Children: None (Hard to go out all night with kids)
Education: University, Graduate School (People here are highly educated)
Abilities: Language, team player, Cultural adaptation (Basically, someone with a head start)
Experience: Three years teaching in public schools. Published author, songwriter. ("Secular" experience, artistic/creative)
Spiritual Gifts: Teaching (discipleship), Encouragement (team maintenance)

You might look at the profile I've written and say, "Yeah, we're all looking for them to be on our team. But I'd like to add a couple of things. I'm looking for someone who fits the above criteria and:

Doesn't think drinking is wrong. This almost always results in what I like to call "condemnation evangelism." We need people who aren't so totally overwhelmed by the sin of the people that they can't see, well, the people. Sin is flaunted in front of us, but we have to be able to recognize and appreciate the good things this culture has to offer, and to be able to learn from these people.

Isn't worried about their "witness": The fact of the matter is that here in Europe, you don't have a witness. That you don't drink, smoke, or use certain words does not communicate anything, especially to people that do not see these things as bad. People don't see Jesus in you for what you don't do.

Enjoys the adventure: Every day on the field is different. We love to find people that don't just wait for things to become "normal," but are open to trying new things, meeting new people, and loving every minute of it. People can tell if you don't want to be here. It makes them not want to be around you.

Humble in self, confident in Christ: Everyone that comes to the field comes to the point where they have to give up. We'd like to have someone who already has. In a foreign language, you don't have a personality, much less a sense of humor. When people have to put a lot of effort into understanding you, it makes you feel stupid. We need folks that are okay with making fools of themselves every day. Sometimes twice a day, just for good measure. They need to have the confidence in Christ that will motivate them in spite of that.

Fun to be around: Sure this one is hard to quantify, but who wants to work with a guy that has no personality? Or someone that takes themselves too seriously? We're looking for people who are interesting, fun, and know how to tell stories. We want the couple that makes you feel good about yourself when you're around them; like you're not a weird missionary.

To me, a couple of people like the one I've outlined here would make for the perfect church planting team. If you are the person I've described, send me an email...

The "Saviors"

2006-06-20T13:08:00.000Z

This post was going to be about the "Saviors." I was going to write about the well-intentioned missionaries who come to the field thinking that their arrival somehow brings salvation to whatever unreached people group they have selected. The ones who feel needed, in my opinion, are missionaries that do not belong on the mission field.

I know. I know. Some of you were hoping for a post called "The Bloggers."

In what has proven to be too long a story arc, I have outlined two "types" of missionaries that I think should not be on the mission field. These were taken from my personal experience. Some readers have anticipated the big reveal I hinted at in the first post: the Professional, the Lifer, and even the "Savior-complex" missionary that shouldn't be on the field is me.

On a regular basis, I am tempted to try to make this ministry to which God has called me into a career. The Board hired me as a "Career Missionary," and with that comes some pressure to professionalize what amounts to obedience. Sometimes it's out of pride: "Hey, I'm special. Not just anyone can do this job." But usually it's out of the awkward embarrassment I feel when someone asks, "So, what do you do?" So much of my identity is wrapped up in my answer that question that I feel this constant need to justify the fact that I receive money to tell people about Jesus. But my time on the field has taught me that church planting is not a job, but a calling. It's an intentionality that the churches back home graciously underwrite. But then I go to a meeting or write a new personnel request, and I slip right back into the professionalism that only serves to separate me from nationals and other believers.

I am very much a product of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mission Friends. Royal Ambassadors. Centrifuge. God called me to cultural translation of the gospel when I was in high school. By the time I graduated I had decided my career path: I was going to be a missionary. So here I am, a Lifer with the IMB. Because of my exclusively Southern Baptist education, I am not qualified for any "real" job. I am extremely grateful for the support of the organization that sends and maintains me, but I have become fully dependent upon the Board for everything that I have. Housing. Stipend. Insurance. I couldn't begin to answer the question of what I would do or where I would do it if I weren't doing this. Unfortunately, such dependence sometimes breeds complacency. I know what's expected of me, and there are times I'm tempted to do only that.

My motivation for being here changes pretty regularly. There are times when
I pity the people around me here, but not in a good way. On a really bad day, I have caught myself feeling very superior. As if the reason for the lostness here is that the people are too stupid to find Jesus, and it's such a good thing that I've finally arrived to set the straight. My savior complex should disqualify me from service.

This "series" began as a journal entry. I was venting my frustrations with some coworkers, and dreaming of building the "perfect" church planting team. I was writing about the Professionals, the Lifers, the Saviors, and the Whiners (don't ask) when I was convicted of being and doing those same things that I resented so much about my fellow missionaries. I've come to believe that many of the characteristics that mark "someone who shouldn't be here" aren't brought to the mission field, they're picked up here. Sometimes we're tempted by laziness, other times by pride; all of them, I think, are defense mechanisms for dealing with our strange lives.

I really am convinced that not all believers belong on the mission field. Not everyone is cut out for it. I'm intrigued with that idea, because in never really occurred to me. And though I have known coworkers that have exhibited some of these same characteristics and, I suspect, struggled with these same attitudes and tendencies, I realize that judging them is the Pot calling the Kettle black.

Lifers

2006-06-16T09:21:00.000Z

I was home from college for summer break, and our pastor began a sermon series on the book of Romans. When I returned home for Christmas, he was on chapter 2. I'm convinced that's why our church wasn't Calvinist. I never thought I'd post a "series" of posts. I guess I've never had a single coherent thought that would call for it. (Not that I do now, mind you.) But here I am, posting what will be part three of my "Some of Us Shouldn't Be Here" "Series." How many parts does "Left Behind" have?

If the Professionals are the most visible missionaries that shouldn't be on the field, the Lifers are the most common. Imagine a person who grows up in the American Christian subculture: youth group, visitation, mission trips, Sunday School. He responds to the invitation to consider "Full-time Christian Service." Twice. When it's time to go to college, he chooses a fine Southern Baptist institution, and majors in missions. Then he's off to seminary for the MDiv. He takes his first pastorate at the age of nineteen, marries at twenty, and has three kids by the time he reached the IMB's minimum age requirement of 24. He makes contact with a Candidate Consultant, answers all the questions right, and is appointed for missionary service. He prayerfully selects the field to which God is calling him from the Board's list, and the next thing he knows, he's on the ground as a career missionary. In many ways, he's prepared for this his whole life: he has the degree, the "experience," and the endorsement of his home church. He's a Lifer.

I call them "Lifers" because while these folks actually worked very hard to get to the mission field, they only do just enough to stay on the mission field. Their label comes from the fact that if they can just stay beneath the radar, not draw too much attention, they can be supported by churches back home for life. Never mind that they don't have the gifting, people skills, or work ethic to be church planters. Ignore their inability to detect differences between their host culture and the American culture they miss so much. Overlook the fact that they don't have any friends back home, either. We, the Convention, called them to full-time service through our altar calls and missionary slideshow guilt trips. There is great need, and they answered the call.

Sure there are drawbacks. Separation from family. Monthly Ministry Reports. No Dr. Pepper. The whole "living in a foreign country" thing. But for lifers, it's worth it. You get paid to do... well, no one is sure what it is you do, exactly. Great insurance. A month's vacation. And a hero's welcome every time you're home on furlough.

Besides, you can stock up on brownie mix and your favorite jeans on your next stateside assignment.

Lifers shouldn't be on the field because they may or may not have heard God calling and then they quit listening. They have the Board to maintain them in a strategic place where they live in permanent survival mode. They're content. Fat and happy. Apathetic, even. But this is what they are. If they weren't missionaries, what would they be? What would they do?

Lifers love to suffer for Jesus. If nationals don't like them, they count it as persecution. Their loneliness is due to the "soil being hard," not their abrasive, annoying personalities. They blame not knowing anyone in their city on "Things are slow here," instead of the fact that they tell the same stories over and over. Hey, it wasn't that funny the first time. They sign their prayer newsletters with subtle lines like "Blessedly Tired,"or "Joyfully Busy," just to let you know how much missionary stuff they're doing. Their reports reveal how much they dislike and distrust the people they've been sent to work with.

Lifers shouldn't be on the field, but they are. And they will be long after I'm gone. They're in this thing for the long haul. For them, being missionary isn't a job, it's a lifestyle.

The Professionals

2006-06-14T09:20:00.000Z

Perhaps the most visible type of missionary that shouldn't be here are the Professionals. They are the missionaries that built the IMB into the huge corporation that it is today. These are the folks that fill their days with professional missionary things like going to conferences and making appearances at meetings. Usually, the Pros are big on networking. They like to name-drop, brag, and make guys like me meet people that they think are like me so that we can know each other and so later, when they drop our names, they can say things like, "You know, I introduced them!" The Professionals are the ones who have a hard time not having a "real job," so they put lots of effort into making church planting look like one.

The reason professionals shouldn't be on the field is that they are not really planting churches. They are not really sharing life, culturally translating the gospel, or facilitating a house church movement. No, these guys don't have time to do real ministry, they're too busy being missionaries.

Professionals are usually the ones that get promoted up the responsibility food-chain and put in strategy leadership positions. At first glance, they look like they're really doing something. They're well spoken. They have a great web site. They bring in lots of volunteers. They're sharp dressers. They prioritize primary action items and draft mission statements and publish team goals and objectives in sleek .pdf prayer newsletters.

The reason that Professional Missionaries shouldn't be on the field is that they have effectively redefined the concept of missions for the churches that support us. They have changed the stereotype from the four-pocket short-sleeve dress shirt wearing homely couple with seven children to a jet-set Blackberry addict with places to go and people to see. They are the reason we have conferences about how to "reach" people and strategy documents and ASR reports instead of, well, churches.

Don't worry, I'm not saying we need to fire all of the Professional Missionaries. We don't need to. They are the ones that get burnt out and go home as soon as they realize that no matter how hard they try, they cannot make church planting into a corporate position. They realize that no one is competing with them for the next leadership position, and that there is no prize for starting a new church planting partners network. They go home to work for Xerox or Saddleback.

Some Of Us Shouldn't Be Here

2006-06-09T13:51:00.000Z

While the timing of this post does not intentionally coincide with the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, I'll admit that it seems like a relatively safe time to write such a mean post. Hopefully, everyone that might read this, especially the people I'm actually referring to, are either at the Convention or busy reading about it over at SBC Outpost.

Yes, we're all supposed to be "missionaries" in the "Go ye therefore" sense of the word. Yes, the Lord of the Harvest calls workers to the field. But anyone who has spent any amount of time with IMB personnel and is willing to be honest will tell you that we've got some people on the field that shouldn't be.

Call it a result of the days when there was plenty of money and "Any Warm Body" was the candidacy policy. (Wow, we've gone to the opposite extreme, haven't we?) The IMB was all about momentum in those days- being able to report sending more missionaries and reaching more people groups really got people excited about missions. Volunteering was up, giving was up, and people were signing up for career service. The ranks of the IMB swelled with willing , if not capable, missionaries.

If you were to try to deduce the hiring policy of the IMB by conducting interviews of our career people on the field, what would you come up with?

I think this explains the recent actions of the IMB's Board of Trustees; "We've got people on the field that don't belong there, and we need to do something about it." It wasn't so bad when there was enough money to go around, but nowadays the Board can't afford to send just anyone. We've got people on the field that don't speak the national language, aren't actively involved in ministry to nationals, and don't have a clue of where to begin.

But we can't fire them, can we? On what grounds? "God hasn't used you to start a church planting movement?" No, the only way we can fire someone is if they steal money or sleep with a Journeyman. So instead of sending people home, we shuffle their incompetence around the globe. As if moving to a warmer climate would heal laziness. We could have all of our personnel on the field sign a new, even more exclusive document that includes a statement of belief, proof of effectiveness, and pledge of allegiance. You know- to get people to quit. The problem with that is the ones who get worked up about that sort of thing are usually the good ones. They were last time, anyway. So we're sort of stuck with the people we've already got on the field. For now.

Everyone is talking about the new, narrower, theological requirements for appointment, but those aren't the only changes being made to help weed out the dead weight (pardon the pun) and save some money.

There has always been a health requirement for IMB personnel. Obesity, serious medical conditions, and emotional/psychological issues have always been red flags in the consideration of potential candidates. But recently, the Board has adopted even stricter policy concerning overweight personnel. As a self-insured mega-organization, we can save a lot of money by not employing the fat people that are sure to use up a lot of money through medical claims. Recent changes have lowered the acceptable body-mass index (BMI) for all employees of the IMB. (Though I'm pretty sure trustees are exempt...)

The Board will continue to adopt very restrictive hiring and employment policies, but always leave a loophole for "exceptions." That way they only get people that meet all of the requirements, and screen out those that don't belong.

So who are these missionaries that shouldn't be on the field? Sorry SEBTS folks, I'm not naming names. Besides, they probably aren't who you might think.

Oh, and I'm probably one of them.

Stay tuned...

Losing My Accent

2006-05-31T16:51:00.000Z

Learning a second language is one of the most difficult things I've ever done. It's frustrating and humiliating, and the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. Sometimes, you just want to give up. But we put forth the effort in order that we might be able to share our lives with the people of the places we've moved to. If only recognizing the importance of language learning was enough to, you know, speak it.

I used to like the television show "Alias." The main character, Syndey Bristow, was the best secret-agent ever. She was sort of a cross between James Bond and Lara Croft. I watched faithfully through the first season. I was half-way through season two when someone asked me what the show was about. "Well, there's this college-student-by-day, undercover-super-agent-by-night whose dad is a double agent but she doesn't know it and whose mom was a double agent for the KGB but her dad didn't know it, and her dad's best friend is the villain posing as a good guy, until they introduce her long-lost sister." I was overcome with how ridiculous it sounded as I spoke. After that, I never watched the show again.

The worst thing about the show wasn't the spy family, triple-agent, gadget-for-everything, plot, it was the fact that no matter what obscure country Sydney found herself in, she spoke the local language perfectly. Chinese. Tagalog. Welsh. She spoke them so well that not even the local bad guys could tell she was a foreigner. Stealth-ninja swordplay skills I'll buy, but fluency in fifty languages is just too unrealistic for me.

Which brings me to I asked a friend who is a church planter in the UK about this a few weeks ago. Maybe he'll post his response in a comment, but really can't get past this. We've got people on the field who speak the national language very well. They've been around a while, they can do everything they need to do and say anything they might need to say in the language. But they have accents. Strong ones. They butcher the language with the typical American "R's" and lazy vowels. In the phone, no one mistakes them for nationals. In person, the listener still has to contort his face as he strains to understand. So my question is this: Do our personnel working in English-speaking contexts take on the local accent?

For me, the accent is the key to true cultural relevance. Think of it this way, if I were to speak with a guy in London, he'd surely notice my American accent. But after a couple years of living in Covent Garden, I'd surely be able to put on a pretty good English accent for my friend. Not that I'd be able to pass for a Brit, but I bet he wouldn't say, "Hey, you're putting on an English accent." No. I'm pretty sure he'd say something like, "Hey, you're losing your American accent."

I'm sure there are probably all sorts of ministry applications to the idea of losing our accents. To me, it just reminds me that there is more than just a language barrier between me and the people to whom I minister. It makes me want to live in such a way that the people around me start to say: "Hey, the longer you're here, the less your faith seems foreign to me."

Personality

2006-05-25T12:29:00.000Z

One of the things God has been teaching our team lately is that personality matters. No, I'm not talking about the mega-churches in the United States that seem to be built entirely upon the charismatic and inspirational personality of its pastor. Strangely enough, it is just occurring to us that God may have given us our personalities on purpose.

See, I grew up in a very ministry-minded church environment. Everyone was encouraged to think of others first. To us, being a minister meant ignoring your "self" and intentionally becoming a servant; something that was not natural to any of us. We loved the idea of getting out of our comfort zones and being stretched and challenged in new ways. I'm very thankful for that church family.

I'm pretty sure Jesus had a personality. He was harsh about certain things, had compassion toward needy people, and ran away from his parents at least once (ok, so maybe what He did was nothing like the time I packed up my G.I. Joe backpack and "ran away" to the back yard when I was six, but you know what I mean). But can we say that there is a "Christian" personality?

With our practice of that good theology ("Be like Jesus") also came a subtle, implied message: "It doesn't matter who you are." If you were an impulsive, gregarious person, you needed to cut it out so as to maintain self-control. Shyness was the opposite of boldness, which is something all believer must have, so the timid folks needed to get over their inhibitions. The stoic or melancholy needed to have joy, the dreamers needed to keep their feet on the ground. What we ended up with was a bunch of people who knew a lot about the fruit of the Spirit, but knew nothing about themselves. Ultimately, we couldn't relate to lost people at all. We had worked so hard to be more like who we thought Jesus was, that we had lost our personalities. We became boring people, with no interests, hobbies, or passions. We didn't even enjoy being around ourselves!

So now God is teaching us about personality. That it's ok for some of us to be risk-takers and others to be cautious. We need to class-clowns to keep things interesting and the sensitive ones to feel for us. The optimists, the pessimists, the intense, the cool; they are parts of a healthy and interesting community. The outspoken are as needed as the introspective. I think our personalities are tied to our Spiritual gifts. They are all needed for diversity and balance within the body of Christ.

Maybe God made us the way we are so that we'll have something in common with people who are like us.

I'm really interested to see how this plays out in church planting. We're working to plant churches within existing social structures. People are drawn to others like them, and that's where they are comfortable and have a sense of identity. But I think that's a good thing. Churches should have distinct personalities. The intellectuals meet on Thursdays at lunchtime and pour over theology. The sensitive ones spend a lot more time in worship and prayer than the rest, and are very sensitive to the needs around them. The outgoing and outspoken do a bit more preaching and evangelism, while the social butterflies have lots and lots of fellowships. Who knows? Maybe this would be a healthy alternative to denominationalism.

What if the balance we're so worried about maintaining is kept at the city-wide level as opposed to the local group level? While we cannot tolerate sin, heresy, or disunity, what about diversity in the ways we express our life in Christ?

The Evils of Modernism?

2006-05-22T07:42:00.000Z

Even though I use them all the time, I hate post titles that end with a question mark. I guess that's what I get for having a blog that is about asking questions...

My last post, "Adapt, Adopt, Reject," was an outline of a paper that some friends and I came up with. I've had a couple of good responses. I got a few "let me chew on it and get back to you" messages, and I'm sure many of you are still trying to swallow the idea that I would have friends to work with at all.

I'm really interested in looking at Christianity from this perspective: What would our faith look like without the influence of modernism? The more I thought through the paper's outline, the harder it was for me to come up with any modern contributions that we should adopt outright. It's strange to think about, because we interpret everything through the modern worldview. I'm no historian, but I think we could learn a lot about being followers of Jesus in postmodernity by looking at the pre-modern expressions of Christianity.

In his book, Ancient Future Faith, Robert E. Webber gives a helpful outline of "Paradigms Of Church History." He breaks down church history into these worldviews (paradigms):

Classical Christianity (100-600)
Medieval Era (600-1500)
Renaissance/Reformation (1500-1750)
Modernism (1750-1980)
Postmodernism (1980- )

As the church moved from one worldview to another, I imagine that there were many Christian leaders that warned against the dangers of the coming worldview. For example, during the rise of the modern worldview, there were probably plenty of godly folks saying things like "Buyeth not into modernism..." or something like that. What would they warn people against? Elevation of logic/human reason? Too great a focus on the individual? The limitations of linear thought?

But here we are, on the tail end of modernism, and the only expression of Christianity that we see is heavily influenced by the modern worldview. We read it into history and revelation. Our understanding of God is a modern one. We study systematic theology, we're used to hearing propositional exposition of the scriptures. We feel this huge need to nail down the specific time and date of our salvation. We use mass-market evangelism. We look for ways to measure our holiness. This is the modern church.

In an online audio chat with Derek Webb, Donald Miller talked about how Jesus gave many different answers to people who asked Him "What must I do to be saved." But modern Christians only have one answer to that question. Why is that?

I don't think that the modern worldview is bad. But I'm certainly weary of anyone who asserts that it is the "Christian" one. I'm interested in discovering and recognizing the influence my worldview has on my faith.

Adapt, Adopt, Reject

2006-05-17T08:57:00.000Z

During a recent training seminar, a leader in our region rhetorically asked: "Now, the real question is: can a Postmodern be a Christian?" As a believer who isn't very modern, I wanted to ask: "Can a Modern worldview be compatible with a Christian one?" But it wasn't until Dr. Robertson McQuilkin presented his talk on Postmodernism outlining those elements of postmodernism that we should adopt, what we can adapt, and what we must reject, that I saw a good way to discuss the issue. I've tried to address this before, but some friends pitched in to help this time. What we've come up with is more of an outline than a paper, but it is a work in process. Basically, we'd like to challenge people to stop thinking of the Modern worldview as good or even neutral in terms of it's influence on our faith. Here's what we've got so far:

MODERNISM
Modern tendencies we should ADOPT:
Seek the Source
We should read and know the scriptures and view them as authoritative, true, and beautiful.
If you want to know what someone said about something, the best place to go is to the source. This also follows a biblical means toward resolving personal conflict and sin issues.

Due Diligence
Care should be taken to be sure that no function of the church is overlooked, no member left out, and that we not repeat the mistakes of our those who have gone before us.

Critical Evaluation
The use of plain old common sense still has an important place in following Christ. Scripture tells us not to lean on our own understanding, but doesn't prohibit us using our brains. Genuine critical analysis was deveoped in the modern era, won’t go away any time soon, and can serve us Christ-followers well.

Modern tendencies we should ADAPT:

Utter dependence on logic/reason.
Matters of faith are logical by human standards to the extent to which they “make sense” for the group/individual.
God cannot be proved, contained, or fully defined. But, since He reveals to us His character, He is knowable. We must recognize the beauty of the mystery of God.

Fight for the Faith
Modern Christians often see themselves as “Defenders of the Faith” whose task it is to hunt and expose false doctrine wherever it may be found by exposing its logical inconsistancies, ridiculing it, or personally attacking those who believe it. “Good” theology is revealed by the living and active God and is not such a fragile thing. We should, however, lovingly confront false teachings whenever they come up in our relational sphere of influence. Discipleship and mutual submission/accountability require it.

Absolute Truth
God’s truth (the only truth) is indeed absolute, but our understanding of it is always subject to the limitations of our human perspective. We will never have full and complete knowledge of truth this side of heaven, and we must always recognize that our interpretations are from a limited perspective.

Truth is knowable as a person. Jesus is God revealed to humanity in history, and He continues to be active today.

Labels are helpful. While labels tend to be negative and prone to gross generalizations, they are indespensible for meaningful conversation. If we cannot define what we mean, we cannot communicate anything.

Modern tendencies we should REJECT:

Radical Dichotomies
Faith/Science: Faith should not/does not come into play only at the limitations of science. Science is good for helping humanity learn about the ourselves and our environment. This shoud allow us to be better stewards of the resources God blesses us with.

Christian/NonChristian: The (now global) Christian subculture is an example of the people of God withdrawing from the world and creating their own “safer,” “better,” “God-pleasing” version of it. It is neither “safer” nor “better,” and only serves to remove us from the mission God has commissioned us to.

Good/Evil: The Enemy is not God’s opposite. Fear has no place in the Christian Life. God’s good has/will overcome evil in the world. C.S. Lewis said that “Even the devil is God’s devil.” This leaves a lot for us to work out (i.e.: the problem of evil), but is a more Biblical perspective.

That Faith Requires Religion
Jesus rejected the religious requirements of the Pharisees every time He came across them. Yet moderns tend to replace the child-like faith Jesus talked about with religious traditions. While faith necessarily brings with it good works, Jesus did not come to start a new world religion. The first “Christians” continued to identify with and continue in the Jewish religion. We must recognize that as we mature in Christ there are a) certain things we are compelled to do, b) certain things we are compelled to avoid, and c) things we should continue to do, but with a new, Christian motivation.
Mimicking the World’s Systems
The Church is not a business. To manage it as such is to subjugate it to the world’s standards of success, performance, and relationship. This affects the way we “hire” and “fire” personnel, manage interpersional conflict, and approach the lost people around us.

The Gospel is not just information. There is more to the Good News than the propositional message. The Christian task is more than dissemination of information; it is contextualization, translation, and lifestyle support of the Truest Message of All.

Missions must not be viewed as a finite task, but as an ongoing act of obedience. Years of “what’s it gonna take?” mentality has perpetuated a human-centered, militaristic, utilitarian interpretation of the Great Commission that effectually keeps us one step ahead id the Holy Spirit.
Institutionalization
To many modern thinkers, the church IS the institution we see around us. The goal of the whole Great Commission exercise is to build a better institution which does a better job of getting to gospel out (or of discipling, or raising money, or whatever). Postmoderns would simply rather do these things themselves, organically or in affinity-related groups.

The distance between the scripture and my life is actually quite short: I read the scripture and I obey it. All the better if I can obey it with some others who are willing, like-heearted and (hopefully) fun. There is no reason to make this distance unnecessarily greater by requiring that we build instituions to obey scripture.

Some things work better in instituions: car manufacturing, delivery of gas, electricity and other commodities, surgery (!) all require infrastructure or a controlled environments which necessitates institution.

Relational things, heartfelt things, passionate things don’t institutionalize well. We shouldn’t try.

The “Silver Bullet” mentality
This mentality, rampant in modern thinking and in churches, assumes that when the right formula, combination of factors, leadership or Tipping Point is discovered, success will inevitably result. This thinking, an outworking of modern mechanization, simply deosn’t work in God’s economy. He’s much more concerned about our obedience and our heart for Him than in us finding and practicing the right formula. The only Silver Bullet in following Christ is…well, following Him.

Well, what do you think?

Be True To Your School

2006-05-10T10:18:00.000Z

In my last post, I wrote about the resolution to "Develop an exit strategy from public schools" that is being proposed to the Southern Baptist Convention. Since we're trying to put together an effective entrance strategy here in Western Europe (doing the opposite of what the resolution calls for), I've decided to put myself in the shoes of someone back in the states and give some suggestions for engaging our communities through the public school system:

They aren't well-paid. They work long hours, and they are "on call" 24 hours a day. Their impact is great, but they receive little recognition. They share their testimonies and beliefs every chance they get, thought they often deal with strict regulations against openly sharing their faith. I'm not talking about missionaries to far-off places, here; this is the life of your average Christian public school teacher. Which brings me to my first point:

1. Local churches need to start treating public school teachers as missionaries. I mean it. A commissioning service, full prayer support, maybe even some financial assistance. They are doing missions by sharing life with people in natural ways. Everything they teach, every opinion they give is heavily influenced by their relationship with Jesus. We see it so clearly in foreign lands- missionaries in China teaching English classes- but for some reason we put teachers in a different category. They go through culture shock. They have to learn a "foreign" language. They have to be creative, patient, and culturally relevant. It's time we recognize that.

What if, instead of pulling out of the public school system, we pushed our way into it? What if the public school system was flooded with Christian students, teachers, and administrators?

2. We need to start sending teachers into the system. Whenever a young person asks me about becoming a missionary, I always encourage them to look for ways outside the professional missionary system. Having the title "Missionary" brings with it more barriers and obstacles than we often realize. What if we started recruiting, training, and sending young people into the public school system as missionaries to their communities? We send short-term semester and summer missionaries to rough, inner-city areas to minister, why not send qualified teachers into those schools that are desperate for teachers anyway?

3. We need to be intentional about training and sending our children to public schools. What if we trained them, even the young ones, to study the culture of their class at school? What if we prepared them to face the dangers of their particular mission field and helped them get spiritually ready to face each day in that context?

4. Parents must get involved. The public school system began it's sex education program in the fourth grade when I was in public school. My mom went and previewed the films and curriculum, and then made me read a James Dobson book to supplement what was being taught. Ok, so I don't recommend giving kids a James Dobson book, but I think she had the right idea. If parents know what's being taught to their kids, they can counter those worldly things with truth. This way, kids know what the world says, and learn to contrast that with what the Bible says.

But parents aren't only limited to reviewing curriculum. They can join the PTA, be a "Class Mom," or a Teacher's Aid. They can get on all those committees, boosters, clubs, and organizations that actually decide what the public school does. At our local school, there was a PTA committee that decided whether or not a church plant could meet on the campus on Sundays. Parents can even substitute teach. This would extend the parent's influence to reach not only their own kids, but other kids in the community as well.

5. To affect change, service is the answer. We have "work days" at church, why don't local churches organize and sponsor work days at the local public schools? The administrators are always looking for ways to save money. What if some Christians came in and raked leaves or repainted the lockers? Schools always need recess monitors and traffic controllers and crossing guards. A Bible Study group could supply refreshments for the School Board meetings. Doing these things, without expecting special favors in return and without any strings attached, would affect the local public schools for the better. What if the school administrators didn't have to see Christians as their enemies? Wouldn't it be something if, when faced with a need, the principal felt he could call the local church for help?

So I guess what I'm proposing here is that we develop an "entry and engagement strategy" for the public schools. Not so we can make them "Christian," but so we can make to most of this great opportunity we have to interact with and serve our communities. Our involvement is what will help our children. It is being salt and light.

In Western Europe, missionaries develop and implement these sorts of strategies in order to engage their communities and plant churches. We would start here and go even further, looking for those existing entry points into the community and making the most of them. What if the churches that send us were doing the same back home?

Entrance Strategy

2006-05-08T15:31:00.000Z

Every year, Southern Baptists from across the United States get together in an annual Convention. This is a time for them to discuss denominational direction, elect leaders, and share what God is doing. One key part of the meeting is the proposal of resolutions. These are actions that members would like the denomination as a whole to support. Because they are passed by majority vote, approved resolutions say a lot about the Southern Baptist Convention. An example would be the resolution to boycott Disney. It was passed in 1997, and called on all Southern Baptists to boycott all media, products, and properties of the Walt Disney Company.

As this year's convention in Greensboro, North Carolina nears, several resolutions are being proposed. One that I find particularly troubling is a resolution calling for Southern Baptist churches to develop an exit strategy from public schools." Now this is not a new one- Al Mohler proposed it a couple years ago. But the attitude behind it is frustrating.

As a missionary, my job is to enter into a community and translate the gospel into the culture of the people there. It isn't easy. I spend a lot of my time the things that influence people and learning how they think and behave. The most challenging part about it all is finding ways to meet people and interact with them in meaningful ways. With rules against us taking jobs here and no funds to pay for joining clubs and other activities, we struggle to find common ground with the few people God brings to us. Despite the difficulty, (and the fact that we aren't wanted here!) we continue to seek new ways to engage the population. Why? Because God brought us here to be salt and light, and He has given us everything we need in order to be who we need to be.

But while we are looking for an entrance strategy to get access to lost people, we hear about believers back home wanting to develop an exit strategy. These are brothers and sisters who share our same commission to make disciples, but don't face a language/culture barrier, and have natural access to the lost people of their communities. Forgive my frustration, but it seems that these folks don't appreciate the opportunity God has provided in the public school system.

I know what goes on in public schools. I understand that they aren't teaching biblical truth. I know that things go on there that are not God-honoring. Sure, people are concerned about their children's learning and development. It makes sense that parents would want to protect their kids from the sin that infests the system. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about home-schooling. Really. Please. I respect a parent's right and responsibility to select the best form of education for their kids. I don't think homeschooling is wrong. I know there are other ways for kids to be involved with their peers. As far as I'm concerned, it about the attitude.

I am frustrated that my denomination would consider supporting the development of an "exit strategy" from public schools because it is indicative of an attitude that is the opposite of missional. If the people who are in favor of this resolution were really thinking of themselves as missionaries; really looking for ways to engage the people around them, I wonder if they wouldn't reconsider. On the field, our families are in constant spiritual danger. We are surrounded by materialism, sexual sin, drug use, the occult, and other enemy activity. Obedience to God's call and direction requires exposure to sinful things. When God sent us, He knew what our kids would go through. He knew how it would break our hearts to see MK's deal with things that children shouldn't have to deal with. We know first-hand the importance of putting on spiritual armor. But we do it because we're here to be incarnational to the people here.

We see it pretty clearly here. Have our brothers and sisters in the States lost sight of that?

I'm concerned about the message this attitude sends to our children. This sort of isolationism is what has made Christianity ineffective and irrelevant; not only to the world, but to our children and ourselves. It has led to the construction of a "Christian" subculture that takes us off the front lines of ministry and lulls us into complacency, trusting our "Christian" version of the world to be safe and, well, Christian.

How can we justify separating ourselves from the world because it isn't pleasing to God? How can we prepare our children to engage the culture and to work redemptively within it if we take them out of it? Shouldn't we as parents expect to supplement our children's education with discipleship? Couldn't we use their exposure to sinful things as an opportunity to teach them to find bridges to sharing the gospel, discern right from wrong and truth from lies, and to avoid fear of the world? What if we started thinking of ourselves as missionaries, and started training our children to be on mission as well?

A Package Deal

2006-05-02T07:23:00.000Z

Lately I've been accused (and by "I," I mean someone else entirely, but with whom I mostly agree) of wanting to "pick and choose" from contradictory "systems" of belief. The accusation sounded a little bit like this:

"Your concern for social justice is clearly "Social Gospel."
Your anti-death penalty stance is taken from the Liberal's political agenda.
Your references to God's sovereignty in salvation sounds very Calvinistic.
You talk about postmodernism as though you've really bought into all of it.
You quote R-rated movies like someone who is well acquainted with worldly things.
Your environmental concerns put you in the company of hippies and tree-huggers..."

Ok, I'm sure you get the point, but it goes on.

"And all of the above sounds just like that Blue Like Jazz guy, so you're one of those."

Or, even better (worse?):

"You may not recognize it, but I've seen all this before. It's just the same old liberalism dressed up in new, trendy clothes."

Where do we get the idea that everything comes as part of a package? (Ok, so I'm pretty sure I know where we get it, I'm asking for the sake of discussion.) Why do we have to put everything in neat little categories? Even more importantly, why do we assume that belief in one aspect of a system means adherence to the whole thing?

I'm really into the idea of redemption lately. I've seen God take things that were clearly not God-pleasing and turn them into beautiful instruments of praise. To me, that should be our standard for picking and choosing. Environmentalism is good stewardship of creation. I that's a redeeming quality, whether the "issue" is associated with nature-worshippers or not.

Just for fun, here are some more things I believe in. I am:

-Pro-life because I believe that life is sacred. (Not just criminally innocent lives, but all life.)
-Pro-peace, because I am pro-life, and because peace is evidence of the Spirit.
-For engagement of culture, because Jesus' incarnation modeled that for us.
-For immigration, because the places people come from aren't always good places for them to live.
-For church/state separation, because it might not always be "us" in charge.
-For freedom of expression, for the same reason.

Just Asking

2006-04-29T10:33:00.000Z

I recently attended a conference workshop where the speaker asked a lot of questions. She was talking about postmodernism (yeah, we still have to have the "Postmodernism" talk every time we get together), and sharing from her experience with a postmodern European guy. She presented their interaction as a case study, to illustrate the challenge of cultural translation of the good news. After she told her story she, for the sake of discussion, asked her audience: "So what would you do if you were in my shoes and ministering to this postmodern European guy?"

And then it began.

Instead of taking the speaker's question (she is an excellent communicator, by the way) as a conversation-starter, they heard her asking for advice on how to handle the situation. Never mind the fact that the speaker was asked to speak because of her wisdom and experience in ministry to postmoderns. Never mind that she had already been ministering to this individual for some time. People actually raised their hands and offered their answers to her "problem!"

"Have you tried confronting him about his sin?"
"You should give him a copy of 'Evidence That Demands A Verdict.'"
"I'd move him to the back burner and look for someone more open to the gospel."

I'll admit that I was secretly comforted by the response the speaker received. I've often found myself in the same situation; asking questions to inspire discussion but met with words of advice from an oblivious audience. Until now, I thought it was me.

Now, please don't hear me say that I don't want or need the wisdom of others. I, of all of us, certainly do. But there's something disheartening about interactive discussion being shut down by a know-it-all. More than the answers, I think it's the attitude that ruins things. It's the "I've already got these things figured out. I'll go to the trouble of sharing the solutions with you, but I won't venture to honestly revisit the question." You can almost hear them saying: "Look, I gave you the answer. I solved your problem. If you spend any more time talking about it, you're a fool."

But what that says to people like me (as if there were more than just me) is that the know-it-alls don't really have it figured out at all. They have a working "solution," and either for fear, laziness, or ignorance, won't suffer questioning it again. I never want to be that guy. But for some reason, our subculture often seems to hold "that guy" up as the leader.

I am encouraged, though. It's been a long time since "that guy" has been invited to lead a workshop.

I say, let's ask questions. Even the ones we answered a long time ago. Especially the ones that are scary to ask. Let's, for the sake of discussion, re-ask questions about God and His people from the perspective of know-nothings. I think there's a lot to be learned by asking questions. Don't you?

Degrees of separation (from Jesus)

2006-04-23T07:27:00.000Z

1. Kate Winslet was in Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio
2. Leonardo DiCaprio was in Catch Me If You Can with Tom Hanks
3. Tom Hanks was in Apollo 13 with Kevin Bacon

You're probably familiar with the game "Six Degrees of Separation (Kevin Bacon)," where one player picks an actor, and the other players list a string of co-stars and supporting actors that connect that actor to Kevin Bacon. Apparently, Kevin Bacon is the center of the film universe. If you've never tried it, you should. If you're lazy, or if you don't want to admit to watching rated-R movies, there's a Bacon Calculator to do it for you at the "Oracle of Bacon."

Lately I've been reminded of the Kevin Bacon game a lot. I spent the last week talking with missionaries from around Western Europe, and I was encouraged to hear their stories. I really had no idea what some of them were doing in their places of service (and in more than one case, I had never even heard of their place of service). Anyway, one thing that struck me about nearly every story I heard was how they related the great spiritual need they they found every day. It seemed like everyone I spoke with felt the need to tell me how lost their people group or city really was.

For example:
"We're working with university students in Salamanca. There are one hundred and fifty thousand students there, and the city is less than point-five percent evangelized."

"Our team is working with Cambodians in Dusseldorf, and they are the largest UPG in the world."

It's not just the numbers. As if work in a city of five million was somehow more important than work in a village of thirty thousand. Ok, so maybe it is the numbers that bother me. But I've written enough about how I don't think we should let numbers determine our strategy. My question now is about degrees of "lostness." Are some people more lost than others? What is it that makes missionaries measure their importance by the perceived challenge of "reaching" a bigger, "loster" people group?

Is a historically "Christian" people group closer to Jesus than a Muslim one? Maybe we should measure lostness by distance from the land where Jesus Himself walked (as the crow flies). Should we consider the ones that sin more to be further from salvation? Maybe the less civilized? I guess that biblically, we could argue that the richer nations have a harder time entering the Kingdom...

So now we're back to the Kevin Bacon game: Are there degrees of separation from God? Are some people more lost than others? I get that some people are more spiritually minded than others, and that some are nearer than others to that point of belief that comes with a relationship with the Creator. And of course, God uses encounters with believers to draw people to Himself. But if a person or people group is separated from God, aren't they still only one step away from Him? I believe that people are only separated by one degree from God. After all, it isn't us that bridge the gap between them and Him. Forget Kevin Bacon, Jesus is the relational center of the universe.

It's My Job

2006-04-08T21:37:00.000Z

I have devoted the last four years of my life to the study of a language and culture that are not my own. When I started, I thought of these people only in stereotypes and generalities. Every new observation or bit of insight was applied to the whole. "Everyone here," I can remember thinking, "hates me because I'm an American." To me, the rude guy at the gas station represented an entire nation of rude people just like him. The poor customer service at the post office meant that it didn't exist anywhere in the country. Ok, so maybe some of my observations were universal.

Life in another language is like taking a cold shower. The best way to start is to just jump in all at once. Even then, you don't enjoy it. We say that we get used to it, but really we just become so numb it doesn't bother us anymore. It takes about a month to get over the feeling that everyone around is talking about you. Another month before you can tell the difference between angry shouting and just regular talking. Every week after that, your chances increase that you'll get what you think you ordered in a restaurant. I love picture menus, even though the food never really looks as good in person.

So now I know stuff. I know that I'm not the only one that the waiter is rude to, and that the person I'm meeting will be late, but if I am, I'll get a text message asking where I am. I can really notice how much I've learned when new people come. Volunteers can be pretty oblivious, but other missionaries are the best barometers of cultural acclimation. I love the feeling of knowing what's going on while the new guy is totally lost. I replace "When I was your age..." with "when I first got here...," but otherwise, I'm the wistful old man of our team. All I need now is a rocking chair (and a porch), and I could keep you up all afternoon telling stories of times when I put my foot in my mouth or accidentally called a police officer a woman to his face.

I continue to study because it's my job and I'm fascinated by it. I love learning why people here do what they do. Especially when they don't even know. In a way, all this study, all this intentional living amongst these people makes me a bit of an expert. I'm not trying to sound proud or anything, but I most likely know more about the people to whom I'm ministering than you do. (Easy for me to say since I haven't exactly told you who the people are.) Odds are that you've never even met someone from my people group, much less turned down the alcoholic beverage he offered while sitting on his sofa watching home videos of his niece's Confirmation.

So that's what I bring to the table. I'm not a good public speaker, and I don't know how to play any musical instruments. But I have cultural insight that is unique to the people I work with here in Western Europe. I can tell you how someone from this city might respond to a gospel presentation. I know how they are likely to view us as outsiders, and I'm familiar with their felt needs. I have seen glimpses of the Church in this culture, and it doesn't look very much like it does in American culture. In a lot of ways, that has been the payoff for all the work and stress of living in another culture; to see the Church in a different light.

Thank you for supporting us to be students of these different cultures. Thank you for trusting us to represent Jesus among people that aren't looking for Him. Thank you for allowing us to translate the gospel into these cultures and plant indigenous churches that worship God in their own languages. Thank you for providing a way for me to do what I'm called to do.

Full Time

2006-04-03T21:33:00.000Z

One of the most difficult things about this job, as any professional minister will tell you, is figuring out what the job is. Sure, lots of churches go to great lengths to define the roles of their staff members. And I answered a pretty well-written job request when I came to the field. But no matter how hard we try to make it look like one, my job will never be a real job. Even if I punch a clock, it won't ever begin at 8:30 am and end at 6:00 pm. Being a church planter defies planning. Preparation, of course, but there is no way to schedule the birth and growth of a spiritual family.

Busyness comes in waves. We'll have a hundred volunteers in one month, and that's when national friends come out of the woodwork to spend time with us. Then we'll go months without a call. We find ourselves pursuing anyone who will take our calls. So far, the only way we've found to guarantee that people call us is to schedule a vacation. As soon as we book our flights we're certain to get an invitation to a wedding or baptism or soccer game.

A lot of what we do seems like busywork. We fill out reports. We start projects, make contacts, and build websites. Sometimes, it's easy to get so caught up in the preparation for ministry that we don't have time to, you know, minister.

I'm still not sure if we all start out that way, or if it's being on the field that affects us, but missionaries are weird. We work really hard to learn language, which ends up making us really dumb in our own language. We talk about missing things like Wal-Mart and American Idol and customer service. We still wear the clothes we bought off the Gap sale rack while we were on our last stateside assignment. In 1997.

Our job depends on something only God can do. Only He can save someone. Only He knows the heart of the people we're here to love. Only He can start a movement of faith among these people. My job is "Church Planter," but only God can plant a church. Sometimes, I wish I was a mechanic or something. A job where you're done when the car is fixed or the clock strikes six, whichever comes first.

Babble On

2006-04-01T14:44:00.000Z

I had been here six months when I found myself talking with a friend who was not a believer. The only English he spoke was the HTML code he had picked up in a "Web Design for Dummies" class. I had only been studying his language since I arrived on the field, so I could hardly claim to be fluent. As usual, we started off talking about politics. Anarchy, I think, or something else I know nothing about. Then we got to the topic of family. His was very important to him, but he often felt suffocated by their constant dependence on him. He hated always having to help his grandparents and run errands. I say, that's what you get for living at home until you're 32.

Our leisurely discussion explored the limits of my language skills. I've always measured how well I can speak by how much the other person scrunches their face as they work to understand me. In any given conversation, my friend would go from a James Dean to a Gilbert Gottfried. He was at about a Dirty Harry when we got into spiritual things that day, and I was struggling to find the words to express such abstract concepts as forgiveness, prayer, and Vacation Bible School. I started to pray panic prayers when I realized that he was very interested in what I had to say, but that my language level wasn't yet good enough to allow me to communicate.

But something happened as I shared my faith with my friend. Actually, nothing happened, which was strange. We just kept on talking. About knowing our creator, and about fuller life and about purpose. We talked about Jesus, and I shared some of my most personal thoughts about my faith. My friend told me that if he were ever going to believe in a god, that mine was the kind he'd like to believe in. Before our talk, he didn't even know Jesus was a way, much less the way.

It wasn't until I was home, praying for my friend to be haunted by the truth in our conversation, that I realized how un-scrunched my friend's face had been while we talked. My friend had understood me, and he hadn't been distracted by my American accent that often gets in the way. I had said things correctly in a language I had hardly known. We had talked about things I wasn't capable of discussing. I had used words I had never learned. He didn't have to correct me, help me, or ask his usual "What is it that you're trying to say?" He heard Good News in his heart language.

The discussion replayed over and over in my mind that night, like one of those television dramas that frames the flashbacks in hazy, blurry border in order to make them seem more, you know, dramatic. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit spoke for me that day. I'm certain that He gave me words beyond my ability in order to communicate with my friend through me. Something supernatural had happened. Just to keep me humble, I had a miserable experience at a restaurant that night. I didn't get what I thought I had ordered. The waiter didn't understand me.

I don't speak in tongues. I'm not allowed to. IMB policy prohibits me from participating in that sort of thing. It might not have been only the Holy Spirit that helped me, anyway. It was probably more like half Him, and half the intensive language course that I had taken. In fact, maybe I was just having a really good language day that day. I've been praying for more of those every day.

For My Modern Brethren

2006-03-25T11:10:00.000Z

I've been thinking about some comments posted by Jeff and Tim back on my post: I'd Like to Make a Toast. They expressed their concern as to my ability to adequately express myself in a coherent manner which would allow for meaningful discussion with modern thinkers. The following are my concerns about their suggestions:

I read many blogs. (Actually, my news aggregator reads many blogs, and delivers the new stuff to my home page.) One thing I come across time and again is how tied we as believers are to the modern debate technique known as "rhetoric;" which is a worldy and impersonal approach to communication that hinders Christian discussion. Many of us have worked to rid our vocabulary of meaningless Christian jargon, (and by meaningless, I mean "religious" words for which we have no common definition even amongst ourselves, and are completely unknown outside our subculture.) but we have yet to develop a better way to communicate. Our dependence on the rhetorical debate technique is preventing us from having meaningful discussion.

For example: On the alcohol post, Tim voiced his opinion that abstaining from alcohol was, in fact a biblical position. He gave support for his opinion in the form of quotes. He then challenged me to refute his sources. In the past, this would have been a great way to discuss the issue of missionaries drinking on the field. But the days of debate being the only recognized form of "thoughtful discourse" amogst believers are over (and if they weren't before I typed that last line, I hereby declare them to be over).

Any form of communication that necessitates pitting one against the other is a bad start. I don't see why we would advocate a system that refers to the person with whom we are speaking as an "opponent," or "critic," or "adversary." If we instead take part in a discussion between "friends," "brothers and sisters," and "fellow seekers," the conversation can be unifying, encouraging, and edifying. Sure it's ok to disagree. Sometimes, we must do it strongly even. You might think it's a question of semantics, but the moment we start to think of the person we're talking to as our rival, we've begun to play by the world's rules.

We label every person and every person's every thought. Without even really listening to someone, we assume we know what they're saying and why. "Oh, you're Amyraldian." "You're arguing infralapsarianism, and that's been proven wrong." How does this help a conversation? I'm not saying we should limit ourselves to rehashing past arguments. We should learn from the discussions that wiser men and women have had before us. But do we really need to boil everyone down to one of two camps on every issue? Liberal or Conservative? Calvinist or Arminian? Open communion, or closed? My answer, to all of these questions is yes. I'm sure there's a label for that, too.

And don't get me started on "hyperbole." Exaggerating the other guy's position just to make a point is, well, lying. But that's what happens in every debate. Someone shares their thoughts, and we make a charicature of their statements in order to easily show the flaws in their logic. But all the while we know that the guy on the other end of the discussion isn't really saying that homosexuality isn't sin or that Calvinists shouldn't participate in evangelism. We only argue with ourselves when we put words in people's mouths.

Along those same lines, posting a list of quotes from your research here is like bringing some upper-classmen to a playground disagreement. Sharing the sources that have convinced you is a good thing, but challenging me to refute them is the opposite of discussion. By citing outside support, you've stepped out of the conversation, and put dead historians and Greek scholars in your place. If you didn't want to talk (type) it out with me, you should've said so.

Sarcasm is ok, though. It allows us to say things that, while true, would make us look like total jerks if we weren't just being sarcastic. Besides, it's usually pretty funny.

Jesus convinced people by asking questions and quoting (and paraphrasing?) scripture, not by challenging anyone to refute anything. Paul even referred to pagan religions and quoted popular philosophers. I'd prefer to participate in a conversation by asking questions (my favorite lately has been: "How's that working out for you?") over trying to expose logical inconsistencies in someone's "argument." Besides, even the most rational of us hold on to beliefs that seem to be contradictions, don't we? Our faith requires it of us.

I guess I'm advocating a system of communication that doesn't have rules that rule anyone out. I think we shouldn't disqualify people from participation in the conversation because they don't argue well enough or have enough historical support of their position. I'm tired of people thinking that using Greek is a trump card that should end all questions. I love conversation. I think the free exchange of ideas is beautiful. I am not uncomfortable with unanswered questions or apparent contradictions. Why are you?

It's funny; as I type, I'm reminded of the classroom rules for group discussion set by my sixth-grade teacher, Ms. Ludlow. If I remember correctly, they went something like this:
1. There are no stupid questions.
2. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
3. We can disagree, but we must do so politely.
4. Always tell the truth.
5. Don't betray confidences.
6. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

I think there was another one about waiting to speak until you were called on. Anyway, I don't expect that any of us would stop using the rhetorical method any time soon. In fact, we're so modern, there may be some conversations we are incapable of having outside of a debate. I think it would be cool to explore those.

First Person Plural

2006-03-17T17:33:00.000Z

Most of us change pretty dramatically after just a short time on the field. As we begin to identify with nationals, we are exposed to different perspectives (many of us for the first time) that we never really got from previous experiences or short-term trips. Right away, we start to see ourselves through other people's eyes, and we can't help but rethink some of what we've always believed about politics, social issues, and our faith. We are compelled to begin the process of determining what is truth and what is culture.

Even though we all go through this transition from our home culture to our host culture, it's a lonely time for us, because we must go through it alone. Sure we try to relate our experiences to our friends and families back home, but how can we express the disillusionment, frustration, and doubt we struggle with? After all, we're paid to be professionals. We ought to know our role, and we certainly should be beyond the basics. If we are open about these things, people get nervous; the Board of Trustees thinks we've gone liberal and makes a new policy to help straighten us out. If we seek the counsel of our stateside pastors, they inadvertently give us a distinctly American perspective. If we ask our Southern Baptist constituency, the people in the pews, we risk losing their confidence in us and therefore their support.

So the norm these days is to keep quiet. Don't tell the people back home that we've changed our minds about alcohol and the death penalty and spiritual gifts. Don't let them know we're against the war in Iraq and embarrassed by the overweight, ignorant volunteers that come and perpetuate the American stereotype. But as far as I can tell, saying nothing hurts accountability and unity. So I blog. And fortunately, I'm not alone. Coworkers from around the world are writing posts about some of the same things. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to me to read fellow IMB M's blogging about the issues they face, and knowing that the people who send us can read about our experiences first-hand.

But the comments that followed my last post reveal the difficulty of communication between the field and home. Here are some reasons for the breakdown:

Learning living languages brings a new perspective to our understanding of biblical languages. If it takes me years to learn the subtle nuances of the twelve different ways to say the same thing in my host language (a language I'm immersed in), maybe I'm going to be a little skeptical of the preacher back home who claims to know the one true meaning of the original Greek of a biblical text.

We are consistently exposed to the spiritual enemy in ways we normally wouldn't experience back home. On a daily basis, we come face to face with principalities and powers that have ruled these countries for generations. Even those strongholds that are familiar to us: bitterness, materialism, and idolatry, seem to have extra-sharp teeth out here. All we can do is hold tightly to the Holy Spirit. But if we talk about what we've seen, we're labeled charismatic.

We are seeing strong and healthy churches born all the time. We learn more about the body of Christ from this adventure of being the church than we ever did by going to church in the States. We don't miss one bit the politics, fund-raising, or programmed activities of the congregational churches we come from. These groups were started by the Holy Spirit and accountable to Him as they seek to obediently work out what it means to be believers in their own culture. But because these churches don't fit the SBC mold, seminary presidents and big-name pastors back home are questioning our ecclesiology.

I've often heard that missionaries should just preach the gospel, and not worry so much about the culture. My time on the field, however, has taught me that the gospel is impossible to share or even comprehend outside the context of a culture. So I will keep seeking cultural translation of life in Christ. And as long as I have something to say, I'll keep blogging about it.

I'd Like to Make a Toast...

2006-03-13T00:14:00.000Z

I'm glad to see the controversy move from speculation to discussion. With the release of the "position papers," IMB Board of Trustees Chairman Tom Hatley breaks the silence and attempts to explain the reasons behind the Board's new policies on prayer languages and baptism. Another trustee who voted in favor of the policies, Jerry Corbaley, has really opened up to hearing from M's and stateside folks alike over at his new blog.

The Trustees are getting hit from three sides: on the one hand, there are the ultra-conservatives who were likely behind the policy change to begin with. They point to house church ecclesiology, the role of women, and the treatment of spiritual gifts as evidence that the IMB is becoming a bastion of liberalism. On the other side are those that oppose the policies. They see signs of Landmarkism, lack of accountability, and power plays and are voicing their concerns through blogs. Finally, there are the (mostly anonymous) M's on the field. They seem to be most concerned with policies, guidelines, and strategies dictated from Richmond with no regard to cultural context. Oh, and they're worried they'll get fired if they complain.

Since I fall into the third category, I've got to ask: what about alcohol?

It seems like the part of the discussion many find most troubling (besides how Wade Burleson was treated) is that the policies go beyond scripture, and beyond the BFM 2000 to disqualify many Southern Baptists from missionary service based on a narrow interpretation of baptism and tongues. Everyone is upset about extra-biblical requirements for IMB personnel, but the Board has always required M's to abstain from drinking. People are refusing to accept "because the majority of Southern Baptists believe this way" in place of scriptural support for the new policies, but alcohol is forbidden for this reason. Never mind what the Bible says, never mind the M's host culture; drinking is grounds for termination. Abiding by the rule has always been seen by our folks on the field as one of the concessions we have to make in order to receive support. Most of the people I know disagree with this policy.

For the sake of ministry, we have eaten some crazy things. We've hung out in smokey bars. We've stayed out all night with friends. Though we'll always be foreigners, we do all that we can to minimize the differences between us and the people to whom we minister. In my own experience, there have been times when that ministry has been hurt and opportunities have been missed because I (by kindly abstaining) made an issue of something that ought to be a non-issue.

Even though caffeine is a drug, we wouldn't make a new policy that prohibits M's from drinking tea when they go into a Chinese home. Sexual temptation is a reality, but we don't have a rule against greeting people of the opposite sex with a kiss, as they do in Spain. But because "most Southern Baptists don't approve" of alcohol consumption, our M's are required to abstain.

I'm not trying to rekindle the debate over drinking. For a great perspective on the subject, check out Steve McCoy's post: "Alcohol, Abstention, and Redemption." I just thought I'd point out what has been an IMB-imposed obstacle to ministry.

Here's to good discussion.

Postmodern, Predestined

2006-03-09T14:40:00.000Z

In my experience, people who are less modern tend to be more fatalistic. We don't normally believe that what we do will make a difference in the world. Sure, I'll keep on recycling, but because it's the right thing to do, not because it's going to save the environment. I don't believe that buying a cheeseburger for the homeless guy on the street will end global hunger (I don't even believe it will end his hunger), but I do it anyway, because Jesus talked a lot about it. I vote, but hey, I'm registered in California. A lot of this is about doing what's right because it's right and not because it works, but that's another post.

Lately I've started to wonder if maybe this fatalistic attitude (which most Christians decry) is why the doctrine of predestination makes so much sense to me. Now I'm not talking about Calvinism, mostly because I don't want to be lumped in with that crowd, and because I won't pledge my allegiance to any guy who started a Christian Taliban in Switzerland. For me, I recognize that though I should do the right thing, and I want to do the right thing, I probably won't. Even if I were to do the right thing, it wouldn't really make any difference anyway. Thankfully, the eternal destiny of the world doesn't depend on me.

So, if it is God who chooses us, and not the other way around, by what criteria does He choose? That question is just so, well, modern. I really never stress about that. In fact, I find beauty in the mystery, and I'm humbled that He elected me. (Proof that being handsome, smart, or nice aren't among the criteria.) Predestination is fatalism with a face, and in case you haven't heard, Grace is the new Karma.

If I truly believe that people's salvation doesn't depend on me, why am I here on the field? (I figure that of my small audience, there's got to be at least one person wondering about that.) I'm not here to make an impact on "lostness," or to "finish the task," because I couldn't if I tried. Not even all of us, working together in Christian unity could do those things. No, I'm here because God called me to go. Perhaps you could say it was my destiny.

Spirit-ectomy

2006-03-03T12:36:00.000Z

One of things I struggle with is our tendancy to separate the spiritual from the social. You know, the idea that we shouldn't get caught up in social issues because we're working to see people's soul's saved. I've heard this type of thing a lot. The other day I read a blog post that said:

"To feed the poor without telling them of Christ is wrong...now all you're doing is sending them to hell with a full belly."

This blogger was saying that it is a distraction from the "main thing" (evangelism?) for us to concern ourselves with feeding the hungry, or advocating the oppressed. I've also heard people say, "I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to share the gospel." (I've written about that in previous posts.) To a certain extent, the current strategy of the IMB reflects this "one or the other" mentality. "New Directions" was all about a shift in focus to church planting, but in many places we pulled out of social ministries such as schools, medical clinics, refugee services, and orphanages. My concern is that by separating the spiritual from the social, we are changing the gospel. We say we are concerned about people, but practically, we're only concerned about, well, part of people.

The good news is not only spiritual in nature; it is social. New life in Christ is about community. Before Christ, we are out of fellowship with the Most High God. Jesus is the way to community with God. But this isn't all there is to it. The gospel is also about community with others. In Christ we are brought into fellowship with other believers. Also, life in Him provides us with Christ's perspective, through which we can begin to have a right relationship with the world around us.

Our focus on the "spiritual" might be why Christians struggle socially. We have a hard time relating to lost people. We are pretty ignorant about other cultures, and anything that doesn't directly affect us. Our divorce rate is high. Lots of us fear the world and hide from it inside the walls of the "safe" "Christian" subculture. We treat people who disagree with us pretty badly. Spiritually, we're great. Socially, it hardly looks like we're saved. Maybe we've only heard the spiritual half of the gospel.

For some reason, people are afraid that I might give "a cup of cool water" to someone in need without telling them that I'm doing it in Jesus name. To me, that's the same as sharing the "plan of salvation" and not addressing physical/social needs. It only presents a part of the gospel. Many of my missionary friends would probably say, "Yeah, but it's the most important part of the gospel." But I don't think we get to make that distinction, either.

"You Know What Your Problem Is?"

2006-02-28T11:00:00.000Z

Don't you hate when someone starts a discussion with "You know what your problem is?" They should just say, "You've got a problem, and you obviously don't know what it is, so I'm going to tell you." Either way, everyone is a critic (even me).

Some of the IMB's most vocal critics are a group of folks within the SBC who are concerned about the theology of the Board and the missionaries it sends. Our president, they say, is too charismatic. ILC (MLC) training, they charge, is theologically weak. CPM, they claim, leaves too much room for heresy to sneak in. I'm not exactly sure who "They" are, but "They" are concerned that we've got a bunch of liberals in the mission field. That's why, even though the Board requires that all missionary candidates be members-in-good-standing of a Southern Baptist Church, and that career personnel have seminary training, we all had to sign the BFM 2000- to prove to "Them" we weren't liberals. Somehow, our signatures didn't help ease "Their" concerns, so "They" had the trustees adopt some new policies that would keep liberals out of the ranks. Now, Southeastern Seminary students are organizing to collect evidence against IMB personnel who might be labeled liberal. (Ok, so maybe I do know who "They" are.)

If you've read any of my posts here, you know that I, too, am concerned about the strategy and missiology of my coworkers. But I'm coming from a different direction. I'm not worried about chasing down liberalism, or defending the faith. Because they are in different cultural contexts, and because they are seeing God move in different ways, most of our personnel who have been overseas for very long would seem liberal to many of "Them." It might also have to do with the fact that most of our M's in the field don't get Fox News...

The churches that we are planting (or working to plant) are not drowning in watered-down theology. They are being suffocated by our models and worldview.

If you were to ask me (and yes, I realize that you didn't), the best thing that the IMB could do to further our church planting efforts would be to stop hiring and sending Missionaries. I'm not talking about slowing the flow of personnel to the field; we need all the businessmen and artists and chefs and computer programmers we can get. What we don't need is more Missionaries. Most of the people sent by the Board are pastors (who end up pastoring the churches they plant), youth ministers (who tend to build strong seeker-friendly youth groups instead of churches), or ministers of music/associate pastor types (who are all about new programs and events). It seems to me that the best way to avoid the influence of the American Christian religion and subculture on the churches we plant is to stop exporting it through our personnel.

I agree with those who say we need to rethink our understanding on missions and the church. We need to send people who are well-trained and qualified to plant churches. But the solution to our struggles isn't a liberalism witch hunt, it's in open dialogue.

Speaking of open dialogue, what do you think?

PG People in an R-rated World

2006-02-24T12:42:00.000Z

At the beginning of the Iraq war, I heard an American military analyst on CNN talking about how young American troops had a major advantage over their enemy due to the fact that most of them grew up playing video games. He went on to say that training time for pilots and drivers had been drastically reduced since most of the military machinery (fighter jets, tanks, etc.) had been outfitted with interfaces and controls that mimicked the those of video games. I thought that was interesting. It also makes me glad that Japan is an ally- those kids play video games in their sleep!

I wonder about that element of desensitization, too. You know, when a kid sees however many thousand acts of violence on TV before he reaches the age of twelve, it's bound to make him flinch less when he sees people being shot. From a parent's perspective, this is an outrage. From a military strategist's point of view, however, it can actually be a good thing. It means that your soldiers aren't going to be distracted from the job they've been assigned to by the violence it requires. Of you've seen it in "Saving Private Ryan" and "blackhawk Down," you're going to expect it in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Which brings me to the meeting we had the other day. Our leadership team was going over the information we use in training new personnel before they come to the field. One of the hardest things about preparing folks before they come is getting them ready for the postmodern Western European worldview. We assign books like Stan Grenz's "A Primer on Postmodern" that teach about postmodernism, and we have them check out websites like Andrew Jones' blog. But we still have people come over who have no concept of life beyond their modern rational worldview. So I put together a list of movies that do a good job of showing postmodernism as we seen it in Western Europe. The list included movies such as Fight Club, American Beauty, and Vanilla Sky. Oddly enough, almost all of the films on my list came out between 1999 and 2001. Unfortunately, all of them are rated R.

Even though there are many films that do a great job of illustrating postmodernism, we will not be sending this list of movies to new personnel. There is no way we can even suggest, much less assign, an R-rated movie as preparation and training material for new missionaries. The reasons, I think, are obvious.

I think there is value in studying the culture and those things that influence it. What if we could get our people used to European culture before they got here? The problem, of course, is that so much of the culture is defined by it's sin. There is value in being exposed to the relativism, anti-consumerism, and cynicism that define this culture. But how can we expose ourselves to those attitudes without sitting through the foul language, sex, and violence that usually accompany them?

On the one hand, I want to say, "Watch the movie. Life and ministry in Europe (and the States, for that matter) requires that we be exposed to things that are not God-honoring. If you're going to be offended by lost people doing lost people things, how are you going to spend time with them? That's what the spiritual armor is for." But on the other hand, I would say, "We're surrounded by sin. We see it every day. What good can come from exposing ourselves to any more of it?"

So the question remains: How can we be PG people and yet minister in an R-rated world? I guess my answer would be that if we equip our people to be in tune with the Holy Spirit and to be students of the culture, we can be incarnational without becoming carnal.

Emerging

2006-02-22T23:33:00.000Z

There is an ongoing discussion within the convention about the Emerging Church Movement. Originally, it was seen as a mostly harmless group of "younger" leaders who pushing for authenticity and social involvement. Since then, due to the ambiguous nature and "more questions than answers" style of emergent authors like Brian McLaren, popular opinion has changed. Now, the label "emergent" is equated with "liberal" (or worse). People who are sympathetic to emerging church ideas are accused of abandoning truth in order to make our faith relevant to the world.

I admit that my worldview is different from most of my fellow missionaries. This is due in part to the fact that I am younger and that I was raised outside the Bible Belt. It may also be that living in Western Europe and investing my life into studying the culture and integrating into the community has led me to adopt some of their worldview. Either way, I am not typical.

Unlike most of my coworkers, I have yet to see a contemporary expression of our faith that I am comfortable with. I am tired of labels. I believe in God's sovereignty, but I can't stand the arrogance of most Calvinists. I'm open to new ways of doing church and living missionally, but I don't want to be written off as "emergent," "Generation X," or "Postmodernist." I can't even grow a goatee. If I were to have a conversation with a member of the Board of Trustees about politics, they would most likely label me a liberal. Theologically, I'm very conservative, but our style of ministry would make many church members back home scratch their heads. I have a hard time trusting institutions; even the one that sends me. I believe that the Bible is without error, but that none of our interpretations is. I believe in truth, but I don't believe any of us have it contained in a formula, book, or study guide. I am not Purpose Driven.

All of this is to say that most of my questions here are not born of any desire to make the gospel "cool" or "relevant" or "easier to swallow." I understand that the Truth is offensive, and that it always runs counter to both human nature and the flow of culture. No, my questions aren't about me making things work for them, I'm trying to make it work for me. (Philippians 2:12,13)

So even though a lot of my posts sound like sermons, and I tend to state my opinions as though they were fact, the purpose of this blog is for me to work out my salvation- my calling and ministry- by asking questions, exploring ideas, and being critical. I appreciate those of you who read, and those who take time to comment. That's why I'm doing this, um, publicly; to hear from others who might be able to encourage and challenge me.

I want to understand my faith, and to be able to share it with others. I want to plant churches that are free of the modern American religion that I'm having such a hard time with. Marty Duren wrote an excellent post on this at SBC Outpost. If you haven't read it, you should. I think many of us can relate to what he says about legalism.

One thing I'm becoming aware of is how negative some of my posts may sound. (All of my posts?) In my next couple of posts, I'm going to try to propose some positive solutions for making sense of things for myself and the culture I live in. Please feel free to add your own.

Church in a Box

2006-02-13T19:19:00.000Z

We're always looking for churches that are interested in partnering with us as we plant churches here in Western Europe. God has been good to provide us with mission-minded churches that participate sacrificially in what God is doing around the world. Sometimes we go looking for partner churches. Every once in a while, one comes looking for us.

Recently, we were contacted by a well-known megachurch in the Convention that was looking for opportunities to plant "postmodern" churches in Western Europe. For us, that's a pretty big deal. It's like landing a big account, picking up a high-profile client, closing a big deal. Or some other corporate term that means "good for us." Having big and rich partner churches means an unlimited volunteer pool, round-the-clock prayer support, and a few items crossed off the unfunded needs list. Immediately we started planning vision trips and prayer materials for our new partners. It wasn't until we met with the church leadership back in the States that we realized things we're going to work out.

Their idea of church planting was to reproduce their successful stateside model in other countries. They explained to me that they had been hard at work putting together resources that would make it easy to implement their strategy. All I had to do was join their church planting network, and for $250 US per year they would send me recordings of their pastor's sermons and some study materials. My membership also qualified me to shop in their church planting network resources store, where I could buy a state-of the-art sound system, a video projector, and padded seats in one of three tasteful colors. That's right, they wanted to sell me church in a box.

Picture it: a mini-megachurch in the heart of Western Europe. Weekly sermons, already translated into national languages, ready to be shown on the big screen. A video of inspirational, seeker-sensitive worship music, complete with a powerpoint presentation of the lyrics. The package even included advertising materials, such as professional-quality brochures, vinyl banners, and pre-recorded radio spots.

When I told the church leaders that we were trying to start churches that would be a little more indigenous, they stared blankly. When I asked if we could try something that was a little more culturally appropriate, they offered to take a hundred dollars off the cost of my membership to their church planter's network. When I outlined our strategy, they laughed. "We're not going to get involved in anything that won't let our people see immediate results," they said. "Our model has been proven to work here in the U.S., and we're just looking for someone to do it overseas."

Looking back, the whole interaction sounds silly.

Front Burner

2006-01-29T14:28:00.000Z

This is a follow-up to my last post, Back Burner.

I believe that relationships are the context in which the gospel should be shared. Real relationships. This means that the only filter I apply to my ministry is my trust that the people that God brings our way are the people in whom He is working. I pursue natural friendships with these people that don't depend on them becoming believers. I intentionally take every opportunity to speak into their life. I walk with them through the daily grind and I'm there for them when the big things come up. I don't believe there's any higher calling or better use of my time.

I refuse to buy into evangelism economics. I'm tired of counting numbers and measuring success by visible results. There aren't any formulas for getting the most bang for our ministry bucks, and I don't want to pimp out relationships like some sort of Amway salesman. Artificial relationships that have strings attached make me feel fake. I'm sick of hearing "But we aren't here to make friends, we're her to plant churches" as though the two were mutually exclusive. I think that "broad seed sowing," as it is commonly understood, requires dilution of the gospel, something I'm not willing to do. I know that an American Christian has coming to share the "plan of salvation" with a Western European does not necessarily mean that the gospel has been communicated, and so I'm not willing to "move on" if someone doesn't respond the way I want them to.

I have a good friend, a national, who calls himself an agnostic. He does not believe in a personal, "knowable" God. In the beginning of our relationship, I was encouraged every time I had the opportunity to share my faith with him. I prayed that he would show interest in spiritual things, and that he would come to know the Lord. Even after years of sharing life together, he showed no signs of faith. He knew what I believed; I've never been shy about the fact that my life is founded in Christ. He just didn't want any of it. My ministry seemed to hit a plateau; no "progress" was being made. I went through a time of really questioning things. Was I wasting my time with an unresponsive individual? Was it time to "move on?"

One day, my friend and I were having coffee when an acquaintance joined us. The conversation turned, as it often did, to spiritual things. The guy heard me mention my faith, and asked me what I believed. Before I could respond, my friend jumped in and, in the most articulate way, explained exactly what I believed: that Jesus is the only way to God, and that there is no spiritual life apart from Him. That a person is saved by grace alone, regardless of his or her deeds. He even mentioned "life more abundant!" Here, my unbelieving friend was sharing the good news to someone I hardly knew.

Who knows? Maybe this is how God is going to do things in Western Europe. Maybe He's leading us to "waste time" on "unresponsive" people that He sees fit to us in the cultural translation of the gospel. Does my friend's "gospel presentation" lack the power of the evidence of a changed life? Yes. Is my friend, who does not have a relationship with God, in a position to disciple others? Of course not. Maybe that's why I'm here. Either way, I'm going to continue to invest my life in the lives of the people God brings to me, however inefficient that my be.

Back Burner

2006-01-29T13:04:00.000Z

Sometimes missionaries struggle with the reach of our influence. In their efforts to start a church planting movement, they see it as a good thing to interact with as many people as possible. This is the basic mentality behind most of the "broad seed sowing" activities our people do. Tracts, door-to-door visits, and drama in the park are all efforts toward sharing the message of Christ with as many people as possible.

But how does this play into a strategy that doesn't include distribution or public events? If a person can only have so many real friends, and my ministry is intentionally limited to personal relationships, how can I "reach" a wide audience?

I've been asked these questions several times by different people. In fact, this seems the be the one issue that most people have with our "strictly relational" approach to church planting. It just isn't a good use of our time, they reason, to spend it with people who are closed, indifferent, or hostile to our message. Strategists have come up with all kinds of solutions to overcome the limits of our relational reach. The IMB trains us in the use of programmed "filters." These are built-in means by which we can find those people who are spiritually searching, and screen out the people that are less open to accepting the gospel.

One example is a change in the traditional use of the "Jesus Film." Rather than passing it out indiscriminately, our strategists now recommend sending out invitations to receive the movie. This, they say, saves lots of time, effort, and money, by focusing on those people who are already interested enough that they would put forth the effort to answer an invitation and request a film. Having identified the people that are spiritually "good soil," the missionary doesn't have to waste time on people who may never respond to the good news.

On more than one occasion, I've had colleagues express concern over our short-reaching influence. And each time, their advice included the Front Burner/Back Burner analogy. Their take is that sure, it's ok to be relational, but that we need to be discerning in how much we invest into those relationship. Those relationships that seem to be "going somewhere" (the person is showing interest in coming to Christ after we share the gospel with them) are the ones we need to put on the "front burner;" those are the ones we need to pour our lives into. But if we have a relationship with someone who, after repeated contact still do not show signs of interest, we need to put them on the "back burner." They wouldn't say that we should ignore these uninterested people, but we would recognize that our time might be better spent elsewhere.

After a lot of thought, I've decided that I really don't like the "Front Burner/Back Burner" strategy. It's basically a "filtering" technique, applied to relational ministry, and I think it misses the point.

Look for part two in my next post.

Thoughts on Authority

2006-01-27T10:53:00.000Z

One thing I've noticed over the years is how very dependent ministry tends to be on authority. Pastors preach with the authority given to them by their calling, position, and seminary education. Church planters operate out of the authority of the Great Commission and of the agency that sends them. We teach our people to evangelize out of the authority of scripture. What I've come to understand, though, it that I don't actually have any authority. Not only that, but I'm better off without it.

Pastors who lord spiritual authority over their church members end up being resented. I know this because I once had a pastor who knew ancient Greek. To him, this secret knowledge made him the authority on all things pertaining to the scriptures. His sermons were long, boring lessons in parsing Greek verbs and ancient etymologies. Anyone who questioned the pastor's interpretation was answered with, "But you don't understand the original Greek." The attitude of the entire church was affected by the pastors "authoritative" influence. Members eventually gave up trying to search the scriptures, because they felt inadequate.

When I was a kid, we went through evangelism training that focused on the authority of the Word of God. "Don't share the gospel out of your own experience," I remember the teacher saying, "only the Word of God has any authority in evangelism." At the time, we agreed, because, as we had memorized in week six, it was "the power of God unto salvation." The idea of having authority was empowering to us. From then on, when we were made fun of for trying to share the Roman Road with the cool kids at school, we comforted ourselves with, "They aren't rejecting us. They're rejecting God."

Church planters often cite Matthew 28:19-20 as the passage of scripture God used to call them to the mission field. The verses speak to the subject of authority with Jesus saying, "All authority in heaven in earth is given to me. Therefore go..." I always took this to mean that He was the boss, and therefore we, as His followers were obligated to obey. Maybe that's where we get the idea that we need some sort of authority in order to do ministry.

Authority is a funny thing, though. It has to be given by someone higher up in order for it to be legitimate, and it has to be honored by the people under the authority in order for it to be any authority at all. The scriptures, for example, are indeed authoritative. But there are millions of people who do not respect that authority. Their disregard doesn't make the Bible less true, but it makes its authority a moot point as far as they are concerned.

So in sharing the gospel with people, we could assert the Bible's authority (or our own, as professionals), but it seems that what people need to hear is the usefulness, or the beauty, or the power of the Word. Rather than "Because it says so, that's why." (Did your mom ever pull the "Because I said so?" How did you respond?) We might instead share our personal stories, even though we have no authority at all. We could even ask permission to speak to certain issues, and follow cultural norms in order to get to a place where we can share personal spiritual experiences in appropriate ways. I know. My Evangelism Explosion teacher would be very disappointed with me.

I know what you're going to say: "The Bible is our authority, and it's theirs too, whether they like it or not." And then you'll say,"The gospel is offensive. You shouldn't water it down or candy-coat it in some lame attempt to make it attractive." While you may be right, I would probably just delete your annoying comment because, well, I have the authority to do that sort of thing around here. Even if you post in ancient Greek and quote lots of scripture.

I'm kidding. Mostly.