The Relational Mission

I am in the middle of revisions of the book by the above title. And to be quite honest, with all of the books that have been published in the last few years on small groups, I have to ask why. Why another book on small groups? I have come up with a few reasons: 1. Most of the books that have been released over the last few years simply promote a view of community that is nothing more than more of the American way of life with a little Bible discussion spread on top.  2. Most of the talk about small groups is focused on how to close the back door by giving people a small group experience that does not interfere much with their lives but instead helps enhance their lives.  3. Most small group models are focused on providing group experiences in middle-class suburban settings. 4. Most of the talk about small groups is on how community and group life can benefit individuals.  This is the critical stuff. What about the constructive side of what I am writing? 1. I am concerned about the chur...

I have begun to ponder the fact that most of our theological conversations have been shaped in the age of Enlightenment, which has been shaped in a large way by the agenda of individualism. After 300 years of imagining life as centered around individuals instead of around a community. Our imaginations are shaped in a way that we think first about the benefit to the individual and then for the wider community.  This directly impacts the way we read the Bible. For instance, Paul says in Gal 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." All of the pronouns her are first person singular. So when we read this today, one might assume a way of reading and interpreting Paul that makes this about his personal salvation and personal relationship with Jesus. This seems like the obvious common sensical reading of this verse. However, when you...

Lesslie Newbigin wrote the following in 1963: "The Western world has had to be recognized once again as a mission field, and the Churches have been compelled in a new way to define their nature and mission as parts of a divine society distinct from the wider society of nations in which they live, and all these factors have contributed to developments in the field of theology in the direction of a missionary understanding of the nature of the Church itself." (Newbigin, Trinitarian Doctrine for Today's Mission, 12). I grew up on a farm. While most of our tools, tractors and implements were very basic and some were a few years old, I was trained in the ways of farming that depended upon machinery. I remember the day that my father brought home a brand new round bailer. It was a revolutionary machine because we could form hay into a form that could feed cows for a week instead of the small bails that would only last a day. We were fully dependent upon such machines in our pat...

For most of my life, I have had a narrative going on in my mind about being a thinking person and the call to ministry. It was always easy to see how it was good to be a thinking person in the realms of science, liberal arts and even the business world. But in the Christian world--at least the one I was exposed to--the emphasis has always been on the practical side of doing something and not spending too much time thinking about it. What has been celebrated in my tradition is production. I remember one speaker talking about pastors and missionaries having a slew of theology books and how they spent too much time reading and not enough time doing ministry.  As a result, I have always felt conflicted. I was drawn to a contemplative, reflective and even cerebral way of interacting with God and the church. But many of the people I respected in the church denigrated such things. I remember my first position on staff at a church was that of an interning for a youth pastor who had not had any...

I was talking yesterday with a man who has let an extensive research project on the nature of churches in SE Asia that are seeing spontaneous conversion growth. I asked him "How do you define the nature of conversion?" He responded, "That is an important question in the Western church but when Muslim person gets baptized there choice is a crossing of a line that is clear and obvious to all." The implication: it is impossible to do "mental ascent" Christianity in these contexts. This raises all kinds of questions about the nature of conversion in the West. We know what it means theologically but because of the nature of cultural Christianity, there is no real line to cross except for the cases where the culture looks down on certain lifestyles ie immorality, drug abuse, etc. In most cases those who are converted repent to the extent that they become moral citizens of the broader culture. Is this all there is?

I find it interesting how words become popular. A few years ago I wrote a book called The Relational Way and now today "relational" has become a buzz word in the church--not because of my book for sales have not been that great. At that time I thought I was pitching something unique, but now it is a band wagon. But the problem is that the word has been watered down to mean almost anything. The same is true of one of my other passions. When The Missional Church was written 12 years ago, it was a unique term but now people are using to mean a lot of different things. As a result such words and therefore any prophetic meaning behind them gets discounted because they have become buzz words that become empty in their popular usage. Not sure what to do as my blog is called what it is not because these are popular terms but because these are my passions. I would name the blog this even if they were not buzz words. It's a shame that the popularity of the terms has not resulted in...

No this is not the Horton from Horton Hears a Who. That Horton is an elephant who hears something that no one else can hear. With his huge ears he hears the people of Whoville, that live on a speck of dust. (You can tell that I have young children.) The Horton of this post is Michael Horton, a Reformed theologian and a prolific author. I am processing his assessment of American Christianity in his book Christless Christianity. He provide a cogent critique of the popular version of Christianity by associating it with two themes. First he recognizes that it is another form of legalism that is based not on rules but on good advice about how one can become a better person. As a result, there is no recognition of sin or a problem in our world from which we need to be saved, except for the fact that we don't understand who we are and that we simply need to believe the right things about ourselves.  The second theme is that of Gnosticism. He observes that common talk about God claims that...