Touch...

While in language school, we had some friends that we hung out with several times a week.  Our times together were amazing and the stresses of living in another culture probably intensified the relationship.  We felt loved and loved in return.  The part that I absolutely dreaded was the goodbye each night-- I didn't dread leaving, but I did dread the final hugs that were exchanged.  I would get a big hug from the husband and he'd either say "We love you guys" or "I love you".  I dreaded this exchange.  My body would tense up and I would feel extremely awkward and undeserving.  But over time, this dreaded goodbye ritual became something I looked forward to. My body relaxed and eventually I was able to both give and receive hugs and verbal affirmations and it was great--and that family will always have a special place in my heart.

Now we shift to working and living with Latins.  While not every culture is this way, the Latin culture is very touchy-feely.  And one the best decisions that I made was about 3 years ago when I realized that in order to contextualize love, or express love in a way that they can see and feel, it was necessary to go outside of my comfort zone with words of affirmation and physical touch.

Words of affirmation were never a problem, but when I began to invade their body space (according to my culturally defined parameters), I saw immediate changes.  Now I don't do it with everyone I meet, but those men I have a relationship are frequent recipients of hugs, or I'll put my arm around them as I talk, or I'll walk up to them and place one had on their shoulder and with the other pat their stomach once or twice--and as weird as that picture might seem, it's an immediate, identifiable symbol of affection.  As we converse, I would continuously reach out and touch their arm or shoulder as we spoke to make a point--and you could see the almost immediate appreciation.

All of this was very awkward in the beginning--but not for them.  This is what they do with people that they love.  For me it was awkward, but as the months passed, I came to enjoy this intimate exchange of friendship--I became "one" of them, at least in this regard.

And it makes me think of the Gospels--sometime pick one of them and underline how often it mentions Jesus touching people.  He did it a lot.  What I've also learned is that the many ways I am different than this Latin culture, the many ways that I can trample on it, are more easily forgiven because of this specific, intentional, insiders demonstration of love and affection.  

Church Today?

McDonalds vs. McChurch

“McDonald's is the leading global foodservice retailer with more than 30,000 local restaurants serving nearly 50 million people in more than 119 countries each day.”1 In Manhattan alone, there are 83 McDonalds; more than anywhere else in the world. At just thirteen miles long and two miles wide that averages out to four Mcdonald’s per square mile.2  

While everyone is aware of the success of McDonalds, many may be surprised to find out that there are more than 405,000 Christian places of worship in the U.S. alone.3 That is thirteen times as many churches! 

When evaluating the state of Christianity and it’s apparent inability to effect social change, in spite of the tremendous number of churches, one comes to the evident conclusion that the churches problem is not one primarily of distribution or quantity, but effectiveness or product. 

Quality verses Quantity. As Gibbs points out, “...we must always look beyond numbers. The issue is not who can attract the biggest crowd but who is making the biggest impact on society.”4  

At some point, the church lost it’s way. Churches are disappearing, in decline and ineffective. In the midst of huge cultural transformations and globalization, the church finds itself in the midst of a post-modern, pluralistic society. 

Gibbs also states that the church's “outreach ministries are as cross-cultural as those of their more traditional missionary counterparts seeking to make Christ known in other parts of the world. Consequently they (church leaders) are in as much need of missionary training to venture across the street as to venture overseas.”5  

In an effort to bolster growth, churches have adopted Western marketing strategies to bring new “clients” into their businesses and Christian bookstores are filled with books tailored to this need, and yet decline continues. Some have suggested that what is needed is a missiological approach to doing church (Gibbs, Newbingin) but as Gibbs has written, “most pastors and church leaders have had no missiological training.”6

What would happen if a missionary were to apply foundational missiological principles to stateside churches? What philosophical paradigms would need to occur within leadership, and what would be the ensuing visible result?

So, what advice would we missionaries have for stateside pastors who ask us to help them engage culture utilizing missionary theories?

1 Mcdonalds Corp. Homepage 2006

2 Super Size Me. Morgan Spurlock, 2004, US, 96 min.

3 O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); pg. 36-37. 2006.

4 Gibbs, Eddie. Church Next. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 2000. p. 42

5 Ibid. p. 27.

6 Ibid. p. 37.

Orthopraxis vs. Orthodoxy

It happens every week. Across the US hundreds of thousands of vehicles drive into church parking lots for another sunday. During this two hour period there will be singing,meditations, announcements, and a tiny bit of prayer---oh, and for the most part, wonderfully prepared 3-point sermons.

I have to admit, as a missionary I am always quite impressed at just how organized, deep and systematized everything is. It's obvious that hours and hours have been put into carefully worded sermons. Sunday Schools also exist with many good studies on different passages, or Christian books.

Speaking of Christian books--Christian bookstores are filled to the brim with information; all nicely systematized for western consumption. Really good books too.  Yet, in spite of all this wonderfully organized and presented information, the church does not seem to be very effective in touching culture--and our young christians are speaking out.

How?  By rejecting church. In spite of all the deep teaching, all the great books, sermons, sunday-schools and discipleship programs, young leaders today are crying that something is wrong. Part of their cry is that the church is not engaging culture.  It is not relevant.

Today’s Gospel requires personal experimentation for it to be valued, believed and lived. In his book Church Next, Eddie Gibbs states that “the youth of today, tired of endless instruction without personal experimentation are demanding that we live our words-turning our orthodoxy into orthopraxis”(p. 125).

"The old paradigm taught that if you had the right teaching you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching. This may be disturbing for many who assume that propositional truth must always precede and dictate religious experience." (Gibbs, p. 126)

The early church began with an emphasis on “right-living” but very quickly was subverted by “right-thinking”. We acknowledge the need for right doctrine, but the Christian life is not to be believed but to lived. Right doctrine that does not translate into right-living is rotten. 

Could it be that our western mindset prizes "knowledge" and "information" along with our church models that provide no expectation of orthopraxis is to blame for the inabilities of our churches to impact society?

As missionaries, do the people in our host cultures really need all of our wonderfully systematized books, sermons and (often-times) imported scriptural interpretations?

 

They never told me...

I wonder what our supporters would think if they knew that I haven't worked with a nonbeliever in the last 2 years of my ministry?

Nada.

Zip.

No Bible Studies.

No evangelism.

No friendships with unbelievers...

While reading another blog (http://missionsmisunderstood.blogspot.com/) which spoke of not seeking out people just to "win them" (ie. seeing them as an object or just wanting to chalk up another victory for Jesus). I was faced with the fact that there are virtually no non-believers in my life at this point.

And I miss that.

My life and ministry has me enclosed in my office most days preparing lessons and leadership training and when I am with Ecuadorians they already have a relationship with Him. I have become a missionary to Christians, and therefore maybe not a missionary at all...

I'm not sure what I think about this.
I'm not sure that I can or should even change this... after all, isn't leadership training a vital part of missionary phase-out?

If it is, no one ever told me that I would find myself surrounded by Christians and totally sucked back into the Christian world I grew up in--a world that has insulated itself from the lost.

Or maybe I'm just thinking too much and too critically.

But it would have been nice to know about this phase of missionary (or nonmissionary) life...

TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

I remember hearing a dear preacher, Charles Shepson preach about an experience when he was in Bible College back in the 40's. Times were tough and he was just scraping by. Going through the grocery store he stumbled across an offer on a can of chicken and dumplings that spawned what he thought was a wonderful solution to his economic needs.

He bought 60 cans of the chicken and dumplings, freeing up a large part of his normal food budget and yet assuring him of two meals a day for a month! We all can imagine what happened--to this day he can't stomach the thought of chicken and dumplings, but what was funnier was when he started feeling sick and was pale and weak and went to the doctor. He failed to mention his dietary plan and confessed that it hadn't even entered his mind...until right when the doctor asked him about his diet.

We all know about "too much of a good thing", but have you ever considered that it might be possible to have too much of a good thing spiritually? I remember before leaving the US for the missionfield how I was in a spiritual high-point in my devotional life. Like clockwork I was communing with God in prayer and through a systematic scripture reading plan that quickly built itself into an hour and a half each day. When we arrived in Ecuador however, very quickly things began to change...

I woke up every morning and diligently started doing devotional time, but over a two week period instead of coming away refreshed and joyful, I was feeling condemned and empty. I longed for the communion that I had experienced previously. My prayers seemed week, the scripture passages that I studied believing by faith that they contained specific information for my life seemed condemning and harsh. I didn't know what was wrong and I quickly went to my teammate and friend Steve for advice.

I remember sharing about it with him and him asking if what I was doing was giving me any peace at all and if it was providing me with joy. When I quickly told him that it wasn't, he simpy looked at me and said, "Then stop doing it!". He proceeded to remind me that we are in a relationship with Christ 24/7 and that this relationship does not depend on a daily devotional time. We are 'in Christ' and He is 'in us'.

It sounded so strange to be told to stop praying and reading the Bible per my scheduled routine. Instead I was encouraged to simply accept the relationship that I was in with God. So I quickly decided that I would throw out my devotional time, and would try my best to not feel guilty about it! And you know what happened? I began to experience God in a 24/7 way as I talked with him throughout the day, meditated on scripture that I had committed to memory or that someone shared with me. I didn't pick up my Bible every day, and yet God still spoke.

Are you aware that 97% of those that lived in early-church time were illiterate?
That it wasn't until after 1450 and the invention of the printing press that Bibles were available in masses to the people.
That if you actually are reading the Bible every day, it will be extremely difficult to meditate on scripture as "meditate" is meant to be understood.

We can actually fall into a rut of believing that our daily devotions are what "makes us spiritual", furthermore "checking off" each day's devotional time can turn a 24/7 relationship into a stale substitute. The idea of Daily Devotions fits well within our western culture that highlights organization, achievement and discipline but have we missed out on something greater? What in other times was known as that "abiding presence".

Obviously we have the advantage of being literate and with all kinds of spiritual resources and we should use them. But they are "extras" in our lives, much like dessert , but are never to be substituted for living relationally in community with God and his people.

If you feel burdened by the concept of a daily devotional time, or distant from God, maybe you have had too much of a good thing. Why not put away your plan for spiritual growth and open yourself up to the relationship that you have with a living, loving Creator who is with you 24/7. Meditate on one spiritual truth from the Word during the course of a week. Talk (ie. pray) throughout the day with your ever-present Father and enjoy His company. Remember, it was for freedom that Christ has set us free!

BACK ONLINE!

Yeah! After an almost 2 month sabbatical, MissionsForDummies is back online!  So, don't despair, there will be weekly updates!

Chris

Contextualizing Love

I met with a missionary in Spain who, I was previously told, was the most experienced and successful church-planter in all of Spain. I attended the latest church he had started which consisted of a congregation of 100 people and was just over 5 years old. In Spain, this is a large church. Considering that I had been informed that you need about 15 years in order to have a church of about 20 people, this is truly a success.

We met for breakfast the next day--and there was no real secret to his success. Oh, I’m sure he is gifted in certain areas and that his years of experience play a part--but the truth is, at the end of our time together, I recognized what it was about him that connected with people. He had kind eyes and a kinder heart.

How nebulous is that? We talked a lot about strategy, my dreams for Spain, the difficulty of the task--but I couldn’t deny the gentle spirit and love that he had for those with whom he lives and works. The way he greeted the server at the restaurant, the way he paid attention to me and the way in which his words, while not many, were concise, belying a spiritual depth.

What did I come away with from that meeting? In order to be successful, I have to love people. But it’s not that easy. I do love people! But if I do not contextualize that love in a way that it can be perceived and understood, then I will never have those “kind eyes”.

I remember in graduate school when Stepehen, a student from India gave a devotional on the fruit of the spirit. He then stated something that made me forget the rest of his devotion. He talked about the need to contextualize the fruits of the spirit. What?!?!

He spoke of working among another Indian group of a different caste system. He loved the people, but they didn’t perceive it because love in their culture was expressed differently. Stephen had expected for his love to translate from one culture to another--and was shocked to find out that it didn’t. Apparently love is not the universal language we’ve always thought it to be.

We all know someone who loves us but just doesn’t know how to act in a way that communicates love. The stern parent who rarely is affectionate, but shows love another way. Martha as opposed to Mary.

I know many people, even missionaries, who love the people with whom they work. But for whatever reason, their love has not been contextualized, communicated and received by the people. Or, it has been overshadowed by other patterns of conduct or messages that drown it out.

All I know is that I recognize that I love people, especially people from other cultures--but it hasn’t always been contextualized or communicated in a way that they will see or understand.

Even more importantly, I realize that I don’t have “kind eyes”. I will never be soft-spoken--but I can’t help but recognize that what this missionary had was priceless. It was the ability to not just love another person, but the ability to communicate that love in such a perceivable way. When I was with him, I recognized spiritual depth, spiritual love and a humble spirit--at least that was what was contextualized to me.

I’ve been praying lately for the Lord to give me kind eyes. And I’ve been wondering what I can do in a practical way to learn how.

As missionaries, it may be insulting to have someone question our love of the people. But as a missionary I question it all the time! Yes, we’ve given up our home, our country, our comfortableness--because of love, obedience, or some strange sense of self-importance! But if the people with whom we work do not see that love as the first thing that we communicate, what value is it? Do we really believe that our discipleship programs, social ministries etc, are more valuable to the people?

THE RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS GENTLY...

Several have asked about the absence of posts--sorry about that! I took off the day after thanksgiving for a research trip to Spain. I will try to post asap.

--Tu hermano Cristian

Me, a Priest?!?!?

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a people belonging to God,
that you may declare the praises of him
who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
1 Peter 2:9

The priesthood of all believers has been the focus of evangelical belief since the reformation highlighted 1 Peter 2:9. But is this belief lived out in practice? Did the Reformation’s proclamation of the priesthood of all believers translate into the destruction of Roman Catholic priesthood within evangelical circles? Greg Ogden in his book The New Reformation states that “the reformation started something with radical implications, but failed to deliver fully on its promise... we must come to see that there is only one people and one ministry, not two peoples--clergy and laity”

Let’s examine Ogdon’s description of the church being of one people and one ministry as opposed to two people, two ministries.

THE CHURCH

While the reformation achieved separation from the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice in many areas, the evangelical church of today while affirming the priesthood of all believers in theory, betray it in practice. While thousands upon thousands of believers attend church each week, less than ten percent are actively participating in ministry! Today a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as as savior and attends church faithfully; and nothing more. The actual service as priest, is over and above the call of duty for the average Christian in today's church.

Having observed the lack of a true belief and practice of the priesthood of all believers, we must then ask some pivotal questions.

If the ministry of the church is for all believers (priests), then what is the role of the pastor or missionary?

If you are a pastor or missionary, then the question is how you are going to use your spiritual gifts today to encourage someone else to help the Body of Christ to grow and mature tomorrow and exercise their role of priest?

Does the form or structure of the local church facilitate or hinder the opportunities for Christians to exercise their priesthood?

The paradigm shift within leadership that needs to occur should be second-nature for the missionary who is seeking to build up others who will lead. Missionaries who see themselves outside of a perpetual and stereotypical role of “pastor”, believe and thus work with the understanding that every believer has the responsibility to exercise their priesthood. The Churches responsibility is to provide an environment that necessitates, evaluates and encourages church members in their priestly duties.