In our last installment of this investigation entitled “Church and Mission,” we grappled with an unexpected sign while exiting a megachurch parking lot.
David, in the last years of my ministry (25) I worked primarily in a multi-cultural setting, it drastically impacted my view of evangelism and mission. I find that much of what I once viewed as mission fulfillment was tethered to my understanding of "church". As I moved among others true diversity, it required my flexibility of exchanging the tethering from "church" to "Jesus Christ." I find in the gospel that Jesus is flexible so as to connect to people that are so diverse in incredible ways that his responses to people almost seem inconsistent at times. He forgives a person caught in adultery, embraces a Samaritan woman at a well who is a serial wife, yet calls religious leaders unthinkable names. I found that evangelism tethered to the church takes a mass view of people, whereas evangelism tethered to Jesus takes a more relational view to specific people. Jesus goal was not to put people into the "church" as we now understand it, but to put them "in Christ". When we try to tether our evangelism to the "church" we are endlessly trying to adapt the church to make people fit, or adapt people to the church. The challenge of those outside of Christ is that "church" is more viewed through political sense in the US than a spiritual, moral or gospel lens right now. Jesus seems to transform people who in the end are tethered to Him, and as a result are not adaptors, but brothers and sisters in Christ with all that dynamics of family orientation. I found that views of what the church is varies drastically among diverse cultures. Does this make sense?
Yes! Jesus transforms people who are connected to him and brings them into God's Kingdom-Family. Adapting them to our church (especially political views) is a distraction.
Man, we must set up a time to chat Newbs. I am putting together a Substack to contribute some of my own missiological reflections based on my recent work within the next couple of weeks. One of my first things is addressing the origin of "missional" and how it has come to be used for the very thing its pioneering minds and popularizers set out to critique. I enjoy reading what you put out, my friend.
Great to hear you're doing some missiological work like that. I've subscribed so I can keep up on what you're doing. I'm not a newbigin scholar or a missiologist but I expressed some of the ideas in this series enough around others that they started to ask me to write it up and get it out there. I'd love to read and engage in the conversation your writing sparks.
A helpful question from a pastor showed up on social media about this article and I post it here with my reply below it:
"At what point do we stop calling it post-Christian and start calling it pre-Christian? On our community, we have people who are two, three, and four generations removed from any meaningful church engagement. To these, the Bible is a book they have never opened and probably don't even own, and Jesus is a word they use as an exclamation instead of Wow. There is still some overlap in morals, but for all intents and purposes, they have zero exposure to the gospel."
Sounds like you have some motivation in common with Newbigin in this article, right? he was grappling with an England that in his lifetime started to sound a little like what you're describing. I do think that such a context is still different than an entirely Muslim country, of course. But, for example... a place like the Czech Republic--which is largely atheist--well that country USED to be Christian. Is that history so far in its background that it's really not "post-Christian" anymore? Or are the latent aspects of that place still influenced by their dominant Christian past in such a way it is still post-Christian.
For contrast, I'll mention a place like Turkey, where I lived a bunch of last year. The land Turkey is found on was very Christian for much of its history--and Istanbul/Constantinople was even the center of the Roman Catholic Church for a time. But of course that is ancient history for the Turks of today. Would many think of Turkey as "post-Christian"... I doubt so.
SO there IS a line that one crosses. I think most countries in Europe are on the trip already.
At what point does your community reach that? I guess I'm saying your'e making a good point... But not every community in the West can be painted with a broad brush (for that matter--"The West," historically, includes places like Istanbul)
David, in the last years of my ministry (25) I worked primarily in a multi-cultural setting, it drastically impacted my view of evangelism and mission. I find that much of what I once viewed as mission fulfillment was tethered to my understanding of "church". As I moved among others true diversity, it required my flexibility of exchanging the tethering from "church" to "Jesus Christ." I find in the gospel that Jesus is flexible so as to connect to people that are so diverse in incredible ways that his responses to people almost seem inconsistent at times. He forgives a person caught in adultery, embraces a Samaritan woman at a well who is a serial wife, yet calls religious leaders unthinkable names. I found that evangelism tethered to the church takes a mass view of people, whereas evangelism tethered to Jesus takes a more relational view to specific people. Jesus goal was not to put people into the "church" as we now understand it, but to put them "in Christ". When we try to tether our evangelism to the "church" we are endlessly trying to adapt the church to make people fit, or adapt people to the church. The challenge of those outside of Christ is that "church" is more viewed through political sense in the US than a spiritual, moral or gospel lens right now. Jesus seems to transform people who in the end are tethered to Him, and as a result are not adaptors, but brothers and sisters in Christ with all that dynamics of family orientation. I found that views of what the church is varies drastically among diverse cultures. Does this make sense?
Yes! Jesus transforms people who are connected to him and brings them into God's Kingdom-Family. Adapting them to our church (especially political views) is a distraction.
;-)
this is all so well said and from great experience, Dr Wood!
I love the way you parse out how evangelism works connected to Jesus as opposed to just "first step of inviting to Church."
I also agree on your other points but this is the huge takeaway for me.
Man, we must set up a time to chat Newbs. I am putting together a Substack to contribute some of my own missiological reflections based on my recent work within the next couple of weeks. One of my first things is addressing the origin of "missional" and how it has come to be used for the very thing its pioneering minds and popularizers set out to critique. I enjoy reading what you put out, my friend.
Great to hear you're doing some missiological work like that. I've subscribed so I can keep up on what you're doing. I'm not a newbigin scholar or a missiologist but I expressed some of the ideas in this series enough around others that they started to ask me to write it up and get it out there. I'd love to read and engage in the conversation your writing sparks.
A helpful question from a pastor showed up on social media about this article and I post it here with my reply below it:
"At what point do we stop calling it post-Christian and start calling it pre-Christian? On our community, we have people who are two, three, and four generations removed from any meaningful church engagement. To these, the Bible is a book they have never opened and probably don't even own, and Jesus is a word they use as an exclamation instead of Wow. There is still some overlap in morals, but for all intents and purposes, they have zero exposure to the gospel."
My Reply:
Sounds like you have some motivation in common with Newbigin in this article, right? he was grappling with an England that in his lifetime started to sound a little like what you're describing. I do think that such a context is still different than an entirely Muslim country, of course. But, for example... a place like the Czech Republic--which is largely atheist--well that country USED to be Christian. Is that history so far in its background that it's really not "post-Christian" anymore? Or are the latent aspects of that place still influenced by their dominant Christian past in such a way it is still post-Christian.
For contrast, I'll mention a place like Turkey, where I lived a bunch of last year. The land Turkey is found on was very Christian for much of its history--and Istanbul/Constantinople was even the center of the Roman Catholic Church for a time. But of course that is ancient history for the Turks of today. Would many think of Turkey as "post-Christian"... I doubt so.
SO there IS a line that one crosses. I think most countries in Europe are on the trip already.
At what point does your community reach that? I guess I'm saying your'e making a good point... But not every community in the West can be painted with a broad brush (for that matter--"The West," historically, includes places like Istanbul)