Distilling the Message
It’s time to get back onto the trail of Apostoic Genius…onto the mDNA of “Jesus is Lord.” Most people when asked about how they think the early Christians movement (and the Chinese underground churches) grew so remarkably answer that it was largely because they were true believers—that there was a real and abiding authenticity to their faith and they therefore accessed the power of the Spirit that was available to them. Presumably if one is willing to die for the faith, one has gone beyond easy believism into the realms of genuine faith and love for God. And such an assessment is right. Any study of the lives of these people cannot fail to inspire. Persecution drives the persecuted to live very close to their message—they simply cling to the Gospel of Jesus and thus unlock its liberating power.
But there is more to it than that. One of the ‘gifts’ that persecution seems to confer on the persecuted is that it enables them to distill the essence of the message and thus access it in a new way. Take the Chinese Jesus Movement for example. When all their external reference points are removed, when most of their leaders and theologians killed or imprisoned and all access to outside sources are cut off, they are somehow forced through sheer circumstance to unlock something truly potent and compelling in the message they carry as the people of God. The result is a Jesus movement unparalleled in history. What is going on here and what can we in the West learn from this?
We know that persecuted Jesus movements are forced underground and usually adopt a more cell-like structure, and are forced to rely largely on relational networks in order to sustain themselves as self-conscious Christian communities. But in order to survive in the context of persecution they also have to jettison all unnecessary impediments, including that of a predominantly institutional conception of ecclesia. But perhaps even more significantly, they have to condense and purify their core message that keeps them both faithful and hopeful. For an underground church, all the clutter of unnecessary traditional interpretations and theological paraphernalia are removed. They neither have the time nor the internal capacity to maintain weighty systematic theologies and churchly dogma. They have to ‘travel light.’ Therefore all unnecessary complexities are extracted, and in the process a miracle happens—the people discover their true message and the movement is born. Faith is once again linked in utter simplicity to Jesus, the author and completer of the Faith. So at the heart of all great movements is a recovery of a simple Christology (essential conceptions who Jesus is and what he does) one which accurately reflects the Jesus of NT faith—they are in a very literal sense Jesus movements.
But something else is unleashed in this recovery of simplicity, namely the capacity to rapidly transfer the message along relational lines. Freed from the philosophical density of the academy and from dependence of the professional cleric, the Gospel becomes profoundly “sneezable.’ This reference to sneezing is not just whimsical. We know from the study of ideas and how they spread is that they spread in patterns very similar to that of viral epidemics. We also know that in order to really take hold and become an ‘epidemic’ they have to be easily transferred from one person to another. And to do this they need to be profound and yet simple—easily grasped by any person, and in many cases illiterate peasants. In this sense, the Gospel once again becomes a possession of the people and not purely of religious institutions that unwittingly make it hard for people to grasp and apply (Matt.23.) Given favorable social and religious conditions, and the right people relationships, easily transferable ideas can create powerful movements that can change societies (and in the case of economics, markets.) This is clearly the situation of the Gospel in the Early Church as well as the Chinese Revolution. The desperate, prayer-soaked, human clinging to Jesus, the reliance on his Spirit, and the distillation of the Gospel message into the simple, uncluttered, message of Jesus as Lord and Savior is what catalyzed the missional potencies inherent in the people of God.
Some issues facing us in this are as follows:
○ It is clear that both movements (the Early and the Chinese Church) were forced to access the central core around Christology - Jesus is Lord. Have we so cluttered the primary message with complex theologizing and traditional overlays that people find it hard to access the Gospel?
○ Concerning the flow of information in an information based society, it is critical that we do not have our central message so ‘weighty’ that it cannot be ’sneezed’ following a viral pattern. Whilst ‘Jesus is Lord’ (and by implication Savior) is a simple enough confession, it is by no means simplistic as it takes us to the very core of Biblical faith - biblical monotheism. All else proceeds from this core. It is a thoroughly ’sneezable’ idea. Easily passed on.
Comments
110 Responses to “Distilling the Message”
Alan, as much as we have had a grand time discussing all the very technical terms and concepts of your wonderful blog, this post gets down to the core: if we make it so difficult that we cannot understand each other, what we’re doing is not “sneezable.”
This is the perfect follow on to your last post on the simplex, because it is the simple on the other side of the complex that becomes viable as a sneezable gospel virus.
It is this aspect that makes people choke…the letting go of all the things that are comfortable and distinctive and putting the power back into the hands of the saints whom the Holy Spirit equips to do the work of the ministry. As long as we find ways to keep knowledge and power the property of the exclusive insiders (read: clergy and theological types), we will miss the mark of the high calling of Christ to make disciple-making disciples.
God help us if we turn away from his simplex gospel for the complicated traditions of men. We must find a way to inhabit the tension between the yearn to know more about God and to be more like Christ. It is a shame to require desperate persecution for us to submit to the severe mercy of the Spirit’s pruning shears….
Bless you for your important and timely reminder.
I like the sneezing metaphor. Sneezes come unbidden, and are violently uncontrollable. And spread, as you clearly point out. Perhaps as western Christians we are not truly infected ourselves.
just in the middle of reading your book Alan, i love this idea of finding out what that simple thing is, that drives the “Jesus Movements”.
I am wondering though how we might move churches in the non-persecuted west to capture this… if persecution is the only way should we all form a “Ban the Church” party and vote them in?
any ideas from people about how to capture this idea in a local church?
Excellent post and good insight. The distilling of the message is crucial. I see the big challenge as how to distill that message in the western context. To say Jesus is Lord is easy, but I don’t think many people in the west understand what “Lord” really means. (Aside from very hard core Lord of the Rings, and other medieval literature type fans.) How do we sneeze the good news of the Kingdom in fiercely independent, comfortable(non-persecuted) and democratic societies?
By making the mission a shared journey of adventure, risk, and challenge. But the trick is to do it without veering off track into unhealthy practice, beliefs or leadership styles. I’m watching a couple of people trying to do this with their small groups and I seem to be seeing what one friend would uncharitably describe as charismaniacs….just enough over the edge to be seriously worrying. The problem seems to be that if you can’t find the danger outside you create the ‘excitement’ inside, and it all goes down the unhealth route.
There has to be a way of doing this sound and healthy.
http://engagethebible.blogspot.com/
- Come on Marty - introduce yourself and add to the conversation before plugging your blog! - SITE ADMIN
did you mean mtDNA??
As I read this new thread I found myself asking what it would “look like” for us to say, “Jesus is Lord”, today. As Cameron mentioned we don’t have a very clear idea of what lordship is all about.
It’s funny, just this past weekend, I saw a church sign board that made that very statement, “Jesus is Lord!”. I guess they were trying to really say something… to take some kind of confessional stand. But, I began to ask how the “Average Joe” would understand that statement. I dare say that most people would not even notice it. Of those who did, I’d guess that most would just say, “Duh… of course” (thinking that that is simply his churchy title… You know, Lord Jesus Christ…). It would be like saying George Bush is President.
So, what does that mean to the “man on the street”? We might be able to describe to them the requirements of the Lordship of Christ (Take his yoke… take our cross… walk the narrow road… lose our life… etc.). But, first (for this seemed to be what Jesus proclaimed first), how will the Lordship of Jesus make a real difference in his or her life (If we notice, as Jesus went about proclaiming the Kingdom it made a real life difference… demons were exorcised, people were healed, sins were forgiven, Sabbath was proclaimed and good news was preached to the poor.)?
We do need to come with the clean and clear testimony, “Jesus is Lord!”. But we need to proclaim that testimony in living ways.
Any thoughts??
Sith Lord, Lord Voldemort, House of Lords … the word “Lord” generally has very negative connotations for me. A person with high airs bent on world domination.
Hi Alan. Sorry for the blatant attempt at self-promotion yesterday. It was a desperate, indescriminant act born out of a moment of frustration. Bad form! Again, sorry.
I work for Scripture Union QLD as Bible Ministry Consultant (’to promote engagement of young people with the Bible’). Yesterday I was despondent about what I feel is my inability to engage a wider audience in a discussion on Bible Engagement issues.
Your post on a return to simple, centered following of Christ as Lord echoes much of my thinking at the moment. In my work, I am always tempted to get onto tangents such as technology, resources, programming etc. However, I believe the answer to engaging young people with the Bible is not some new strategy, but a no holds barred return to a radical commitment to live out the words of Jesus by his ‘followers’.
Thanks for the post - keep up the good work!
Alan,
I believe that the Trinity is a biblical concept. However, I do wonder about the necessity of any formulation not found in Scripture. If we speak in narrative terms, we generally avoid these formulations, though the same general idea is conveyed. Narrative is by nature, however, a bit fuzzy on the edges–which is why it is suspect for the modernistic mind.
Jesus is Lord is pretty simple to understand and is transferrable, therefore it is capable of virality. However, must not the narrative accompany this formulation in order to make sense of it?
Marty, the caning came from my dear webmeister who is into beating up would-be visitors on occasions Down Neal!
Nah, he is just spam watching actually. I am glad he does it.
James, I totally agree that the Trinity is a central, if not THE central, concept regarding the nature and being of God. So much of the unique understanding of Christians is bound up with it. My problem with it is largely missiological. It simply is very hard to communicate it–especially the later seculative formulations. We hardly understand it ourselves, how can we frontload this into mission. the morre complex the message the slower it travels. And it eventually becomes unsustainable from an evanagelistic point ot view.
And with Matt, I too agree the “lord’ has negative connotations for most Westerners, but what else can we use here? Master as in ‘The Message’? I see no other way than to attempt to redeem it and fill it with new meaning.
Excellent response. I’m with you.
Alan said, this once again linked in utter simplicity to Jesus.’
Jesus had a strategy to change the world though us. Are we willing to carry on His redemptive mission?
Maybe King is a good word? King Aragon (Lord of the Rings), King Peter/Edmund (Narnia). Also, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven…
To me “king” has mostly positive connotations. When I tell people that in my country we have a king many think that is really cool (I’ve even met a french royalist). The only thing is that kings nowadays tend not to have much authority. But still I think that people would understand the notion of a *real* king.
I think it’s important to articulate who and what is NOT Lord as part of the process of figuring out what we mean when we say Jesus IS Lord. I wrote a post today that basically had the gist of, “if Jesus is God, National Security is not”. But we could say the same for our other secular deities as well: Market Forces, Family Values, Fashion Trend … the pantheon goes on. Re-establishing true worship entails renouncing false worship. Imagine what the world would look like if a billion Christians said, “we no longer idolize any of this, Christ is now the bottom line”.
Matt,
You are right–if people do not understand that Jesus is Lord is an exclusive claim, then we must make this clear.
To pick back up on a previous post, the Lord of suburbia is materialism. Well known fact by now, right? And yet, as I’m researching the history of suburbia, I was shocked to see explicit biblical language like “Garden of Eden” being used to sell suburban homes.
I detail several of these occurances in one of my recent blog entries. It reminds me of the Blue Jeans ad in Australia, where someone is “baptized” and comes up in a pair of Levi’s 501 blues (Alan cites this in TFW).
The danger of God’s people has always been syncretism, and the danger for Christianity in the West is making Jesus Lord of my “spiritual” life, but keeping the lordship of material things in the “physical” realm. Jesus is Lord is an exclusive claim, just as God is One is an exclusive claim.
Jesus is Lord (mDNA).
Jesus is Lord and He also empowers us through the Holy Spirit to carry on His mission, the Great Commission, our Co-Mission with God.
Alan, where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? This is not an attack, I just want to hear you flesh this out more fully.
The NT Church and underground Chinese Church were Holy Spirit empowered movements. Was it really persecution that spurred them or was it really the power of the Holy Spirit flowing through them as they surrendered to His will? This is why I’m toying with hsDNA (Holy Spirit empowered DNA) because we need Holy Spirit power to make Jesus Lord and without Holy Spirit power we will never fulfill the Jesus Mission passed down to all Christ followers. I am discovering that this Holy Spirit empowerment is what is likely missing in the church today. Do you agree that we need the Holy Spirit empowerment to truly make Jesus Lord? It is important since Jesus did say, “wait for the Holy Spirit”.
What are your thoughts? Is it true that we often do more professing than possessing the power of the Holy Spirit. Just wondering?
We need to sneeze out the Holy Spirit living in us with boldness and power.
Last year I had a great time visiting the beginnings of a CPM (church planting movement) in China. Three things struck me while there:
1. There is a conscious effort to not introduce anything into church that is not reproduceable, keeping things simple and down to the basic elements. This allows the churches to multiply (currently in this city they double every 9-10 months)
2. The centrality of scripture. While it sounds obvious, they studied the scriptures and that’s the only place of authority, not a pastor (and their interpretation), or even a foreigner.
3. Obedience to the scriptures was of utmost importance. They all worked hard at putting into practice what they heard. Again this sounds obvious, but more so than I’ve often experienced in Western churches. If the scriptures said it, you did it. This was done from the start of their walk with Jesus, not just under severe persecution.
Perhaps for you Brits & Ausies “Lord” has greater weight than here in the States - saying Jesus is “God” in the states will certainly stir the hornets nest!
Bob, I was brought to the Lord in Pentie circles and at heart I still remain one (ssshhh, don’t tell!) I do believe that the HS plays a irreplaceable role. that’s why I like the phrase To love God by living under the Lordship of Jesus in the power of the Spirit.
I just dont think that we were meant to focus on the Spirit. He will just be with us. Our focus remains loving God in and through Jesus.
“…and the danger for Christianity in the West is making Jesus Lord of my “spiritual” life, but keeping the lordship of material things in the “physical” realm.”
This is why I think “family values” is such a dangerous ideology. Why can’t we just speak of values period. Values that cut across all sections of life. Should honesty and integrity and fidelity and compassion and grace and … and … and … just be a “family value”? The goddess of the hearth was Hestia. I renounce her, I worship jesus.
Given that we aren’t to focus on the HS, but rather that he points us to the Lordship of Jesus, who leads us to the Father.
As I’ve read about mDNA, I’ve had the same thoughts that perhaps it is the same as hsDNA. The HS is the living aspect, the organic life force in believers and in the body, then isn’t this the molecular pattern upon which we conceive, create and build?
Perhaps the HS is the living substance out of which the 6 elements of mDNA are formed, because to have the elements without the life and empowerment of the HS would be to create a religious structure.
Or maybe the 6 elements are simply aspects of the Apostolic Genius that is the Holy Spirit.
I’m just wondering how some of you see this?
Alan said,I just dont think that we were meant to focus on the Spirit. He will just be with us. Our focus remains loving God in and through Jesus.
The Planter responds, This ought to get an outpouring of responses. It awakens me. It staggers me. My heart skipped a couple of beats.
I believe Father God, His Son and His Holy Spirit (the three in one) each play significant roles. The Holy Spirit as Jesus departed came to empower and enable us to live Holy Lives that sneeze out the message you describe. This in no way takes anything away from Jesus, but it builds on the Mission of making disciples who make disciples. Jesus Himself gave the command and also promised the Holy Spirit will be with us (”not just there”) but with us in power and anointing laid upon and in us to go for it to advance the mDNA you seek to awaken in our hearts. This awakening cannot happen without the Holy Spirit working much greater than you describe. If He does not fit in His place and attempts to do anything will fall far short, it will be a man driven thing, it will not be sneezed out and infectious.
I’m not interested in man driven things. I hunger with all my heart for God/Jesus/Holy Spirit driven things.
I did not move to St. Louis to engage a sneezing ministry that I can do. I can’t do it. It has to be a God thing. I came because I believe in what God can do. It’s not about man, and when it is we reap the same o and the same o.
I want to do what only God can do. No more and no less and what He and only He can do. Man messes and God blesses.
Unleashed the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives in His fullness and watch a movement grow rapidly out of mans control.
Unleash the Holy Spirit in our hearts and watch the world change as we seek to live sold out lives committed to even dying for this if necessary. It cannot happen without sacrificial commitment in order to see the Mission of Jesus fulfilled in our day.
God is the Father
Jesus is Lord
The Holy Spirit is power to fill and fulfill us in sneezing out a movement that cannot and will not be stopped.
You said, “One of the ‘gifts’ that persecution seems to confer on the persecuted is that it enables them to distill the essence of the message and thus access it in a new way.”
So if we replace ‘persecution’ with ’seduction’, can we assume any gifts that enable the furtherment of the gospel? Or I suppose rejection of being seduced would create an atmosphere of persecution.
Casey, in the book I use the category ‘adaptive challenge’ to describe situtations where an organization experiences an adapt or die scenario or a complelling opportunity. Both these can catalyze Apostolic Genius in my view. Persecution is just one form of adaptive challenge. Read TFW’s bro. Its explained better there.
Thanks man. I started it last night. I look forward to discussing some of your ideas.
Hi Alan,
I’d contend that one of our major challenges to distilling the message is that the dominant filter for the distillation process, in the Western approach is the intellect. In the Eastern mindset I’d suggest that the dominant filter is spiritual and the message of the Bible is built on Eastern culture.
“Whilst ‘Jesus is Lord’ (and by implication Savior) is a simple enough confession, it is by no means simplistic as it takes us to the very core of Biblical faith - biblical monotheism” I’d agree that statement indicates that Jesus IS God and there is no other, however although it might be monotheistic and it can be claimed to be biblical is still insufficient to indicate orthodox biblical monotheism. Without additional framework in the Western mindset - OR encounter with God in the Eastern - it can be read as unitarian, modalist… etc.
To understand what is truly meant by the statement we may try to present a complicated intellectual definition of what we mean… OR we can seek encounter with the Holy Spirit who leads people into truth - the person of Jesus, who is the living representation of the eternal God who is Father…
The only way that “Jesus is Lord” can possibly take us to biblical monotheism is via an understanding that Jesus and God are two persons and one God, and in orthodoxy that takes us to Trinity - so this is not such a “simple” confession. The issue of complexity multiplies when we try to intellectually define what we mean by the statement. I’d contend that, in the East, their capacity to accept “Jesus is Lord” as a biblical monotheistic statement is not dependent upon simplicity in any intellectual sense, but simplicity in the realm of faith. Eastern people are more likely to walk by faith and not by sight - often because there is less in the line of sight to be a distraction! The challenge we face in the West is the wrestle to engage with this concept, and this with trinitarian theology from an intellectual perspective.
I understand the concern you express about complicating the message too much and how core issues like “Trinity” can be unnecessarily complex for people. That’s one of the reasons why on a prior thread, I suggested that we have to view “Jesus is Lord” as a Trinitarian statement. Biblically you can’t separate God. Our approach to God, when we consider the Godhead in any singular person - Father, Son/Word/Jesus or Holy Spirit - must always be done with the implicit acknowledgement that the other two persons are present. God is not divided, as finite created beings we don’t have the capacity to engage with the profundity of the three persons of the Godhead in our thinking simultaneously.
When you note “I just dont think that we were meant to focus on the Spirit. He will just be with us. Our focus remains loving God in and through Jesus” I’m concerned you are in danger of getting out on a limb. It would be more accurate, in my thinking, to consider that there are times when the focus of our attention is drawn to the person and work of the Father, and although our focus is not on the Son or the Spirit they are nowhere else but with the Father. Similarly there are times when our focus is drawn to the work and person of the Son or the Spirit, when it is the other two persons are nonetheless present - what changes is our focus, not God.
You wrote “Persecution drives the persecuted to live very close to their message—they simply cling to the Gospel of Jesus and thus unlock its liberating power.” What if rather than living very close to “the message” about Jesus Christ, we consider that they are in fact living very close to Jesus Himself, that they are a people who encounter God… One of the keys to the growth of the early church is signs and wonders, which quite simply are “signs” that point to the abiding presence of God in their situation.
Rather than just distill the message, persecution drives people to earnestly seek the truth and to exercise faith . Consequently they apprehend God by experience rather than just intellect and they know holistically that “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
The message is not distilled by intellect but by revelation of the Spirit of God, “when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” These are Jesus movements, but not so much because they distill the message down to simple elements about Jesus, but because, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the presence of the Father they encounter Jesus!
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I hear you CS. and I don’t neccesarily disagree with you. But you must remember that what I am trying to do in TFW is to distill the elemental components that make for dynamic movements. I am not trying to either dismiss or construct a fully-fledged Trinitarian missiology. I would still argue that for the people ‘inside’ of a phenomenal movement (be it the Early Church of China) the central focus of the spirituality remains the second person of the Trinity…Jesus. It is partly this that makes the movements move, so to speak.
But hear me, I am not trying to dismiss developed thinking on theology, but rather to issue a missiological challenge to distill to what we think are th irreducable centers of the faith, and to run with them.
Having said all this…I do believe someone out there must write the definitive pneumatology (doctrine of the Hosly Spirit) from a missiological point of view. Anybody know if a such book exists?
Hi Alan…
Firstly… TFW is a work of genius, it is brilliant. My concern is that this is an area that needs a bit clearer articulation and my challenge to you on this matter is intended to prod you to strengthen the work (if my concers are actually valid) my intention is not to be unnecessarily critical of the great work you have done and are doing. I think this area in particular will lead to you falling foul of theologians and intellectuals who view themselves as more orthodox and allow your work to be too easily dismissed in some circles that actually need to critically engage with it.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your intention, but I’m struggling with clarifying the articulation of it, in terms of generating the basis for a movement forward in our era. I understand that you are reflecting on the phenomenon of movements as they existed. My concern is that this needs to be reflected upon, reviewed and intepreted in our context, before we can distill a model to move forward with. We are far more informed than either of the prior movements you quote, and have a consequent responsibility to develop their concepts further. NOT to bind people up, but to set them free in the truth. Focus on one person of the Godhead is not an illegitimate approach when there is no other awareness, but for our day there’s an awareness that the triune Godhead travels as one.
What I’m attempting to articulate is that triune Godhead IS an “irreducable centre [sic] of the faith” regardless of what limitations others may have expressed. For those within the framework of phenomenal movements, THEIR focus might well be on the second person of the Trinity… but the REALITY is that the other two persons are also always present. I’d suggest that another example can be found in the phenomenal rise of the Pentecostal movement globally, in the 20th century; this represents a focus which is on the person of the Holy Spirit, rather than a focus on the person of Jesus. Where the focus is on one person of the Godhead, and does not acknowledge the concomitant presence of the other two persons, we end up with the unorthodox - Oneness pentecostalism, and “spiritualist” and spiritualised extremes.
From the perspective of our greater knowledge, we have a consequential responsibility to clarify the reality, beyond the limitations that the initial movement built on. Despite the phenomenal growth of prior movements, we cannot simply promote their inadequacies as a mechanism to move forward today. That kind of approach creates legitimate space for other voices to accuse the emerging/ emergent/ missional/ incarnational (you know what I mean) movement, and you, of a lack of biblical integrity, which is unnecessary if we work a little harder to present a clear trinitarian reflection, of what was previously an unbalanced focus on one person of the Godhead, and present a forward movement that is more biblically accurate.
I’m suggesting that while the early church and the Chinese church may have focussed on Jesus, they grew phenomenally because of the intervention of all members of the triune Godhead. One of the significant factors that is missing in many present missional approaches to both of those movements, is the vital role that signs, wonders and the supernatural plays - and as you point out as well, the vital role of the Holy Spirit - in their theology and praxis.
As movements mature there is an unfolding revelation of the nature of the Godhead, based on understanding the framework of their active encounters with the living God, which we subsequently cannot ignore. The historical developments cannot be denied, but our future mission must be based on truth as we presently comprehend it…
Faith has a capacity to encounter God in completeness, which the intellect doesn’t necessarily have the capacity to comprehend. So although the prior movements may have had a limited articulation of who they understood God to be, they were upheld by their encounters with God in truth, in the realm of their faith. By faith we encounter God and our experience grows; the challenge is to develop a biblical comprehension to define what we have encountered by faith. In the article you’ve just posted by Roland Allen he makes statements that speak to the nature of progressive knowledge and revelation;
“There is no need at the beginning to talk of preparing leaders to face great national issues. By the time the issues have become great and complex the leaders of the little Churches of to-day will have learned their lesson, as they cannot possibly be taught it beforehand.”
Speaking of his mission field he notes;
“Nevertheless it is obvious that knowledge of the Bible is of great importance. Generally speaking it is true that most of those earnest Christians who have spontaneously taught their friends and neighbours have received some instruction, and have learned to read, and can, therefore, teach someone else to read.”
Clearly as a movement develops even Roland Allen expects change, growth and development; what was sufficient at the beginning is no longer adequate, as we have encountered God and grown in experience and knowledge. At our point in history the movement of Christ followers has more “knowledge” available and is responsible to operate from that greater perspective. An understanding of the work and person of the Holy Spirit, within the framework of the Godhead, from a missiological point of view, would be a challenging work indeed…
Blessya Al
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Tnanks CS. You have such a fine mind and a great perpsective. I will chew on this comment for a bit longer. BW, I hope you didn’t read me as being defensive. I am not that way at all.
As you always say: Slainte
Hullo-o-o Al
Didn’t read you as defensive at all… I love an honest response - it provides a possibility for me to engage with truth, to refine and be renewed in my thinking.
On the contrary I just didn’t want to promote my perspective too agressively, I value you, your thinking and your contribution to the advance of the Kingdom. It’s very easy to be a critic, when the reality is that we wouldn’t be engaged in discussion on your blog if you had not done the hard yards in developing the concepts and bringing them together for the book. I greatly respect that and engagement with you and your work is greatly productive to my life and mission.
Slainte mhor agus a h-uile beannachd duibh
A Celtic Son
Ps - it means “Good health and every good blessing to you”
Alan, I thought you might ignore my thoughts. I’m not a Pente either. Ignore the Holy Spirit and His need to be in this and you are just blowing smoke! And smoke will lead allot of your followers in being disappointed.
You will carry the responsibility if I am right! You minimize the most important part and cannot or refuse to see it.
Just delete me, if you cannot respond to this.
Out of balance, it seems so! Correct me if I am wrong! Or delete me if you refuse to have time for me.
See my blog for my response to your response. At least there people can respond if they wish. I do not delete. So come on and nail me or be nailed.
Bob,
I find it difficult to believe that Alan deliberately deletes any of your comments. I have had a number of comments not appear and have contacted Admin for the site (see link at the bottom of the blog page) and eventually my comments have been posted later. I was in the middle of actually doing that, regarding a post I made this morning that has not appeared, when your post appeared.
I have met Neal who runs Alan’s site from Melbourne, Australia and he is doing his best to cope with the amount of spam the site attracts. Sometimes genuine comments slip into the spam criteria he has set and have to be redeemed manually. He has posted a message on the front of the blog titled “Lost Comments” that requests bloggers contact him if their comments do not appear. I’d suggest you try that route first before posting accusations (which are posted) about other comments that have not been! the problem may simply be in the way that you have constructed your post, as has happened to me now on several occasions!
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Thanks for your comment, CS, but I want to throw my two cents in as well….
Bob,
I don’t think you’re really hearing what Alan is saying…the clarifying conversation he’s been having here with CS should have answered your questions as well.
I am also concerned with your lack of grace and mercy toward Alan. Perhaps you don’t remember that he’s preparing to leave for the USA any day now, and has all his things packed up and has very limited internet access?
We try to consider this blog an open conversation, without requiring Alan to respond to each of our individual comments if the conversation at large is addressing the general concerns.
By the way, I went to your blog…and the four comments there seemed generally to support Alan’s Christocentric focus. Our triune God cannot be separated, Bob. My Bible says that the only way to the Father is through the Son–empowered by the Holy Spirit. We are to be conformed into the image of the Son–empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit empowers all that the Son may reflect the full glory of God.
Perhaps you might just want to lighten up a bit.
It seems like we need a separate Trinity discussion form to really look at all that is going on here. I am no theologian by any means, nor can I say I have much expertise in the deepness surrounding the Trinity. As such, I have to ask a somewhat silly question: does it really matter, or should we even concern ourselves about who to focus on within the Godhead? Is it even possible to say “Jesus is Lord” without the power of the Holy Spirit? Is it even possible to experience the Holy Spirit without the grace of Christ? And how in the world does the Father fit into this? Much of the issues are concerning focus on an either/or argument of Jesus or HS, what about the Father?
To me, it seems since the three are one, we cannot in truth speak/acknowledge/focus on one without speaking/acknowledge/focusing on the other two. I guess I see loving God with everything we have, and loving our neighbors as ourselves as our main focuses as we seek the Kingdom of God. I will never be able to fully comprehend the Trinity nor know the fullness of God in all three aspects. It is not until I’m done seeing through this dark glass, until I can see clearly and know as I am fully known that I can really “get” who we should focus on.
Until that time, I have to have faith that if I seek the Lord, He will draw near; that as I seek the Kingdom, all basic needs will be met. So for now, the question Alan posed originally is how do we seek the Kingdom of God–specifically in the proclamation sense? How do we take that good news that the Kingdom is at hand and share it within the context of the West? Obviously, that message has to come in both word and deed, but which words?
Hi Cameron,
To an extent I agree with the sentiment you express, you’re absolutely right that Paul notes no-one can authentically proclaim “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. It may seem like a spurious point to discuss Trinity on this thread, but it comes from a genuine concern that we continue on the journey to develop an authentic missional theology.
On the question of whether it matters or not… when issues like this don’t matter, historically the church ends up in extremes and creating space for cults to use our ill-defined language and refill it with their own definitions.
I agree with you “we cannot in truth speak/acknowledge/focus on one without speaking/acknowledge/focusing on the other two,” which has been my point on this and other threads. My concern is raised when we feel it necessary to exclude, rather than operate in inclusiveness, around issues of the nature of the Godhead.
I also understand your point that we “will never be able to fully comprehend the Trinity nor know the fullness of God in all three aspects,” Paul also expresses a concern that we are active in the process of being transformed by the renewing of our minds, and understanding that we allow the Spirit to work within us transforming us increasingly into the likeness of the Lord. To participate in that transformation to be like the Lord, there is a concomitant need to seek to define what that actually looks like… even if it is incomplete. Having encountered the incredible grace of God there is an expectation that we will respond in seeking to know Him increasingly. I don’t believe it’s sufficient to say I will never know completely, so I’ll not try at all…
When Jesus expresses the most significant “commandments” I believe it is more accurate to Jesus’ intention, to understand it as “loving God with everything we have, and loving our neighbors as we ourselves are loved by God” rather than the typical self-centred focus which is “loving our neighbours as we ourselves love ourselves.” The God-centred alternative perspective requires us to engage with the Spirit of God “to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” Again a trinitarian engagement!
You are concerned that we have gotten off the track of Alan’s original post and conclude “Obviously, that message has to come in both word and deed, but which words?” which is precisely what we are attempting to articulate in discussion here. On the next thread “just to make a point,” contributor James Nored makes the following observation; “I do not view “Jesus is Lord” as primarily an ontological statement dealing with trinitarian issues, but a statement of the primacy of God in our lives–that he is ruler over us and over all of creation.” I think that is a helpful distinction, but still feel we need to ensure that our statements about God are also true to ontological statements about His nature… otherwise we can end up sneezing a virus that simply makes a sick church sicker…
I realise too that a lot of this discussion can appear to be “highbrow theological bull…” I am fully involved in practically leading a missional community who spent the majority of Sunday supporting our broader community in a local street fair. I believe our understanding of God is vital to our understanding of humanity as we are created in God’s image, our theological concepts define the values taht drive our engagement with our community, or cause us to choose to protect ourselves from evil people in our safe Christian enclaves. I engage with theological concepts not so my intellectual theology is right, but so that my leadership of God’s people in praxis is as good as I can make it, with the existing revelation He has given me…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Slainte
A Celtic Son
When the message is made complicated, it creates a dependency upon professionals to explain and interpret the message that has been made more complex than necessary.
A simple message can be released to the people without a need for professionals or religious systems to mediate their access to the gospel.
I’m with you, Grace. Easier said than done, but I’m working on it in my corner of the Kingdom!
Bob Carder what is with you? I have never deleted ne of your comments! You keep going on about that. and if I have not responded, I simply cannot respond to everyone’s comments or I would be neurotic. Chill out brother…we are not at odds.
As for your comment. Amen! I am a Pentie and believe very much in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. My comment is that as far as I can discern the biblical message, He simply is not the focal point of oour relationship with God. I believe the Mediator must take that place.
Bob and others - just to clarify - the ONLY comments that I delete are spam (I noticed two this morning that had snuck through over the past 48 hours!) and duplicates!
Some comments are automatically being placed in the spam cue for no apparent reason - and I get to the cue and mark the comments as not-spam and return them to the blog at least every 24-48 hours.
If you do notice that your comments have not appeared click on the phrase at base of every page “Any problems contact the site Admin”.
Hope that helps!
Keep the great dialogue flowing!
Maybe God did it! Maybe God deleted me.
… so the question is; “was it Jesus of the Spirit?”
only a wee joke
Peggy said, “By the way, I went to your blog…and the four comments there seemed generally to support Alan’s Christocentric focus. Our triune God cannot be separated, Bob. My Bible says that the only way to the Father is through the Son–empowered by the Holy Spirit. We are to be conformed into the image of the Son–empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit empowers all that the Son may reflect the full glory of God.
Perhaps you might just want to lighten up a bit.”
The Planter -Bob Carder says, You miss something so central that I am almost without the words. I agree with what you say here in large part. But a movement such as Alan describes will not happen without the fullness of the Holy Spirit’s power at the core. To assume the Holy Spirit is just following along presents a very flawed message and approach. The Holy Spirit must be at the core of the movement and all Christ followers under the Holy Spirit’s leadership are charging ahead behind Him to accomplish the mission, our Co-Mission the Great Commission of Jesus to us.
The Holy Spirit isn’t just walking along. He must be leading and we must be following His leadership. Anything other than that is just another man made approach in hopes of leading a movement that cannot be stopped. Consider the fact that Jesus said in the Great Commission -the Holy Spirit would help us fulfill this humanly impossible Commission. We need the Holy Spirit. I need Him and so do you.
I’ll cannot lighten up on the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s role in leading a movement that cannot be stopped.
You know, Bob, I have not heard anyone in this thread, or any other thread, say that the Holy Spirit is just walking along. Every one of us understands that the power of incarnational mission is the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and out-flowing as he leads and we follow in ministry.
I have to believe that you are just not understanding what is being said, brother. Maybe we have an apples and oranges kind of semantic thing going on.
Whatever it is that is fueling this disconnect, it’s your tone that strikes me as less than gracious towards your brothers and sisters in Christ. And your tone leaves me without words (almost!), for the fruit of the Spirit leaves a different taste in the mouth….
Selah…
I love when people are passionate about what we believe in… what we do have to consider is the truth, not simply our passion for the truth… are we speaking the truth in love… or just trying to make our own point… are we seeking to help others grow or point out how right we are? Perhaps there is an apples and oranges thing going on here…
Howevere consider… how missionally attractive is it when Christians are bitchin’ at one another? We can be right… and still completely miss the point!
Slainte
The orange team says “complex doctrine and theological terminology is not the place to start when introducing people to Christianity - Jesus of the gospels is enough”
The apple team says “there is an expectation in the New Testament that authentic believers will mature; that they will respond to the simple transaction of the grace of God in eagerly seeking after God, seeking to be transformed in their minds to engage in the complexity of all that they have encountered in their hearts…”
The orange team says “it is simply Jesus to begin with…”
The apple team says ” as we mature in Christ we can begin to also embrace the apostle’s teaching… the doctrines that Paul so passionately delivered…”
The orange team says “it is just a matter of simple faith to begin with”
The apple team says “we are grateful to be fed milk to begin with, now it is time to grow into weightier matters…”
A balanced diet includes apples and oranges, milk and meat…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
As I see it (someone who did a science degree about a thousand years ago) Alan has in a sense developed a thesis… that one of the critical elements of phenomenal Jesus movements is articulation of and living out a simple, “sneezable” Christology.
Regardless of what we feel about this… this thesis is right or it’s not. Regardless of the possible negative reaction of some theological conservatives… it’s right or it’s not.
There is a long and rich theological tradition available to us, and I do not believe Alan is saying we should ignore and jettison this source of wisdom and richness… but the basis thesis about the simple Christology of phenomenal movements is right or it’s not.
In an abstract sense… of course the Son reveals the Father, and of course no one comes to the Son without the revelation of the Holy Spirit… but the basic Christian confession has always been “Jesus is Lord”… which is pretty simple Christology.
I’m not a church historian, but my understanding of the early church is this… they confessed Jesus as Lord and followed His teachings… they experienced the life and gifts of the Holy Spirit… they prayed to “Our Father in Heaven” as modelled by Jesus… but that more formal and well articulated trinitarian theology was a later development. I think this supports Alan’s basic thesis… “Jesus is Lord” was the focal point in the explosive movement that we call the early church.
I don’t know anything much about the Chinese church… but Alan suggests a simple Christology operates there too. It would be interesting to look at other explosive movements (there was one in PNG some years back I believe… there is one happening in central India according to Wolfgang Simpson… etc. etc.) and see if the same principle applies. (Is that what your thesis is about Al???)
And IF it does appear to be a universal characteristic of phenomenal Jesus movements… then perhaps those of us with an interest in reaching the whole world should consider what the irreducibly simple message is… and attempt to spread a “simple” gospel.
If so… hopefully we can resist the temptation to be “clever”, and learn to be “simply” wise!
“how missionally attractive is it when Christians are bitchin’ at one another?”
Well… it’s a family fight. There can be something healthy about a family fight… at least there’s communication!
But I certainly get grieved when Christians start the whole character assasination thing… I haven’t seen that here though.
Sounds to me like the orange team has lots of evangelists, and the apple team has lots of pastor-teachers.
In my enquiry about your thesis… I meant your doctoral thesis… not the “thesis” of TFW.
In terms of deleted comments… I’ve found from posting in other places if I write a long and heartfelt post I try to remember to save it as a word file so I have a backup… because it’s so frustrating to have put time and thought into a comment and then have it snaffled by a cyber-gremlin… it happens!!!!
Hi Janet…
I figured if PeggyBrown was posting you must be around somewhere
My concern wasn’t just about “family fighting”… like I said I love people being passionate. My concern is about how missional it might be to do it in public – one of the things my friends who are not believers raise, is how much Christians disagree, frankly I’d prefer not to give them any more excuses to avoid discussing Jesus. There can certainly be something healthy about a family fight, but in the blogging environment we have the luxury of being able to pause before clicking on “submit”, to consider and apply self-control where necessary… There’s less justification for aggressive commenting and rudeness… I’d prefer not to be part of an environment that travels down that path – I can join countless other blogs if I just want to be rude to people or receive aggressive responses.
I’m also not sure whether Bob Carder’s accusation about Alan deleting his comments, without actually checking if that’s in fact what happened first, qualifies as character assasination, I thought it was tactless and ungracious. The apples and oranges thinking is simply an expression that we’re not all wrong… and we’re not all right… but then you already know that the Spirit gives gifts as He chooses… and places each of us as gifts in Christ’s body.
I am not particularly interested in being so “clever” that we are not “wise,” nor am I interested in a romanticised notion of simplicity that seeks to reduce what is biblically irreducable. This may seem like a ludicrous question, but stop for a moment and ask yourself what rationale is driving the desire to have a simple message – is it a Biblical requirement, or the application of some other motivation? Are we in danger of over-reacting to the complex apologetic and theology we’ve been exposed to and assuming that is where everyone is at? Are we back to looking for a statement that we can fit on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker? We may still seek to keep the message simple, I’m just asking what is our motivation? What is the Biblical foundation for holding to a “simple” message? As I read it, simplicity applies to the realm of uncomplicated faith, rather than simplistic thinking. Didn’t Paul have something to say about childish thinking being the realm of a child and mature believers growing up into Christ?
You’re right about Alan positing a thesis, and from your science background you’d know that to prove a thesis it needs to be tested in empirically observable and repeatable experiments, in a given environment. Failure to meet the criteria for success is not absolute failure, it is often simply one test along the way that leads to redefining the criteria. Even “negative reaction of some theological conservatives” can be a response in our environment that leads to a more accurate recalibration – so to suggest “it’s either right or it’s not”, is an inaccurate observation. The margin of acceptable error needs to be established and corrections made to become more accurate. The process involves measuring the thesis and where it is found wanting, making adjustments. I’m proposing some adjustments!
I also question whether it is adequate – scientifically or theologically – to consider that a simple framework that existed in a simpler era, will be sufficient to work in a more informed age. Surely what we are all seeking to do is engage in the context we find ourselves in… Observations from the past can be helpful for us to filter through the context we are in, and moving into, to come up with a conclusion about how to move forward.
As a general work TFW is excellent and exciting, the questions that I have raised on TFW blog, in various threads, and the concerns that I have, are based on my observation that in this particular area Alan’s thesis is incomplete. I’ve sought to add to the thesis, rather than simply oppose it. To suggest a thesis for moving movements forward today, based on the example of only two prior movements in history, is a very small sampling. Alan also speaks of the rise of Pentecostalism as a phenomenal movement of the 20th century, which clearly is not a “Jesus movement,” so how accurate is it to focus the forward process of the church based just on “the critical elements of phenomenal Jesus movements.” Are we in danger of climbing up a ladder only to find that it is leaning on the wrong wall?
You’re right of course that the trinitarian understanding is a later development than the early church of the first three centuries – however historically we live on this side of that development. Alongside the Christian church flourishing in China, are reports of a parallel explosive growth in quasi-Christian cults – some of which are based on a simplified “Christology”. It is not simply cleverness to suggest that the same problems have arisen in the western context because of a defective doctrine of the nature of God – Mormonism, Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc… The key measures of orthodoxy are Trinity AND Christology – using Alan’s terminology my (syn)thesis is that today both of these are “irreducable centers of the faith.”
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I really appreciate your thoughts as ever CS… Great questions!!!! Yes, I did sound very black and white in an area that’s far more likely to be grey… (or is that gray in American?… in deference to Al’s impending new homeland!)
And you are absolutely right that the early church and China provide a very limited sample size… so I’m interested in whether other “phenomenal, self-replicating” movements are characterised by “simple” Christology. You’re quite right… they may not be! Hence my enquiry about the scope of Alan’s doctoral thesis.
I was probably challenging myself more than any other particular target in the comment about being “simply” wise… because I actually am a bit of a nerd and love the world of ideas.
But fear not… I’m not ditching my theological studies, I’m not anti-intellectual, or anti-theology. Just fascinated by the idea of “universal principles” (and there are some out there… in the world of science at least)
Church history and missiology students are invited to chip in here… is “simple Christology / simple theology” a feature of all self-replicating phenomenal movements… or not?
Ahh…this is what I come to TFWs for…
Thanks, Janet and CS, for your wonderfully thought-provoking comments!
Being one of the “simple” folks here, I’ll observe this: Many times a “simple” faith is so because the immediate context does not require lots of words to describe it…it is that way precisely because it is a phenomenon. It often happens that something is experienced significantly before it is properly reflected upon and explained.
To say that the early church and the Chinese church phenomenon were Christ centerered rather than Spirit centered would be incorrect, it seems to me. They were centered on Christ because this is what the New Testament teaches. Christ is the incarnation of the triune God. And so, we are to follow Christ, because he was seen and felt and experienced in the flesh in history.
The measure of our Christology is not only orthodoxy but orthopraxy as well. The measure was and is Christlikeness. And that is a simple thing to measure. Difficult to do, but simple to understand. Christ came to show us the Father. And as Christ said he only does and says what he sees his Father doing and saying, so we are to only do and say what Christ does and says, as well. The message of the Father is delivered through the Son and revealed and explained by the Spirit…and this has not changed….and there is only one, unified, message: Jesus is Lord. The Father has proclaimed it and the Spirit confirms it.
So, I would say that a feasure of all self-replicating phenomenal movements must be INITIAL simplicity. And, I would also go so far as to say that there can be significant “maturity” in that which remains purposely simple. (Not, I must add, simplistic!!!)
I was reading Brother Lawrence’s words again last week and was struck by the fact that this was a very simple man…whose fervent desire to practice the presence of God led him to live a very simple life that was amazingly full of depth and maturity. Mother Theresa would be a modern example of this kind of deep simplicity.
So, the next question is: what does one consider maturity to be? I would posit that self-replication is one simple sign of maturity. Ecologically, organisms cannot replicate until they are sufficiently mature. Certainly I would say that there is a great deal of the Christian popluation that could not be considered mature simply because they seem to be unable to replicate their faith in the lives of others. They are unable to participate in the filfullment of the Great Commission because they are not making disciples.
Small soap-box moment, friends…I’ll step down now
Please, no one is to hear me say that the complex is not important. But I do believe that the five-fold ministry of Apostolic Genius that Alan describes is the place where this complex work enters for the equipping of the Saints for the work of ministry. Everyone is not gifted to equip in this manner. And everyone that is equipped is done so according to the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them, too. We do not replicate outselves, but cooperate/facilite the Holy Spirit replicating Christ in us and others.
We are not mixing ingredients for making cookie dough, to be rolled out to a precise thickness and prepared for the stamping out of identical Christ-shaped cookies. The “recipe” level is a little to complex to be “sneezed” around, perhaps.
So, simple little organic Peggy thinks that we can look for fertile soil where WE are, remove the worst of the rocks and weeds that get in OUR way, and let the seeds from the fruit of the Spirit that is consumed in our daily lives fall all around us. They will get pressed into the soil, God’s sun will shine on them and the Spirit’s power will bring about germination.
And then comes the harvest.
Anyone can do this, friends.
When we make the simple things of God so complex that only we can explain them, we have gone too far. The Christian Faith is simplex….simple enough for everyone to be able to do at it’s most basic level and complex enough for the brightest and best among us to delve for its riches without ever exhausting God’s treasures.
Some contexts are very simple….some contexts are very complex….
We have to give up the either/or mentality. We must cut up our precious oranges and apples and make a fruit salad…and throw in some nuts and seeds for a protein crunch and a dollop of cream to bring it all together…don’t they call this Ambrosia?
Now we are having some fun.
The Chinese Church did have a simplified Christology…that was empowered and totally led by the Holy Spirit.
I believe Alan when he says he didn’t delete me. But the admin did say they are having problems with such things.
This is not character assassination, I did ask the question. Did you, ALAN! By the way the world loves to read exchanges like this. At least they can see that we know the church is broken and we all want to do something about it.
Alan did say the Holy Spirit is walking along on my blog so you didn’t have that reference. We need to focus on the finished work of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to lead a movement where we allow Him to lead and empower us to fulfill the Great Commission within a movement that cannot be stopped.
I guess Peggy proves that cybergremlins can eat blog comments. Hummm!
I am passionate to see the Holy Spirit at the core driving this new missional movement and I am convinced that without Him leading it fully, we will have just another one of millions of other attempts to save the church with little or no success.
I have a prophetic gifting and you know how people with prophetic gifts can be hated. I not an orange or an apple. Maybe I’m the worm in the apple. A reality checker, an apple may look good on the outside and have a worm on the inside!
Some of you can sure swear like drunk sailors! That was a fun read.
Oh Peggy, You said,
Whatever it is that is fueling this disconnect, it’s your tone that strikes me as less than gracious towards your brothers and sisters in Christ. And your tone leaves me without words (almost!), for the fruit of the Spirit leaves a different taste in the mouth…”
Bob - the PLanter, Maybe it is a prophetic gifting “Wake Up” call. Ever think of that? What did they do to the prophets? I only have a prophetic gifting and will continue to use it. It is unfair to infer that I speak without the fruit of the Spirit when I speak with truth and passion. It’s not an angry tone you read, but a passionate one. We are adults you know! Hummm.
Look at Peter and His first sermon. Sounded harsh but he did it because He loved the Church and He wanted to confront those present who needed confronting and win people to Christ. When I preached with love, confrontation and passion - there were results and there were those who also hated it. Oh, well.
Maybe we just have a different gifting, maybe everyone is not supposed to respond like you do. Your subtle inference is … well you figure it out.
I appreciate your loyalty to Alan, I’m his friend also. I just want to see why the Holy Spirit is downplayed in His role to fuel and out of control movement in many comments and posts.
We are doing this in St. Louis and we are seeing results as God’s Holy Spirit leads us to fulfill the Great Commission in order to fulfill the mission of Christ so that all may be reached.
See http://www.biggersbigfamily.blogspot.com and you will read a description of what we are about and not about from the perspective of a young mother with a great vision.
Yeah, Bob, you tried your “wake up call” explanation on me before, and it didn’t resonate well then, either. Perhaps you’re just better “live and in color” than you are on blog? I can believe that–most of us are.
And as surprising as it may be to you, I also have a prophetic gifting. I did not say that your tone was angry. I implied that it was lacking grace and mercy. I suggest that passion should be restrained with grace and mercy at all times.
If you want to put yourself on the same footing as the OT prophets and Peter and Jesus, that’s your call. But I don’t know anywhere in the New Testament where you can hide HOW you speak for God behind WHAT you speak. Those prophets were not speaking into cyperspace where their words have no context in relationship. Alan says the medium is the message….
Unrestrained passion is what I get from my young sons. Suggesting that being an adult frees one from love’s restraint seems like license to me. You suggest that “the world loves to see exchanges like this.” That seems a poor excuse to give them what they want at the expense of walking on Christ’s good name as Lord of Love.
You say “It is unfair to infer that I speak without the fruit of the Spirit when I speak with truth and passion.” When I read Galations 5:22-6:2, I don’t see truth and passion listed. I do see kindness, gentleness and self-control.
I also suggest that it is worthwhile to be able to understand how you come across to a wider range of people. I don’t mean that you must compromise your message for the sake of what people want to hear. I do mean that some people respond to humility and grace better than a swift kick in the hindquarters. I just pray that the Holy Spirit is able to bring someone along with grace to catch those you are “kicking” before they get the wrong idea about our loving, gracious, merciful God.
The great thing, Bob, is that we each have our shortcomings–but the Holy Spirit is able to take our poor offerings and bless them and use them to advance the work of the Kingdom.
For that, I’m grateful.
Bob, you’ve been drinking way too much coffee! This is exactly what I said on your blog. No reference to the Spirit walking along here is there? Mate, you fire from the hip. And like CS, I love passion too, but I would prefer you got your facts straight. Here it is word for word…
“Bob, I don’t think I am out of sync with the church’s thinking on this. I fully believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Especially for mission and witness, but I simply don’t believe He is is the focal point of our relationship with the TRinity. I believe it is the Jesus the mediator that provides the entry point. this is what it means to be a follower of Christ…a Christ-ian.
And just for the record, I don’t appreciate your belligerant tone in this matter. I have never deleted any comment you have made on my site as you suggest. I value your insights and passion in these matters.”
Actually guys, this post has shown that we can have rigorous discussion and that it is good for us. Other than Bob going at me somewhat personally for reasons I can’t quite work out, I think it has been absolutely fantastic.
On topic I heard Mary Fisher, a theologian friend of mine, speak last night and one of the things she said really struck me. She said that “…any understanding of the Trinity must begin with Jesus because he is the one who introduces us to the Trinity.” given my interests in this area I immediately picked this up and have been chewing on it since. I think she is absolutely right. Jesus is the one who first introduces us into a Trinitarian understanding of God, therefore we must begin with him.
I’d have to say that makes sense to me… I cannot imagine a Muslim or a Jewish theologian postulating a trinitarian view of God for this very reason. As we accept Jesus as Lord… we implicitly acquire a trinitarian understanding of God as we read the gospels and note Jesus’ teaching about the Father and the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. If we accept the authority of Christ as Lord we develop a trinitarian understanding of God (whether we use that term or not.) It seems to me the person of Christ is the starting point of Christianity… we do not normally introduce people to the trinity, we usually seek to introduce them to Jesus!
Janet, I think your comment on “I cannot imagine a Muslim or a Jewish theologian postulating a trinitarian view of God for this very reason” is one worth pondering on.
It needs to be recognized that we are not necessarily introducing people to “Jesus as Lord” in a theological vacuum.
Consider that Muslims and Jews may already have developed understandings about Alah and the workings of barakah and YHWH and his shekinah long before we even come to them. They may even have had genuine experiences at one level. But introduction to Jesus as Lord has the potential to reframe it all; all they have previously understood and experienced.
I get the impression that Bob sees the Christian missionary as somehow bringing God and the Spirit into the field along with him, into territories they have previously been excluded from. Maybe this is where the ships begin to sail past one another in the night.
But Alan, I would join with CS in suggesting this is an area where deeper articulation is required as if I remember correctly I did raise a flag some time ago that your relative silence on the Spirit could attract misunderstanding. Like CS I say this in the spirit of sharpening things up rather than tearing down.
I suppose I would come at it from the angle that “Jesus is Lord” is a Pandora’s Box with the potential to reframe everything, that we could spend centuries working through the implications (or should that be millenia?) for the HS and everything, but that this is where it starts.
You guys are killing me.
Alan, It was not meant to be personal. I just see the focus on the role of the Holy Spirit leading the missional movement lacking in some of what I read here. If it seemed like a personal attack please accept my heartfelt apology.
For the record, in the movement I see needed in America/world I see the Holy Spirit leading and all of us following Him in order the see the world of Christ fulfilled through our lives.It’s just that point that I see or perceive to see missing here.
Matt, I appreciate your comments and also those of CS on this matter.
I’m not personally defensive! I am defending the purpose and role and necessity of the Holy Spirit to move out in mDNA movements. That’s where my passion level crosses into the red zone. And it kept climbing when it seemed like a dull and passing thought. Without Him (the holy Spirit) leading us our efforts are minimized or stalled!
Man can create some pretty good stuff and that is what it is just stuff. As we follow Christ and are led by the Holy Spirit in total obedience we have transformation. Transformation is what God uses to start a sneezing movement of Holy Spirit power and Jesus victory.
Janet of course Christ is the starting point. We all agree that Jesus saves us. I hope! Do we all agree that The Holy Spirit leads us and movements of which we are part.
The train fell off the tracks on comments 17 & 20 in the Hirsch/Carder discussion.
And allot of good conversation with a little bit of bologna dropped in.
Thanks Peggy for your fine and misleading assessment of who I am. I may have to refrain from taking you on -you are one tough fighting back babe. It seems more about misunderstanding than weaknesses. I guess that’s the weakness in the two of us. Yeah, I’m glad I figured that one out. You burned me good!
Love you guys and gals…I really do in Jesus. Alan I’ll do gooder next time (gooder intended).
Bob…
we’re not aiming to kill you… just challenge you to respond as a mature follower of Jesus, in the way that you would like to be treated… and have your ideas considered.
Re-reading the thread, there were no comments raised in response to comments 17 & 20. The train came off the tracks at comment 32 and the issue wasn’t over your theology of the Holy Spirit, but what spirit appeared manifest in how you presented your comments… A number of us have been blogging here for a while, over time you see people’s character revealed in their commentary. My response #33 to your post #32, is based on learning about Alan’s character over the months of communicating here, your accusation was not consistent with the character that Alan portrays here, which is why, from my perspective, I see it as personal bacuase your comment is having a go at Alan’s character, without even checking if the accusation is accurate, which is immature, unfair and misleading.
In all honesty it’s not clear that Peggy’s assessment of you was “misleading,” the general flow was a response to the aggressive nature of your comments and if Peggy “burned you” it’s likely because she returned your fire! Too often in “Christian” circles people use their “passion” as an excuse for making their point aggressively and being rude. I am passionately concerned that we don’t lose sight of the triune Godhead in our discussion, but I have also learned that aggressively opposing people is not the best way to have them honestly consider what you are trying to convey - a core issue is whether we want to learn together or whether we just want to prove we are right?
There have been people who have posted aggressively or just dropped in to make their own point, not for the purpose of dialogue and learning together, they have not tended to stick around for long… As a blogging community we haven’t sought to “take [people] on” but if people have chosen not to communicate respectfully, we have chosen not to respect their communication.
You have a lot to contribute Bob and I appreciate the fact that you have apologised to Alan for your comments… I think your perception of Peggy being misleading about you, is unnecessary and is actually be misleading about Peggy! That aside, it would be good to move on together, as we head forward into forgotten ways…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
“Do we all agree that The Holy Spirit leads us and movements of which we are part?”
Yes, absolutely, I do, 100%, of course!!!!!! We’re all orthodox trinitarians, and the lovely Alan is a “closet Pente!!!!”
I still think in a missional sense our distinctive and first and foremost message is Jesus Christ as Lord. Because other religions talk about God and there’s a heck of a lot of talk about spirit these days (though more often than not, not in a “Holy” sense)… our unique message is God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Interesting comment from Matt… I think that a couple of millenia ago some good monotheistic Jewish boys encountered Christ as Lord and began a theological journey. You could argue that John’s gospel (probably the latest one written) shows a much more clearly developed trinitarian theology (”in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) than Mark (probably the earliest gospel… “this is the beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ the Son of God”).
Get ready to pick up stones and hurl them… but I don’t believe a formal understanding or embrace of the trinity is necessary for saving faith… which at its most basic involves faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
I believe when we embrace Christ as Lord and engage with the scriptures we are led to an understanding of the trinitarian nature of God as we pray to the Father and experience the life of the Holy Spirit… but it is the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord that is the distinctive mark of Christianity.
May I add as an aside… I appreciate the Christian maturity and grace so evident in this blog, and I see some of the responses here as a helpful attempt to guard this… I’ve participated in other blogs where Christians become positively vitriolic with one another over differences of opinion… to quote the shortest verse in the bible, I can only think “Jesus wept.” Let’s keep checking in with one another in love that we’re behaving in a way worthy of the calling to which we’ve been called.
… just made a quick general post on the next thread “just to make a point” that refers to conclusions that I have gained here too.
Many thanks to all…
Luvyerwork
A Celtic Son
Thanks friends! “Lord God, tame my passion to see you lead a Holy Spirit led movement of transformation. Tame my passion to see the Holy Spirit leading the Jesus movement where transformation becomes the rapid expansion of the kingdom. Make me less forceful so that those around cyberspace can accept what I bring to the table.”
Celtic and Peggy -we really should meet and find out who we really are. You and I might all be pleasantly surprised.
I love yah!
Still wish I knew where Alan is on the Person and work of the Holy Spirit in missional movements. You cyber friends imply or say we are on the same page, I just wish I could here Alan say it. That’s why I keep pushing my passion and high “D” level up and over. Alan doesn’t really need some of you coming to his defense, he is a quite capable of holding his own. He doesn’t need anyone to defend Him.
The looming questions remain. I communicate them differently. Does the Holy Spirit have to lead the missional movement in order for transformational success? I never seem to get an answer. Maybe my tone is too harsh! But this is a big deal for me. If we don’t agree then we will agree to disagree on it. No problem. I’m just trying to understand where the Holy Spirit fits in the Forgotten Ways. It feels downplayed! For me it is central and vital for transforming success.
I still love you guys!
Whatsup dogs?
Alan, this is what got my gander up! You said, “I just don’t think that we were meant to focus on the Spirit. He will just be with us. Our focus remains loving God in and through Jesus.”
My point is that we cannot love God through Jesus without the Person and work of the Holy Spirit.
Read: John 14:28
John 16:5-15
I just keep wondering why I was so persistent and a pain the (well you know). This is why? Right or wrong, you be the judge, this is what tripped my trigger. I’m not attacking so please don’t set the cyber world on my butt. But (no punn intended) perhaps you could flesh this out for further clarification.
Maybe I’ll be shot for hanging on here. I’ve been shot before. Really?
This may also help Peggy and CS understand my rant!
Alan, this is what got my gander up! You said, “I just don’t think that we were meant to focus on the Spirit. He will just be with us. Our focus remains loving God in and through Jesus.”
My point is that we cannot love God through Jesus without the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit always points us back to the other parts of the trinity. Always. He also empowers us for transformational movements. Always! He leads them through us. Always!
Read: John 14:28
John 16:5-15
I just keep wondering why I was so persistent and a pain the (well you know). Causing others to rebuke me in a nice way! This is why? Right or wrong, you be the judge, your comments tripped my trigger. I’m not attacking so please don’t set the cyber world on my butt. But (no punn intended) perhaps you could flesh this out for further clarification. I keep wondering if I am the only one concerned about this.
Maybe I’ll be shot for hanging on here. I’ve been shot before. Really? After this I lay my burden down in peace!
This may also help Peggy and CS understand my rant!
Hullo-o-o Bob…
I’ve got no problem with you getting passionate about what you believe in… it just doesn’t have to turn into a “rant.” There’s a matter of the fruits of the Spirit that ought to be made manifest in maturing disciples, including self-control… all the moreso since we have the luxury of considering what we have written prior to clicking that submit icon.
I’m likewise encouraged that people are prepared to hang in on a point, until it’s clear. Like you, I am concerned that we have as clear an understanding as is humanly possible of the Godhead, including the active ministry of the Holy Spirit. One of the elements that I’ve mentioned I believe is missing in writings about the missional context is anything to do with signs, wonders and miracles… yet they are clearly significant elements in the early church and in the Chinese context (read The Heavenly Man!).
What I have concluded from this discussion is that the concern that you and I have expressed is mostly from the perspective of mature believers engaging with increasing revelation as we journey in Christ. The missiological view is how we present our message to those who are our mission field, not yet cognisant of God in any terms of relationship. We need to continue to grow in a fully developed understanding of God, including the ministry of the Holy Spirit AND engage with people in a missional context with the message of God in Christ.
I agree with you that the root issue you are raising, concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit, is a missing link in the perspective of missional church at present. Alan has also stated that there is a real need for a developed pneumatology for the missional perspective, that it seems does not yet exist… Alan continues his work on Christology… so someone else with a passion for the work of the Spirit needs to write the vital work on the Spirit… what are you up to for the next 12 months or so?
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hey, Bob…please do not tame your passion for the Kingdom–we welcome you to this table; just looking for some table manners, is all. No one is going to shoot–we all encourage each other to hang in there until our question is answered. (No, we are not Alan’s cyber police
)
I hope CS’s post has helped you understand where he is coming from. I am right there with you all wanting to understand the ministry of the Holy Spirit and give it proper emphasis. I still have many questions, however, and I’m sure that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead me into all truth as I am ready to receive and as he discerns it the right time and place….patience is a virtue that I am pursuing….
Just today, over at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, I have come to appreciate the Eternal Trinity of Father-Son-Holy Spirit in terms of an on-going, interpenetrating relationship (perichoresis) which flows like a dance. There is one eternal dance and three eternal dancing partners. Through Christ’s new covenant, we have been invited into the eternal dance with Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Each metaphor has its weaknesses, especially when dealing with God…but it is interesting….
I am unwilling to single out any one aspect as more important. I am willing to acknowledge each of their particular steps in the dance. And I know that it is the Holy Spirit that both teaches me the steps and empowers my ability to dance…and invite others into the dance, as well.
The dance metaphor has illuminated my heart and I have begun to think and write about it…and, for me, this blog (and a few others) is like a “virtual” dance, as it were. And we are all partners in the dance…bringing different ways of dancing and different flair to our steps…but it is an extension the same eternal dance–and it is a joyous mystery.
Writing about the Holy Spirit is a daunting task! CS is right in saying that Alan’s focus is Christological…and I am grateful that the Holy Spirit has empowered Alan to help us understand the Son. There is a lot to sort through, however, in understanding the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit…
Perhaps it is Alan’s ideas about liminality and the forging of communitas that speaks to the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Christian life and ministry liminality is the place where faith steps in to rescue what will fail without God’s intervention. The bond forged as a result is communitas–what I would call covenant keeping. And the Holy Spirit is that source of power that enables us to faithfully keep covenant. The Holy Spirit is the heart of communitas. Proper Christology keeps the purpose for communitas aligned with the Kingdom of God. This intersection is where I see the explosive expansion of the church happening.
Well, it’s too late…hope someone can make sense of this…Celtic Son???
Be blessed, all.
At the risk of making this discussion sound terribly unspiritual… I’m going to attempt an analogy from the world of network marketing in our discussions of mission.
In network marketing, the basic idea is to have a simple presentation that communicates some key ideas, that is easy to use by others. If you have a reproducible system, and you can motivate others to use it, you can become wealthy if you’re on top of a pyramid. How? By the power of duplication.
Now… people who “get into it” then learn a whole lot more about whatever business they’re plugged into. But they resist “dumping the whole truckload” while recruiting… they understand the importance of keeping the message simple and reproducible so it can be easily spread to others.
If this works as an analogy… I’m suggesting the “simple, transferable” idea is Jesus Christ as Lord. (or to use Alan’s analogy, it’s “sneezable”)
People who have “bought in” (uggh, I know that sounds dreadful) can then develop the disciplines and learn the wisdom of the bigger picture…
Does that work? I don’t believe Alan’s trying to downplay the trinity in any way… I think he’s saying the bit of the picture we present first to people is Jesus… for “He who has seen me has seen the Father”
Celtic Son, Bob and Alan
“…there is a real need for a developed pneumatology for the missional perspective, that it seems does not yet exist…”
Actually, there is quite a LOT of work being done on missional pneumatology by people connected with Thin Places, the group I host. That it has largely escaped the attention of the emerging church, even the Australian emerging church, is no doubt due to the reluctance of some members to appropriate EC jargon. But I assure you that it has been going on for quite some years and that we’re no less involved in postmodern mission than Forge. Maybe I should explain things a bit.
Thin Places is an online community that was birthed some years ago when I began gathering together veterans from mission in Mind Body Spirit Festivals in Sydney for experiments in alternative worship and new missional ventures. It soon expanded nationally and then internationally and has had a stable membership of 50 for a number of years.
Core members (apart from me) include Philip Johnson (who pioneered the ‘evangelism with tarot cards’ thing that has more recently become popular with Dekomai (joint venture by CMS/Grace/Moot and others in the UK, and who authored a number of Books with Ross Clifford and John Drane), John Smulo (who used to work with Mike Frost and who now blogs from http://johnsmulo.com/), John Morehead (a former LDS member and ex-Director of Watchman Fellowship who now blogs at http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com and recently released some seminal papers on Burning Man), Simeon Payne (who does missional work with lecturers in the University of Western Sydney). These people were all core members on the Lausanne working group on Mission to New Religious Movements and Emerging Spiritualities (http://www.lausanne.org/lcwe/assets/LOP45_IG16.pdf) which now also includes Steve Hollinghurst and Gerald McDermott. Others within our orbit include Phil Wyman (who pastors a missional church to witches in Salem and recently organized the recent “God for people who hate church” conference and who blogs from http://squarenomore.blogspot.com/) and Amos Yong. Many of the members were authors behind the Encountering New Religious Movements book which Winner of the Christianity Today Book Award in the category of Mission Studies.
http://www.amazon.com/Encountering-New-Religious-Movements-Evangelical/dp/0825428939
Thin Places and myself were mentioned therein.
So, we have been a very busy group behind the scenes and missional pneumatology has been a core focus for many. You may want to check out works by Amos Yong and Gerald McDermott is particular,
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Impasse-Amos-Yong/dp/0801026121/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181287708&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Poured-Out-Flesh-Pentecostalism/dp/0801027705/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181287708&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Discerning-Spirits-Penetecostal-Charismatic-Contribution-Supplement/dp/1841271330/ref=sr_1_4/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181287708&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Can-Evangelicals-Learn-World-Religions/dp/0830822747/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181287811&sr=8-6
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-God-Twelve-Reliable-Spirituality/dp/083081616X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181287918&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Gods-before-Evangelicals-Challenge/dp/0801022916/ref=sr_1_3/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181288168&sr=1-3
but Phil Johnson has written some very interest articles too.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~stonelink/energy%20healing.doc
http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/jonnybaker/2006/06/thinking_about_.html
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Gods-New-Ross-Clifford/dp/0781439434/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181288005&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Prediction-Tarot-Your-Spirituality/dp/0745950353/ref=sr_1_1/103-4130508-6483815?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181288048&sr=1-1
Phil is in the process of completing a missional dialogue book which I am sure will say something on the topic.
So to sum it up – don’t assume it’s not happening.
PS. You may note little ol non-academic me has blogged a bit on missional pneumatology too.
MAtt, thanks a ton for this. I have to admit to being ignorant about these writings. I will order some of these.
Thanks Matt…
the reason for the comment is that Alan has asked on the blog a couple of times if anyone knew of this kind of material, but no-one responded. I’m grateful too for the direction… I’ve come across materials that explore spirituality, but not specifically the work of the Holy Spirit
Slainte
A Celtic Son
PERICHORESIS…
Peggy’s introduction of the concept of perichoresis – consider “peri” as meaning “around”, as in the word “perimeter” and “choresis” as a root of “choreography” and you have the “dancing around” concept – this opens the door to a mass of complementary, subsidiary and developmental concepts. The fundamental idea of God in three persons, engaged in an eternal dance which we are brought into in Christ, is a beautiful, empowering and releasing image… A gentle introduction can be found in a short book by C. Baxter Kruger titled “The Great Dance.” He has a number of other short works which are helpful, but should be read “critically” as there is a tendency towards universalism - also an accusation raised about Karl Barth, and Kruger is a Barthian scholar… but much of it is good stuff
check our http://www.perichoresis.org/
Perichoresis is not a new idea, in some sense it was restored to the contemporary discussion of western theology in the latter half of the twentieth century through the works of Karl Barth, his contemporaries and his followers. It raises questions of the nature of the Trinity, in terms theologians define as “economic,” “immanent,” “ontological” etc. These are concepts deserving of consideration, but I’d suggest would sidetrack the discussion we are engaged in here…
Perichoresis is an idea restored from, and in some sense is an ongoing conversation of theology in, Eastern orthodoxy. In my limited reading I am indebted to the eastern theologians for sustaining true trinitarian theology which was lost to the west for many centuries. Barth et al developed their thinking from the Cappadocians - 4th centuray monastics - who held to concepts of the Christian faith against the infiltration of Greek dualism, which Alan has pointed to as a significant diversion, introduced to the church under Constantine’s influence. The fundamental statement of orthodoxy regarding the Godhead - “three subsistences (hypostases) in one essence (ousia)” - is a statement that remained central to the Cappadocian Father’s theology. Their work, that Barth and others rediscovered and developed in seeking to restore the fundamental trinitarian understanding of God to the church in the 20th century, is fundamental to