church follows mission
In a recent interview with New Wineskins Magazine, I was asked this question:
Can you explain to the readers how you think adopting a distinctly missional-incarnation approach will find a faith community emerging from mission, rather than mission emerging from a particular expression of church?
Here’s my answer…
Quite simply because when you adopt an missional-incarnational approach to engaging our world, then you are forced to a go-to-them, hang-out-with-them approach to mission before you ever get to ask the question “what is church for this people group?” The problem is that we usually frontload our idea of church into the missional equation. And while the reality of the Church as God’s community is a vital, non-negotiable, part of the Christian faith, the forms that the church must take are almost entirely to be guided by the cultural context of the church. If this were not the case, then Paul’s argument in Galatians is flawed and we all should be adopting Jewish forms of church, including circumcision! Ouch!
The church follows mission and not the other way around.
Comments
33 Responses to “church follows mission”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
lying to god in worship
- Frank Wilder said: Amazing Alan. Thanks for...
- Richie “Rich” Merritt said: Great Post and quote!...
- armany said: Thanks for the...
- David Phillips said: Alan, Great word...now I...
- Peggy said: The Abbess concurs... two new books by november…yay!
- Johnny Laird said: Looking forward to both...
- Santosh said: Can't wait for both of...
- jay hardwick said: looking forward to both,... The Trouble with Paris (pt. I)
- Richie “Rich” Merritt said: WoW Lucy J..., that is... Networked structures: Liquid v. Solid church
- Scott K said: Couple of weeks late....
Bring it on, Hirshey…
amen
so the context for all mission is based on relationships not institutions? sounds fishy to my ‘church as institution’ friends here in America.
Alan,
As you know, ecclessiology and ecclessiological structures have been center for our fellowship, almost to the point of being an end in and of itself. Fluidity in church form and structure is beyond the imagination of most. This is where we fall down, in the realm of imagination.
Our coffee shop outreach at Starbucks is continuing to grow. We have blessed the lives of the workers and prayed for them. We have had some of the other customers from the shop come and join us. Several former youth kids who are now young adults and had dropped out of church completely are now regulars, and people are inviting their friends and co-workers. We had another one of these co-workers join us last night for the first time. It was a safe setting for her, and so she was willing to come.
Why not have a worship assembly in this shop? Well, lot’s of reasons are given for this type of thing, but one of the reasons is that it does not match up with our experience of worship. How would this group sing? And what about preaching?
The fact is, “praching” can be done through multiple voices and without a pulpit. And singing could be done at the end, outside, with only one song. This would be culturally appropriate, and a proper expression of church in this context, would it not?
Yes, Carl, all “church as institution” types are going to continue to choke on the fish bones…
Thanks for sharing, James. It will be very interesting to see how people’s ideas change if they are willing to make the jump to embrace Apostolic Genius.
Great points - and most of this drinks deeply from Luke 10
and the missional principles seen there. I appreciate learning about mission, and more importantly CHRIST in a time when people are realizing his CENTRAL role as Lord in our lives, mission, and Church.
I recommend “House Church and Mission” by Roger Gehring - a well researched book on how the earliest Christians got on with the task of “making disciples” and living incarnationally in their own context.
Keep up the great work!
I can think of some institutions that are a helpful place, intended to lovingly support people with disturbed capacities, from doing damage to themselves and to others… there are many inmates who have the misperception that they are there by choice or have the imagination that in fact they are in control… was that the kind of institution suggested here?
I’ve mentioned before that I see third places as a context for mission, rather than for worship or discipleship. This is not intended to discourage your coffee shop outreach, but possibly prepare you for shifting focus if things change in the future - perhaps not if things continue to develop as you expect. My experience has been that there is an initial energy in “doing church” in third places that seems wo wane after a period. My assessment is that there is an adrenaline high attached to being exposed for Christ, and an energy attached to the novelty value of doing something new and fresh - this is a good thing, but in my experience has not been sustainable. Things started from this place can lose momentum… which is simply a sign that it has grown through this start-up phase and needs to adjust.
I see first places as the context for the vital role of eating meat, and second and third places as the opportunity to find creative ways to present appetisers. Our “hors d’oeuvre” ought to have sufficient flavour that people recognise their hunger for a real meal and encourage them beyond their natural reticence to accept the invitation to dine…
… somehow I always end up back at the beginning… perhaps I am remembering forgotten ways!
The bottom line comes from who we understand God to be… and how we come to conclude who He is. In the West our theology is primarily constructed within the framework of a westernised church setting, so when we’re seeing/learning/reading theology we learn to do so wearing the lenses of ecclesiology. One consequence is that we end up only able to imagine a God who fits IN the western church context - predominantly driven by intellectually perceived information which we pass off as completed “knowledge” - and are consequently incapable of “seeing” God outside of that context… The understanding passed on to us is that the church IS God incarnating flesh, rather than the church is A FRUIT of God incarnating flesh… God so loved the WORLD - not just the church - that He gave His Son…
We end up constrained by the construct created for us, and which we have become co-dependent with… our limited vision leads us to declare that anyone worshipping outside of our particular church context is worshipping an idol, when in fact our ecclesiastically focussed theology has led us into idolatry. In the main our “theology” is not in fact theology in the true sense, where we seek an understanding of God which places Theos first, instead we have valued the “ology” and venerated human knowledge. We esteem our great theologians without considering whether in fact they have ever encountered the Theos that they wax so eloquently about!
The context for worship involves ecclesia for sure, I’m a firm believer in the church… but not as we’ve been led to believe it is. Seek first the Kingdom… put God and His values first and authentic ecclesia will follow. Third places (and second places to some extent) present opportunity for the pursuit of the Kingdom and to invite people to dine, first places enable us to sit down to a banquet in the presence of the King.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Celtic Son, I appreciate your comments. I do not think that worship has to be in a third place. My point is simply that our lack of imagination rules out such a thing, when in some contexts, it might be beneficial.
Worship should not be a substitute for mission. However, worship can help one in the faith process (1 Cor. 14
). For some of our coffee shop attenders, it might be more than a year before they would attend a worship service in another setting, even in a home. But if we had some kind of “worship” time in the coffee shop–in an appropriate form–I think that they would attend this.
In my mind, the biggest long-term problem that third place worship entails is that third places tend to be geared towards a limited demographic. A coffee shop, for instance, is a difficult place to bring kids. And a church needs to seek to be multi-generational, as well as multi-ethnic. This is why making a coffee shop one’s only mission outpost is a problem.
It may be that first places are better for worship. But I think we should keep an open mind of other settings and emphases on worship where needed.
Speaking of “ouch!” Alan, have you ever seen my Golden Izmel awards?
http://mattstone.blogs.com/./photos/uncategorized/2007/03/21/golden_izmel_award_2.jpg
It’s for blogs promoting gentile circumcision.
So if you ever want to suggest some nominations…
To quote Paul, may they cut the whole thing off!
This is going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome if existing IC’s are going to mount a serious missional effort. If we have a fairly clear vision and goal for mission, then the physical plant will naturally form itself to serve the mission. But, an existing structure has a hard time with serving anything that doesn’t fit its preexisting design. Seldom is there much financial or volunteer resources left to do more than maintain church-as-usual.
But if we just do the missional/incarnational thing, not worrying too much about structure until we can determine just what that structure needs to be, the form will eventually evolve that best serves our mission.
Hullo-o-o James,
I agree with your concern for a lack of imagination in the church, I’m frequently finding my own limitations in that area! My intention was not to discourage you, but simply to share some thoughts from my experience in my context. My main concern was to point to the possibility of changing tack, if you did find at some point that you are losing momentum, rather than conclude that the exercise is failing. BUT I’m more than happy to be wrong… I’m always excited to see Kingdom building… and funny enough God’s frequently in the business of enlarging my imagination by proving my limitations to be wrong… It’s a far more productive use of the breath God has put in our bodies to have made an effort and learned from the experience than never to have tried and just read stuff in a book! I salute what you are doing and I look forward to what we can all learn from your experience…
Webb,
I have found that the institutional obsession with structure freaks missional people out so much, that we tend to react away from any form of structure, which I’ve discovered is an unhealthy over-reaction. All organisms have a structure, appropriate to the specific nature of the organism; with no structure at all they don’t take healthy shape and grow as they should. The opposite of institutionalisation is not “no structure” it is “organic structure” which is needed to create the skeleton for the organic to be fleshed out on…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I think “non singing” forms of corporate worship (meditating on or discussing a scripture passage, doing a lectio divino, having reflections on an art work, or from a lap top presentation, having people share about their faith story, naming that which people are thankful for, everyone doing a drawing that reflects something about their faith journey, poetry readings, creative scripture readings… etc. etc.) are more appropriate in a third place setting than singing together. In Australia at least singing together would seem really weird … maybe it’s OK where you come from.
Hi James,
Your coffee shop outreach sounds like an adventure.
I have a question; If you were going to ‘worship’ together; who, precisely, would the unbelievers in your midst be worshipping?
And another, at what point do these people realise they need God’s forgiveness, and repent and put their trust in Jesus? How does this come about? Do you tell them, or do they work it out for themselves?
I wasn’t sure what you were referring to within 1 Cor. 14
to back-up what you said about worship helping us is the “faith process”.
thanks
I would also think not everything needs to be done at the one event. Maybe there could be a gathering of leaders for prayer at someone’s home… maybe someone could run a “searcher focused” bible study at a different place and time… maybe others could meet one on one for mentoring for those keep to grow in faith and discipleship etc. etc. Who knows what might evolve if things are left fluid? It does sound exciting.
All these with unbelievers, Janet?
Where, o’ where in the bible does it say we should do that?
….ok so you can call me a ‘fundy-mundy’
Isaac,
Good questions. As to who they would be worshippping, we would be worshipping the true God of heaven. You may be implying that they would not know or understand this. However, the Old Testament made allowance for those outside of Israel to worship God, with a “Court of the Gentiles” in the temple. King Neb glorifies the God of Israel in the book of Daniel. Stories abound of Gentiles worshipping God.
In the NT, Cornelius obviously fits this bill. And the passage that I was referring to was 1 Cor. 14:24
- ”
24 But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all.25 After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, “God is really among you.”
The overall contexts shows that as the church displays the character of God (love, order, holiness, etc.) in their worship assembly, outsiders will also want to worship God and will be able to sense God’s presence. Worshipping God is an act of faith, as is believing in his presence. This is what I was referring to. Note that unbelievers will want to worship God, not necessarily be baptized at that moment.
The general call to repentance for all can occur in worship, as the word of God is read. However, no “conversions” of unbelievers with repentance and baptism occur in worship settings in the NT. I believe that these things are best done in personal Bible study, and in my experience, this is where most all people respond today.
Isaac, to become hardline about only doing what is explicitly practiced or commanded in the New Testament is turf that… historically speaking… is divisive and potentially, leads one toward irrelevance. It does not allow for openness to the Holy Spirit to do the new… it does not allow sensitive response to changes in culture.
If you’d like to see an argument that logically follows this, click on this link.
http://preachersfiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=180&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
I’d also suggest that the epistles were written in response to particular situations, that they are not intended as a handbook for church practice for all time. (eg wearing veils by women is essential because the epistles say so… playing instruments is forbidden because the epistles do not mention this practice… etc.)
I have led such worship activities with non Christians involved… I believe it drew them closer to faith, rather than further from faith, to have the opportunity to meditate on scripture.
However, I tend to agree with you that some more “full on” forms of worship, teaching, or discipleship are best done with Christians only… hence my suggestion to James not get locked in to doing everything in the one place at the one time… the fullness of the mission might be best achieved with a variety of activities.
Hi James,
Even so, with your examples in the Old Testament, you wouldn’t worship with a Mormon no matter how much they say that the god they believe in is the creator of heaven and earth.
As for Cornelius, I’m not sure it’s a perfect parrallel between what you are doing and what is recorded. The bible says he was a God fearing man, and he did what he could to please God. What he didn’t know that this was impossible without faith in Jesus (Hebrews 11:6
). So God in His infinite wisdom and mercy saw fit to reward Cornelius’ faith with complete knowledge.
We must becareful when dealing with Acts, since what it records is the changeover from Judaism to Christianity, Old Covenant to the promised New Covenant.
Cornelius’ faith would have meant nothing if he had rejected the gospel message.
You then go on to quote 1 Corinthians 14
and comment;
“The overall contexts shows that as the church displays the character of God (love, order, holiness, etc.) in their worship assembly, outsiders will also want to worship God and will be able to sense God’s presence. Worshipping God is an act of faith, as is believing in his presence. This is what I was referring to. Note that unbelievers will want to worship God, not necessarily be baptized at that moment.”
I had suspected that you might be referring to this verse.
Firstly, I would say that worship is our response to God, and it is by faith that we know it is accepted.
I think you might be skipping over an important point in saying, “…unbelievers will want to worship God.” Can you see any pre-requisites in the text?
(v25)and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” [NIV]
Obviously some sort of Word of Knowledge or some biblical pronouncement is meant to convict the person. “His heart will be laid bare.” Now that does not sound comfortable, nor something you would do while sipping a latte.
Another thing you might have overlooked.
(v23) “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?”
“If the church comes together… and some… unbelievers come in (Gk. eiserchomai)”
I think this verse, at the very least, implies that non-believers (or those who don’t understand) aren’t really expected to be there at all, and Paul is merely making a provision for them if it did happen. The phrase “there come in” [KJV] is in the subjunctive mood which means that it is something that may or may not happen. Therefore, I suggest that Paul was merely making a provision for something that could possibly happen but was not at all expected nor normative.
“…no ‘conversions’ of unbelievers with repentance and baptism occur in worship settings in the NT.”
And this is simply because there is no example of non-believers taking part in worship in the NT church. They were converted FIRST, then they worshipped God.
Janet said,
“Isaac, to become hardline about only doing what is explicitly practiced or commanded in the New Testament is turf that… historically speaking… is divisive and potentially, leads one toward irrelevance. It does not allow for openness to the Holy Spirit to do the new… it does not allow sensitive response to changes in culture.”
I’m very passionate about all this at the moment and I am sorry if it has come across as hostility toward you, or anyone in particular. If I am attacking anything it is the idea itself and not so much the person that has that idea. However, I apologise where I may have stepped over the boundary.
Now agree with you (esp. after viewing some of the website) that not doing something merely because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible would be very restrictive. Hey, we couldn’t even be speaking english if we did that. However, I’m sure you agree that if something is commanded then we are obliged to obey (the veil thing can be understood as a distinctly cultural thing, though we should be very, very careful about making calls like this).
“…leads one to irrelevance.” I don’t see how doing what the bible says could lead to this. Preaching the Good News and the consequences of not accepting it will never be irrelevant - even if some listeners do not think it is.
“I have led such worship activities with non Christians involved… I believe it drew them closer to faith…”
As great as that is Janet we still need to ask the question if it is Biblical (i.e. what God wants). Just because it may have (seamed?) to work doesn’t make it true, necessarily.
“I’d also suggest that the epistles were written in response to particular situations, that they are not intended as a handbook for church practice for all time.”
This one is interesting. I can understand this angle when we consider commands like, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (2 Cor 13:12
; also, Rom 16:16
; 1 Cor 16:20
; and 1 Thes 5:26
) That is it was a cultural norm that was to be celebrated.
However, ultimately what will be our authority for what we should do in anything? Should it not be the bible (where the bible discussed it)? Now I agree too, that where the bible is silent there should be no dogmatism, but that does not mean license.
If, Janet, some forms of worship aren’t acceptable to be done with non-believers why think that any form of worship can be done with unbelievers? (Unbelievers being in the midst, obviously, is very different to worshipping with them).
Just a silly question but … where was the last supper held? … is a cafe soooo different from an upper room? … and wasn’t holy communion a form of worship? … and …?
Celtic Son, I agree that there is an overreaction by many missional people regarding IC’s. But, that wasn’t my point. My point is that most IC’s have designed an organization which is very different from the kind of organization needed by most missional endeavors. At best, this makes it quite inefficient missionally speaking because the structures–financially, socially and physically–are quite different than is typically required to mount an effective missional ministry.
But I have found from much trial and error myself, that people have a tendency to develop preconceived ideas about the needs of a mission, and when they move too quickly to organize, they can even wind up causing more harm than good. Good mission must develop organically before anyone can really know what shape the organization needs to take. Even then, as you have said, we must be more organic and, I believe, less controlling, as we organize. We’ve seen some great blessings happen since we’ve learned to let go and allow those better equipped for certain tasks to do them without being controlled by those of us who are under equipped or under informed in their particular fields of ministry.
Hi Webb,
I’ve just recently spent time with some missional folks, who are limited by their opposition to any structure whatsoever, and was probably over-reacting myself based on that!!
Hey Isaac, (mr fundy-mundy)
Clearly you are passionate about all this at the moment, I am too and if that means getting back to “Biblical Verses at 20 paces” I can make some time to return serve. I’ll wear the red glasses and you can wear the blue ones this time… I posted a comment on the “pagan or post-christian” thread a couple of days ago and, among other comments, asked what fruitful missional endeavours you are actively involved in? You’ve consistently brought critique to bear on others’ missional endeavours, yet not offered examples from your own life. You are entitled to bring critique, but, from a personal perspective, I am involved in various aspects of mission, and I’m not interested in just discussing theories from an intellectual perspective; there is a measure of credibility that is based on the actual practice of what we preach.
The classic evangelical perspective you approach things from, and are clearly passionate about, is a specific way of looking at the world, which is historically defined. It is impossible to effectively discuss elements of “The Forgotten Ways,” which have built upon a post-modern perspective - valuing the Bible as a source of the holistic narrative we enter into - on the basis of a modernist evangel which aims to assault the intellectual capacity and confront people with “their sin.” They are two completely different paradigms and while the evangelical model is still at work effectively in some places, it is not the platform that TFW is built upon. It’s a bit like speaking to someone in a language foreign to them and being disappointed that they do not comply with your request.
Your posts don’t view the church from a missional perspective and generally there is a lot that is not constructive to others who have a missional view. The evangelical perspective, that the church in the West is dying because we have strayed from preaching the “pure gospel” of the previous generations, might actually be correct… BUT that’s not the opinion of the missional church and only time and fruit will bear out the truth of either conviction. There is a different perspective operating in the missional basis of TFW and this blog, continuing to criticise missional thinking from an evangelical platform will only serve to frustrate both parties – as if one is speaking fluent Swahili and the other fluent Japanese – both are accurate and experts in their contexts, but speaking a different language, which is not conducive to effective communication.
The evangelical perspective places certain demands on how you perceive the Scriptures, so you’ve inserted the name of “Jesus” into Hebrews 11:6
, to justify your argument… except that Hebrews 11
has got absolutely nothing to do with faith IN JESUS! Hebrews 11
has to do with the faith in God that was presented by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and the “ancients” of the Old Testament. It’s the voice of evangelicalism that states “We must becareful [sic]when dealing with Acts.” That has not always been the approach to the book of Acts in the history of the church, but, in particular has been the opinion of cessasionist thinking. From a missional perspective, the activity and methodology of the book of Acts provides great models for the church today to embrace. For instance, you make assumptions about Cornelius’ faith based on your pre-existing perspective of the centrality of “the gospel message”, yet the text says that his faith led to God hearing his prayer and responding to it BEFORE he ever heard the gospel, much less had a chance to reject it.
In “The Forgotten Ways,” Alan places “Jesus is Lord” as the core issue around which authentic ecclesia is formed. In that context we seek to develop ecclesia in ways that are true to Christ; with the Scriptures providing a basis for defining the truth. It is helpful to challenge one another, to ensure that what we are doing remains within a framework that is true to God’s intention for His church; that we remain true to “Jesus is Lord” at the core. However there is also a measure of grace that we can apply, considering that those who are engaged in missional endeavour have not simply got nothing better to do with their time, but have done some groundwork themselves to develop a biblical basis for their endeavours.
Janet commented that “the epistles were written in response to particular situations, that they are not intended as a handbook for church practice for all time…” you noted in response that you can understand that applying, related to a cultural issue in certain situations… There is a key here - the missional approach views many of the incidents recorded in the New Testament as culturally determined and “descriptive” and we seek to engage with the determining principle, from a holistic narrative perspective, rather than seeing these incidents as intended to be “prescriptive” in the way that the evangelical viewpoint you present approaches a number of these issues.
The evangelical perspective is a limiting framework and is offended by the expansive nature of the missional approach. The evangelical view is of God as judge, the missional is of God as missionary – one posits a God who has a primary function of sitting in His eternal court awaiting a day of judgement when He will deposit sinners in Hell, the other presents a God who does not wait but actively pursues sinners in passionate love for His children… and ne’er the twain shall meet.
I saac… your passionate conviction may be right, but I am equally as passionate about mine – I have seen fruit and continue to see fruit… the test of time remains to consider whether the fruit is fruit that remains. Check back with me in a decade or two and if I’ve been wrong I’ll apologise. In the meantime can I suggest that you consider that possibly the missional approach may have merit and encourage those brave souls who are getting off their butts and going into all the world seeking to make disciples and baptise! I concluded my prior post with this quote…
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” (Theodore Roosevelt)
Slainte
A Celtic Son
“I’m sure you agree that if something is commanded then we are obliged to obey”
If it’s within the new covenant of grace, and has been interpreted carefully in terms of the culture and context in which a particular part of the scripture is written… of course.
My point is that engaging in worship with unbelievers present is neither prohibited nor commanded anywhere to the best of my knowledge… like so many other areas of life, this leads us into following the Holy Spirit and our own conscience, and to the exercise of godly wisdom.
Celtic Son, well spoken.
Isaac, I would add these few thoughts. It is ironic that I have evoked such a passionate response on worship issues, because I have consistently criticized the practice of substituting the worship assembly for mission.
In fact, as you listen to missional voices, I think that you will discover that the movement as a whole is in part a corrective to the seeker-sensitive movement which you appear to be reacting against. This corrective is based on two things:
1) Theological conviction. We believe that the church has been sent out into the world, a belief that is based upon the sending action of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus’ life and ministry is our clearest model for what our mission is–seeking and saving the lost, proclaiming and exhibiting the reign of God, and being servant to the world. It is not setting up shop and saying, come to us.
2) Cultural awareness. Even if we had no theological convictions on the primary means of mission (and we do), the missional movement recognizes that we no longer live in a “build it and they will come” world. Christendom is dying in the west, and mission is essential in reaching the world (and in our own transformation).
So we are primarily about engaging people out in the world, not just setting up worship assemblies.
Having said this, I am dumbfounded at the view that God does not want “unbelievers” to worship him. There are all kinds of problems inherent in this view.
First, faith is a process as well as an event, and “worshipping” God is part of this process. You seem to believe that a person fully intellectually accepts Christ, and then he is a Christian and starts living the Christian life and can start worshipping God. To this I would say, if this ever were completely true, it is certainly not today. Today, belonging (experiecing the love of a community) comes before believing. This is something that those stuck in a modernistic mindset cannot fully comprehend. Read “The Celtic Way of Evangelism” http://jamesnored.blogspot.com/2007/05/celtic-way-of-evangelism.html and you will see that many missional movements have reached people by inviting them into community first, with full beliefs coming later.
On the common sense level, ask yourself, how is it that you come to “believe” something? Is it not much of the time through experience? I taught my daughter to pray, not by giving her a theology of prayer and having her sign on a dotted line that she “believed” in it, but by teaching her to pray.
Second, if “unbelievers” shoud not worship God in any way, then logically they should not listen to God’s word either, since this is something done in a worship assembly. If they start to sing Jesus Love Me, we should tell them to be quiet, for this is for believers only. We should tell them that they ought not give to anyone, because this is a Christian practice and they are not Christians. We should tell them not to pray–a practice which is a profound act of faith, acknowledging that God exists and wants to reward those who earnestly seek him (Heb. 11:6
).
Third, Celtic Son has gone through some of the exegetical problems of this point of view. To put it simply, however, I cannot buy into the concept of God that is espoused in this view. God is not a tyrant, waiting to zap people. Jesus called the disciples and said, “Come follow me”–and they had all kinds of faith problems and misunderstandings. Jesus allowed prostitutes and tax collectors to come into his midst and sit at his feet, despite their lack of full faith. Anyone who chooses to worship God is demonstrating at least some faith. The idea that God spits such people out of his mouth is, I believe, at total odds with Scripture and for me personally, is repugnant.
Keep journeying, my friend, as we are also seeking to do. For myself, I found that when I became passionate about Jesus, rather than “truth,” my world changed. Jesus is the truth, and all understanding and practic must come from him.
James
When we go into third places, do we think we are bringing God with us somehow, or do we expect to find God already working there somehow? Do we think is a tabula rasa in terms of worship? A blank slate?
When Paul entered Athens (Acts 17
) he found that the Pagans there were already worshiping God in their own way. It was in an idolatrous fashion of course, and it distressed him, but they were doing it nevertheless. He noted God had trod there ahead of him.
Paul saw his task, not as a task of introducing them to God, as if they had never met before, but as a task of unveiling the true nature of this unknown God they already worshiped.
He reframed their worship.
In what ways can you see people in third places might already be engaging in worship of God, idolatrous as they may be. In what ways might you reframe the styles of worship they are already familiar with. Think they have none….?
As much as I would love to post a longer comment, I cannot at the moment.
I just don’t see how you can think a non-Christian can worship God. They may very well be saying nice things, giving money to the poor, or (yikes) even singing Christian songs. All of it is vanity. Jesus tells us that God is looking for worshipers that will worship him in spirit and in truth. It doesn’t matter what sort of ‘worship’ they are performing if their heart is not in it. And your heart simply cannot be in it if you are unregenerate.
They may be singing the songs, but they are still going to hell.
As for Acts 17
… I really don’t get how idolatrous worship is any different from devil worship - despite Paul using it as a starting point.
Where were we called to judge people’s hearts?
Well Isaac, I never said such worship gets you into the Kingdom did I? I never said the Athenians were worshiping in spirit and in truth. I just said it was a starting point and that’s all I said. I am not implying that such worship is fully acceptable to God - only when we embrace Jesus as our Lord and our God is our idolatry canceled out. Relax.
As for Acts 17
, its a pity you can’t tell the difference. How do you interpret Paul then? Was Paul a devilish compromiser for using a Pagan alter as a launching point? Is God really so absent from such territories, such that he is nowhere to be found there? Such a worldview strikes me as more henotheistic than monotheistic.
Isaac,
How can I think that an “unbeliever” can worship God? Because Scripture says that Cornelius’ offering went up before the Lord as a sweet offering. God opened Lydia’s heart as Paul preached the word of God–can he not do so today? Proclaiming and listening to the word of God has always been classified as an act of worship. If “unbelievers” cannot worship God at all–whether in an assembly or outside of one–then they cannot even hear the word of God. And you would seem to even exclude them from such a hearing? How then can they be saved?
As Matt said, no one has said that the worship of “unbelievers” gets one into the kingdom. But you are pulling out one verse–worshipping in Spirit and truth–and discounting all the rest of Scripture that might conflict with your view. Yes, this is the kind of worship God wants. Ultimately, those who are saved will worship fully in this way. We live in in-between times now, and neither Christians nor non-Christians worship fully in Spirit and truth. Jesus told his disciples to “Be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.” This is what God desires too, but who of us measures up to this?
Again, no one is saying that the worship of “unbelievers” saves them. And clearly, those who have accepted Christ can worship God much more fully, and in more spiritual truth. But even on this latter point, I would point out that the Spirit is out in the world, working on unbelievers’ hearts. It is the Spirit who enables us to understand Scripture itself. There is both a clear point of conversion in Scripture, where one receives the Spirit and forgiveness, as well as a process that begins before conversion and continues afterwards.
As to the faith acts of unbelievers (charity, singing, and the like) being all vanity, Jesus says that those who do such things in his name will not lose their reward. Somehow, in some way, God rewards these acts. It may be in this lifetime, or that someone receives a lesser punishment in the world to come.
I don’t think it is our job to say what individuals are “going to hell.” We should point people to Scripture, give warnings, but let God be the final judge, particularly on cases where someone is living the Christian life, but has not taken formal steps of salvation. I am pretty confident that God will make the right choice in judgment without my help.
James
So obviously the worship of God by those who
hi Alan and all:
Alan, I heard about your book over on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog and ordered it. Just finished reading it and am taking notes.
I participate in another blog with a group of pastors and leaders. I happened to causally mention your formulation of theological priority as Christology -> missiology -> ecclesiology and ran into controversy. It seems clear to me, as a missonary type, but I am having a real hard time convincing my pastoral bretheran. Any suggestions?
Hi Joseph,
what reasons do the pastoral brethren give for seeing Alan’s formulation as controversial? What priority do they propose? The great Co-”mission” sets out mission as a priority…
I’ve found that one of the greatest challenges to communication is that there are different paradigms at work. Basically a view of God as Judge and a view of God as Missionary that are understood to be at odds with one another - when of course they are not. I’m reconciled to seeing that God IS love and judgement is a function of that - in the first two chapters of Genesis, God is NOT judge, it is not a fundamental part of His character, He fulfils the function of judge as a consequence of humanity’s disobedience. Seeing God as primarily loving and that judging is a subsidiary function, persuades me that although the consequence of sin is judgement, God the Father pursues His beloved children - which Jesus comes to reveal and redeem. Of course this is a far cry from the evangelical God who leads with judgement and loves only those who respond to His judgement.
I’ve tended to find that people who are committed to a conservative evangelical mindset are difficult to communicate with, because their mindset sees any change as a weakening of their traditional values. Alan’s writings make a lot of sense from a Biblical perspective and in so doing challenge some of the unbiblical traditions that we have built up. Are we prepared to examine the Scriptures and dismantle the idolatrous forms we have built, to restore authentic ecclesia and gospel values?
It’s an interesting journey, heated and passionate at times, but material to grow into (or out of) and be stretched… welcome aboard.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I think the story of Balaam is quite pertinent to this issue.
Balaam was a Pagan seer (Numbers 24:1
, Revelation 2:14
) who experienced the Spirit of the Lord come down on him (Numbers 24:2
). From an anthropological view you might say he was a Middle Eastern shaman. He was not within the covenant and not saved by any means (2 Peter 2:15
). Yet scripture states explicitly that Balaam was moved by God (see Numbers 24:2
again), prophecied in the name of God (Numbers 23:16
), and bowed down to God (Numbers 22:31
) when God opened his eyes.
He bowed down. The Spirit came upon him. It is in the Bible. It is explicit. He was not in the covenant. He was not saved. Yet he worshiped in a fashion and was moved by the Spirit in a fashion.
There is one Spirit, but the Spirit is not limited to engaging with people at one level. Though in one sense the Spirit was “sent” at Pentecost, in another the Spirit was “already here” before Pentecost (and you can’t deny that without denying the explicit Word of God).
Joseph, try reverse contextualization. Work within their reference frame.
Hey Jospeph (and guys). I haven’t had an internet connection as I am staying with my in-laws. So I am online only very intermittently. But as for your question, I would take CS’s advice….get them to propose a formulation of where they get there ecclesiology from? If mission doesn’t precede ecclesiology, then in my understanding, ecclesiology will always dominate missiology. the problem with this is then we impose our cultural forms on others–this is exactly what we did in Africa, Asia, etc in the early missionary efforts until middle 20th Century.
As for Christology, I am just about to lauch into a series of post exploring this element of mDNA. So keep watching.