MC500 – day two

In this second day of class we dove into the church worksheet, which I find very helpful as a schema to look at church and its accumulated trappings.  Thinking of Jesus and the Kingdom of God in this context was particularly illuminating.  Specifically, viewing Jesus as being counter-cultural and redefining “family”, in some cases scandalously – men and women living together.  Going further the structure of the “organization” was clearly anti-patriarchy/hierarchy.  These Jesus-cells were characterized by forgiveness and reciprocity.  This sets up by a whole new authority structure where women were not seen as property, but were equal members in the “new family” and the early church.

MC500 – day one

So here we are.  Back in Pasadena, CA at Fuller Theological Seminary for a 2 week intensive after living in Cincinnati for the last 6 years.  Weird how so much changes and so much doesn’t…. all at the same time.  Anyway.

For this class (MC500: The Church in Mission) we are to:

write, on the average, 50 words for each class session attended. These 50 words are due at the start of the next day of class in paper, by e-mail, or on your personal blog. The topic will be, “My thoughts on the last class session.”

This is my personal blog.  And these are my 50 words:

It was good to be back in a classroom after taking so many IDL and online courses.  I particularly appreciated our discussion of the shift from Church to Kingdom in Mission.  I think this may be one of the more significant aspects of the ideological shifts taking place across the Christian spectrum.  It certainly has been a key aspect of much of the emerg(ing)(ent) conversation and in missiological circles (see “The Three Eras of Mission History Robby Butler” in Mission Frontiers).  Kingdom is not a human effort – something that we build (we can’t), we can live a certain way as the people of God that allows for the Kingdom to come – we are a sign, instrument, and foretaste (ala Newbigin).  As we discussed this I couldn’t help but think of gardening/farming.  I don’t grow tomatoes, rather I attempt to provide the right environment (soil, water, light, etc…) whereby tomatoes can grow.  Seems that there was a parable that Jesus told about such things too…

(well I went over the 50 words, but hopefully that’s ok)

Sowing the Seeds of Love – a sermon

From Asbury Church sermon series Conspiracy of Kindness. 02.22.09 Click here to listen or download.

Thinking about Modalities and Sodalities

(PDF link)

The harmony between the modality and the sodality achieved by the Roman Church is perhaps the most significant characteristic of this phase of the world Christian movement …

The first structure in the New Testament scene is thus what is often called the New Testament Church. It was essentially built along Jewish synagogue lines, embracing the community of the faithful in any given place. The defining characteristic of this structure is that it included old and young, male and female. Note, too, that Paul was willing to build such fellowships out of former Jews as well as non-Jewish Greeks. …

Thus, on the one hand, the structure we call the New Testament church is a prototype of all subsequent Christian fellowships where old and young, male and female are gathered together as normal biological families in aggregate. On the other hand, Paul’s missionary band can be considered a prototype of all subsequent missionary endeavors organized out of committed, experienced workers who affiliated themselves as a second decision beyond membership in the first structure.

Note well the additional commitment. Note also that the structure that resulted was something definitely more than the extended outreach of the Antioch church. No matter what we think the structure was, we know that it was not simply the Antioch church operating at a distance from its home base. It
was something else, something different. We will consider the missionary band the second of the two redemptive structures in New Testament times.

From The Two Structures by Ralph D. Winter

MT520 – Book Review – The Good News of the Kingdom

Van Engen, Gilliland, and Pierson, eds. The Good News of the Kingdom (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993)

The Good News of the Kingdom is an anthology of ecumenical missiological thought in tribute to the life and work of missiologist Arthur Glasser.  Like Glasser’s own writing, the Kingdom of God as a theological theme ties this work together.  We are introduced to Arthur Glasser as a Citizen of the Kingdom and overview of his work.  Appropriately for this course, and exemplary of Glasser’s theology, Part I deals with the Biblical foundations of mission.  Building from here the text addresses issues of Kingdom theology, Ecumenical Relationships, Evangelical Concerns, Missiological Issues, and Contextual Considerations.  In sum, these serve as an excellent overview of the field of Missiology and Arthur Glasser’s breadth of contribution to the same.

As this course deals with the biblical foundations of mission, the first part of the book is most applicable.  Building a strong missiological hermeneutic and understanding of how the scriptures form and inform our mission is paramount.  However, the rest of the text is helpful in appropriating a fuller panorama of missiological concerns.  As a missionary on the campus of Northern Kentucky University, the investigation and interplay of ecumenical, evangelical, and modernity are daily issues.  The thoughtful and careful attention to all of these concerns is helpful to me as a minister.  What is more, in this election year David J. Bosch’s chapter on church-state relationships was invaluable and enlightening.

Specifically, Bosch’s treatment of the Anabaptist approach to church-state relations was eye-opening.

The church simply exists in society in such a way that people should become aware of the transitoriness, relativity and fundamental inadequacy of all political programs and solutions.  The believing community is a kind of antibody in society, in that it lives a life of radical discipleship as an “alternative community” (92).

The inadequacy of the “Constantinian” and “pietist” approaches had been apparent to me and, admittedly, a cause of much frustration as I survey the church in America today.  However, I was unsure how to distinguish pietist separation from Anabaptist “antibody-ness”, Bosch’s elucidation has been imminently helpful to that end.  Further, the fact that Bosch sets this all in the context of mission is helpful.  This missiological context of church-state relations moves the conversation from abstract possibilities to a lived engagement with God’s Kingdom mission.  I find myself increasingly drawn to an Anabaptist approach, but appreciative of “reformist” and “liberationist” movements as well.

MT520 – Book Review – Announcing the Kingdom

Glasser, Arthur with C. Van Engen, D. Gilliland, and S. Redford, eds.  Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003)

The scope and drive of Arthur Glasser’s Announcing the Kingdom is the primacy and unity of “God’s purpose and action in mission in human history” (17).  Both the Old and New Testaments are pointed in the same direction of God’s rule and reign.  Glasser tells the narrative of scripture through the lens of the Kingdom of God.  We see that from the creation of the world, God’s covenant with Israel, Jesus’ incarnation, and the church’s continuing mission; God is at work revealing and drawing all nations to himself.  Even in the dynamic story of Revelation we are aware of God’s redemptive Kingdom mission coming to its full conclusion.  In this sweeping narrative of God’s reign throughout scripture we understand the God’s activity in the history of the world.

This understanding of God’s Kingdom story is essential for our study of mission.  It is of utmost importance that we form our mission and ministry in the context of how God has engaged humanity throughout history.  By hearing the story of God’s Kingdom through the whole sweep of scripture we begin to understand the pervasiveness and completeness of God’s mission.  This is not an isolated story of merely how Middle Eastern deity dealt with an obscure group of people 2,000 years ago.  God’s mission extends from the beginning of creation to the end of all things.  With this appreciation for the scope of God’s Kingdom our mission is shaped and formed.  This is of particular import as I work with college students in 21st century America.

I have often found in working with students living in a post-Christendom world that how the story of scripture hangs together is almost entirely lost.  There may even be an appreciation for God, Jesus, or the Bible; but understanding the scope and mission is far from prevalent.  Furthermore, for students who do claim a Christian walk the Old Testament seems irrelevant at best, offensive at worst.  Setting the context for how both testaments hang together in the Kingdom mission is very helpful.  My current ministry context is as a campus minister re-starting a ministry on at Northern Kentucky University.  I many ways I feel an apostolic call as one sent from the churches in our conference to the students on campus.  As such, I highly value Glasser’s quote of Kung that:

As an individual Christian, I must become a true successor of the apostles.  I must bear their witness, believe their message, imitate their mission and ministry (302).

I very much see myself as a missionary sent to the people group called NKU.  Understanding that mission through the lens of scripture and, specifically, the Kingdom of God is deeply formative.

A Prayer Insurrection

So, we prayed.  I was a bit late (traffic) but Liz and Jackson and I spread out across campus and prayed that God’s Kingdom would come to campus as it is in heaven.  We “marked” our prayers with blank post-its or sidewalk chalk.  If you see random post-its (like this pic) or marks on campus – those are reminders of prayers!.  We’ll do this again sometime soon.

Thy Kingdom Come (emphasis on the "Thy")

I’m in wont of reflection.  But it just isn’t happening.  Start the new gig at NKU doing campus ministry 2 weeks ago.  I’m in my 3rd week now and it is going very well, but like all transitions it is a process.  I’m adjusting to the new schedule, the new tasks, the new “figuring out the the tasks”, a new computer, new phone, new commute, new relationships, etc….

Like I said, it is good.  Just a process.

But what I’m really missing is reflection.  I feel like I’m constantly juggling and adjusting.  Always thinking through what I should/could/might do next.  I know this will pass in time, routines and habits will be established, but for now it is not only draining (and not really that bad) but it is sapping me of the emotional energy to reflect.

These few minutes at 9:42 PM after I’ve gotten the kids in bed are about it and I’m forcing myself to do it now.

So, just what am I doing in this new job of mine?  Well, good question.  I’m getting to know the campus, the culture, the atmosphere of NKU.  I’m attempting to enter into relationships (or attend to the ones I already have) with NKU and UMC folk.  I’m working on designing and building a NKUWF(.org) website and get biz cards printed.  Those are the main things at present.  Events, programs, bible studies, service projects, worship experiences, etc… those may come in time, but I’m intentionally not putting my energies there.  I need to enter into this community (NKU) as a good missionary – listening, ear to the ground, prayerfully, contemplatively listening.  I need to truly hear people and structures and systems and cultures.

We will build in time.  I do deeply believe that there is a Kingdom movement at work on campus.  A Mission that God has called us to.  I sense a budding insurrection of sacrificial love and service.  I pray, God, help us to attend to that!

My prayer is that God’s Kingdom would come to NKU as it is in heaven.  I keep coming back to this and I truly believe it is as simple and as profound as that.

Come Holy Spirit, Come.
Come Blessed Jesus, Come.
Come Dear Father, Come.

Bring it.

Thy Kingdom Come.
Thy Will be Done.

in me.
in us.
on campus.

NOT a Zero-Sum Game

From Chris Marshall:

Ordinary Community: Being Ready
It is the sense of entitlement that I am speaking against when it comes to vocational roles in ministry. I am not against the idea of being paid, I am against the assumption that its the way it always has been and always will be. God does not owe us anything! Not a job, not a title of honor, not an air-conditioned office nor full time hours a week to be a spiritual leader. Now his provision may [embody] all of that for you, but we have to be okay if it doesn’t.

I think this is so important.  This weekend, as I reflected on this issue, I found myself being often drawn back to the idea that this thing (the transition, the economics of what it means to be the people of God in the early 21C) is NOT a Zero-Sum Game. “In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).”

This is not about one “model” of church being more “right” than the other.  It is not even about being more biblical, though I think that is an intriguing question.  It is about the Kingdom of God continuing to break in and how we are going to respond.  It is not about older, traditional church folks losing and young, hip, emerging Jesus-followers winning.  That is NOT the point.  It is about the Mission of God in our time and place.  It has always been about God’s Mission, we’ve just tended toward co-opting it to our own ends (and I’m as guilty as anyone on that matter).

I had a couple offline (i.e. real life!) conversations this weekend with 2 friends (Russell and Bethany) who read my (and others’) post about this topic.  A prevailing concern was that of older, traditional church and the older, traditional adults in them.  Does this move to a new form of ministry and church leave them in the dust?  What about inter- and multi-generational ministry?  What about all those presently paid clergy and staff, are they all doing it “wrong”?  Again, I don’t think this is a Zero-Sum Game.  Transition times are inherently liminal spaces and as a society (and as a global church) we’ll surely have a period of both/and-ness.  We’ll have traditional, institutional expressions of church who are honestly and sincerely seeking to follow in the Way of Jesus… right along side organic, emerging, experimental communities of faith also seeking to follow in the Way of Jesus.  We’ll have paid clergy who instigate Kingdom work partnering with bi-occupational pastors and missional leaders (Russell Smith is a great example of this!).

I think one of the points of this whole conversation is that many see that this transition is coming (and has in significant ways already arrived).  These deep cultural shifts aren’t going away.  The church has always and will continue to adapt to the cultural situation in which it finds itself.  My take on these (blog) writings of church leaders from around the country is that we’re seeing similar adaptations across the USofA.  These adaptations look less and less like the churches of our parents and grandparents (not necessarily less and less like Jesus – though every experiment will have the errant petri dish…).

So, during this transitional time we may have to work extra hard to facilitate inter-generational ministries.  We are by our nature cultural beings who feel most comfortable in what is familiar to us.  But, and I think this point is very important, we are not bound by our culture.  We have the ability to cross cultures and even be countercultural.  As a church our main identifier should never be the comfy cultural confines of me and mine.  This is equally pertinent for the postmodern-embedded college student and the retirement-home octogenarian – both (and all of us in between) must seek first the Kingdom.  We find our common cause in the cause of Christ.  Of course we’ll have disagreements and points of contention, but that is important too for the refining process.  Our unity is in Christ.  Working out the way we live as a people of God in a particular place and culture… well that takes time and an openness to the Spirit that cannot happen if we are tight-fisted about our way (which we always think is the “right way”) of doing things.

Mark Van Steenwyk’s comment on his blog in this conversation is helpful in this strain.  In response to what traditional (local churches, denominations, seminaries) churches can do, he says…

You can be helpful by doing what you’re doing…leveraging what resources you have at your disposal to think with a kingdom mindset, rather than with an Institutional one.

At some point, all of us tied into the status quo need to make a choice. We have to choose whether it is better to work hard to secure what we have…or work hard to secure the future. In other words, are we going to leverage everything to try to make sure that the Mennonite Church USA and Canada have a place in the future? Are we going to leverage everything to try to make sure Bethel Seminary and Mars Hill Grad school have a place in the future? OR are we going to leverage everything that MCUSA and MC Canda and Bethel and Mars Hill has to advance the kingdom where we see it breaking in, with a lesser concern for the role they will keep for themselves in that inbreaking future?

To say it another way: Maybe our educational institutions shouldn’t ask how they can survive the transition. Maybe they should ask, how can we risk our resources on our students so that they can thrive in the transition? Clearly there is a tension here. It doesn’t need to be an either/or. But the way most institution are operating (from the lofty philosophical level to the banal logistical level), I am seeing a stronger desire to maintain market share…to survive…than a desire to help create the necessary future.

The distribution and use of resources is a HUGE issue with all this.  Who has what resources and how are they being used is an important part of the process of how any ministry works.  It also says a lot about our lived theology and priorities… follow the money.  Figuring out how to leverage resources (money, time, property, etc…) for the Kingdom is essential.

May the Kingdom Come…

MT 520 – Biblical Foundations of Mission

I just registered for a new class at Fuller, via Distance Learning.  After this is completed (on June 13!!!) I’ll only have 4 left!  Praise God!

Fuller Theological Seminary-IDL Courses
MT 520/620: Biblical Foundations of Mission (4 quarter hours)
LECTURER: Charles Van Engen, Professor of Biblical Theology of Mission

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

A central theme of the Scriptures is the mission of God as it relates to the present and coming Kingdom of God. The sovereign living God exercises absolute reign in and through history, and establishes a covenant relationship with the people of God redeemed and called to be God’s instruments among and for the nations. The Great Commission is the culmination of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the climactic event which creates the Church and completes the Christ event. From Pentecost onward the mission of the Church must be viewed eschatologically because the glorious appearing of the Kingdom at our Lord’s coming marks the end of the Church’s mission.

ASSIGNMENTS:

*  A summary paragraph for each book of the Bible read describing the mission of God.

*  Six 2-page book reviews following given instructions for each textbook.

*  One 15-20 page paper tracing a biblical theme of missiological significance through the Old and New Testaments.

REQUIRED READING:

Briscoe, Jill. Jonah and the Worm.  New Berlin, WI: Jilcoe/Hemp, 1983.

Glasser, Arthur. Announcing the Kingdom.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Kaiser, Walter. Mission in the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Nissen, Johannes. New Testament and Mission.  New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Van Engen, Charles, ed. Good News of the Kingdom. Mary Knoll: Orbis Books, 1993.

By the way, if anybody around Cincinnati has those texts I’d love to borrow them!