Postmodernism for Old Folks: Bridging the Generation Gap

Many Christian leaders dealing with the younger generation of postmoderns keep telling us that we have to look at them almost in the same way missionaries regard people in Third World countries that do not have a Christian historical reference. We need to take into account that the postmodern generation really does not have a Christ/Biblical point of reference as in previous generations. D. A. Carson in the book, Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns, lists four implications for evangelizing the postmodern generation.

*The first one is the fact that when someone comes to Christ they will be expected to leave their postmodern worldly culture. However, he points out that the more people have no point of Christian-moral reference, the more traumatic that transition will be. We certainly need to remember this when individuals from this generation do come to Christ and happen to wander into our churches. Ingrid Schlueter at the blog, Slice of Laodicea has a post about this exact problem. She talks about Christians who were goths before they were converted and after a period of time are still coming to church looking like goths (goths are young people who have a culture of death and wear funny hairdos and lots of rings in all sorts of body places and have a lot of tattoos). She correctly points out IMO that these people are displaying a HUGE message - that of identification with their previous life INSTEAD of their present life in Christ. So far there are 48 comments to her post and many, from the 20-something generation, take issue with her. It's very instructive to read not only the post, but also as many of the comments you have time for. I give the link below after you finish reading this post. There is such a fine line here. The answer to this dilemma is strong prayer by the church for these new Christians. It's the Holy Spirit, not our ragging and nagging, that will change these people. And it is also our prayers as well as learning how to communicate with this generation that will bring them to Christ and into our churches.

*The second implication Carson relates is starting farther back with our story. The present generation doesn't understand who Christ is, what sin is, or why someone would be put to death FOR us. In other words, many in this generation do not understand what the problem is that Christ came to resolve.

*Third, many emergent leaders are trying to force us into a choice between a relational faith and a propositional faith. Here is what that means - this generation likes relational stories and events so emergents tend to talk about our relation to God and Christ, each other and the world. And that certainly is an important part of the gospel. However, many emergents do not like what is called propositional truths. We would call them Bible truths. That is, truth about sin, people being lost without Christ, and so forth. That tends to be way too definite for them as we have learned in my previous posts that the postmoderns tend not to adopt one truth as THE truth. This then presents problems for us in our witness. However, since they like stories, instead of stating these truths in a litany, we need to learn how to incorporate them into stories or in visual formats as they are from a media-influenced generation. However, we must NOT drop these truths and that is why many of us do not follow a lot of the emergent leaders. I will take this up in a future post when we discuss essentials vs. non-essentials.

*Fourth, and this is where many of the emergent leaders, most notable the Brian McLaren crowd, has gone wrong IMO, Carson correctly states that we cannot change or water down the gospel to "fit" into the postmodern's worldview. Sadly, this is also what the seeker sensitive movement tends to do.

As you can see, we all have our work cut out for us, in learning how this generation thinks and then how to communicate the gospel to them with caring and authenticity WITHOUT compromising the gospel.
Whew! That is a tall order.

Your assignment
Read Schlueter's post and at least some of the 48 comments to glean a feeling about the two positions. The post and comments are such a clear reflection of the generation gap between us elderly folks and the postmoderns.

Here is the link. The article is entitled, When Jesus Comes.

Postmodernism for Old Folks: Words and Stories

We are examining postmodern philosophies to understand how this generation has been taught to think. Another aspect of the postmodern thought is what words mean. Derrida's famous saying was "the meaning is outside the text." By this he meant that we need to take into account any group's interpretation of the text, rather than the author's intent. Again, this presents problems to the Bible text where Christians pretty well think the text means what it says.

Another aspect of postmodern thought is the bias against what is called the meta-narrative. Meta-narratives are large stories that explain knowledge and experience. Lyotard worte, "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives."
Metanarratives are a product of pre-postmodernism - in other words, the world you and I grew up in (if you are an older person like me). These philosphers, especially Lyotard, wants the metanarratives to replaced by smaller, localized ones. What do people believe is truth and stories in your community? Your church? Your group?

Here are some examples of metanarratives, courtesy of Wikkepedia.

*Many Christians believe that human existence is innately sinful but offered redemption and eternal peace in heaven - thus representing a belief in a universal rule for humankind.

*The Enlightenment theorists believed that rational thought, allied to scientific reasoning, would lead inevitably toward moral, social and ethical progress.

*Marxists believe that human existence is alienated from its species being, although capable of realising its full potential through collective, democratic organisation.

*Freudian theory holds that human history is a narrative of the repression of libidinal desires.

*An uncritical belief in the free market is a belief that through humanity's aquisition of wealth all who work hard and are afforded the right opportunities will succeed materially.

*Categorical and definitive periodizations of history, such as the Fall of the Roman Empire, are rejected by postmodernism. Other periodization schemes include the Dark Ages and Renaissance.

As you see, postmoderns have an array of "stories" to choose from. What will help them choose ours - the life-giving, saving gospel of Jesus Christ?

Your Assignment
Think how you would "witness" to a postmodern. Would you use something like the "Four Laws?" Or, would you tell a story? If so , what story would you tell and how would you tell it?

Postmodernism for Old Folks: What is Truth?

Yeterday I challenged us elderly people to get to know twenty-somethings and how they think. I did this because the stats are showing that even 20-something evangelicals are not coming to church. I even gave an assignment. You can read yesterday's Part 1 post here.

In the next few posts I will attempt to discuss one trend each in postmodernism and then give an assignment.

Evangelist Ravi Zachrias says there are five results of postmodern shifts. First is philosophy's move to the existential. The second is the artist's move to the sensual. Third, religion's move to the mystical. For example, Buddhist thought is big right now, some of which many of us believe we are seeing in the Christian evangelical contemplative movement. Fourth, education's move to the skeptical, that is, "you can't believe anything anymore as truth is determined by each person or group. Fifth, the individual's move to the transcendental - each person is their own god.

So how did we get here? Let's look at four postmodern philosphers as they have impacted current western thought especially in our universities and among our younger people. They are the American, Richard Rorty, and the Frenchmen, Michel Foucalt, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jacques Derrida. Overall, to them, there is no central truth. Truth is whatever a certain group declares it is; what works for them. I'm sure you can see already that there would be great conflicts between Christian thought with it's certain truths and this postmodern philosophy. Many evangelists working with this younger generation have learned that to reach them, one must begin with living the life so the young person can see truth in action. Then they will ask about "your" truth. In other words, you have to "earn" their questioning and their listening to you. But in return, they want you to listen respectfully and without judgement to their "truth," what ever it might be.

Recently I met one of our church's Campus Crusade for Christ missionary. He is beginning a new venture with Crusade which I will describe in a moment. I asked him if he saw that the old method that Crusade and other collegiate evangelistic organizations used in my day of the 1960's still worked today. In other words, did they still give talks and lectures defending Christianity and presenting the gospel? I related to him that I was hearing that this doesn't work with the younger people today. He replied that I was right; that doesn't work today. Handing someone the Four laws and making an argument just doesn't work well. He told me the young people today want to get to know you first - for a long time. They want to do stuff with you. So, Crusade is launching a new trial program in three universities of which he will be a part. He will ask fraternity guys if they would like to go backpacking on a weekend. This way he can get to know them and they can get to know him. However, there is a catch. He must be what this generation says is "authentic." If they catch him in hypocrisy or lies, they will dump him like a hot potato.

So, we see that this new generation requries perhaps a little longer to evangelize than the former "hit and run" technique that many of us employed. And, frankly that was insulting - to those we evangelized, and also to us. It was guilt producing to us if we didn't "hook in the fish." Since younger people are not coming to church in droves, letting the church do the evangelizing isn't working well either. In addition, this younger generation does not go for the Baby Boomer Saddleback-Willowcreek type of "seeker-sensitive" church. Today the evangelistic technique needs to be what is called "relational evangelism." You do stuff together and get to know each other. Of course that means that we as Christians must go out into the "marketplace of life.

Here's your next assignment. If you aren't already involved in activities outside of church, and your health permits, join a class, or an exercise class or volunteer. Try to take classes or volunteer where you can meet 20-somethings. Listen to what they are talking about....AND how they speak. If your health does not permit this, use a search engine to find Christian chat rooms, especially those with younger adults in them. Don't talk to them about Christ yet, unless of coure a BIG door opens for that. Just listen to them for now.

And as always, feel free to leave any observations gleaned in the comments section here; or email me.

Postmodernism for the Rest of Us

Postmodernism For the Rest of Us

I am calling on all of you older than 50 (if anyone older than 50 reads this....:) to read the next few posts here at Crossroads. These posts are FOR you but not ABOUT you. However, certainly all age groups are invited to look in as I believe this is one of the most important topics facing the evangelical church today.

We have a problem. The problem is this: 9% of evangelicals aged 18-30 are attending church. And, 4% of the general population (that is, both Christians and non-Christians) attend church. Here then is the question that arises out of that statistic:
Where will evangelical churches be in 10-15 years?

NOTICE TO OLD PEOPLE
This is NOT JUST a problem for seminary professors, denominational leaders and pastors to figure out. This is YOUR problem too and YOU must be pro-active INSTEAD of the usual re-active you've been thus far or you will NOT be included in the way YOUR church will be in the future. By the way, just so you aren't offended by the old people term (I wanted your attention), I am in my early 60's so I must pay attention to what I am writing as well.

I had heard about this so-called postmodernism in my Sunday School class. At the same time I read a book by Brian McLaren. That was about enough to make me want to run and hide and get back to church as usual. But then I read the Barna 9% figure and that really WOKE me UP!
So I began to think about it. One Sunday I looked around at my church and counted the 20-somethings there. Out of about 200 in that service I think I could count about 6 of them. Out of four Sunday School classes we have an average of about 30-35 in three of them. In the fourth, the one for 18-35 year olds, guess how many there are? Two. That's right - I said 2 people. Our church is one of the main chruches in a city of 210,000. Two 20-somethings in our SS class for them. Something smells wrong here. This age group seems to be missing in action. Where are they??

OK, so here is your assignment. Next time you are in Sunday church, count the approximate number of people there. Then try to determine who is in their 20's and count them. Divide that by the total number. So, for example, if there are 150 present for a Sunday service and 12 in their 20's as far as you can determine, you would set up the math equation like this:

150/12. The answer would be 12.5 or 12 1/2%.

If you live in a college town, then of course you will have a larger number of those in their 20's (hopefully) than most churches. And if you live in a wealthy area where most of the 18-22 year olds go off to college and 20-somethings have trouble buying a house because of the cost, you won't have many. But let's find out overall if this is really true throughout the country -or even the world.

Feel free to post your results either in the comments section here, or email me at fcov.geo@yahoo.com and put in the subject line, "Postmodernism."

OK...senior citizens...let's get busy......

A NEW BREED OF WOF TEACHERS

Matt Green, the editor of Ministry Today has an interesting commentary on the Word of Faith movement, especially it's prosperity wing. This is all the talk today because of a recent article in Time magazine about the "Prosperity Gospel." Here is part of Green's commentary,
You were prophetic as you reintroduced us to a God who actually hears our prayers and wants to answer them ... when you reminded us of the ability (and desire) of God to heal people of their physical infirmities ... when you encouraged us to be more liberal in giving and reminded us of the principles of reaping and sowing.
Green is right on - there was some redeeming teachings of the Word of Faith theology. I've said before here at Crossroads that there are essentially four important WOF doctrines that MUST be taught in all churches, but aren't. Some of the reason is non-continuist theology, but sadly, part of the problem is what is outlined in Green's article - WOF nonsense and extremism.
To review, my nominations for essential WOF teaching (what they are getting right) are:
1. The definition of faith and how you get it
2. The role of meditation and confession. I am talking about Biblical meditation, which is what the WOF'ers correctly teach, not the contemplative mediation of Foster/Willard, et.al. which is more akin to Buddhist thought.
3. Healing in the Atonement [Notice to third wave Charismatics: NOT healing through anointed people only - but founded on the atonement. Finally one of their own is teaching this - Todd Bentley. I am not subscribing to everything Bentley teaches, but I am glad he is hopefully helping his Charismatic compatriots to realize that they have to have a better foundation for healing than the "anointed" ones].
4. The CORRECT prosperity message, parts of which the WOF'ers USED to teach. Jerry Savelle was especially good at this. Not all of his prosperity message was correct, but many parts of it were excellent.
A NEW BREED OF WOF TEACHERS
For a few years now I have prayed that God would raise up people who would teach this Word of Faith doctrine correctly and in balance with other correct Pentecostal theology that the WOF'ers either get wrong or just do not teach. For example, this new breed of teacher would straghten out Copeland's kenosis problems as well as his incorrect ransom theory of redemption. These new WOF'ers would live moderately, not be arrogant, would be self-supporting either through self-employment or retired, and refuse to take any honorariums to speak. They would speak in churches, not huge expensive arenas. In doing this they would be held accountable. They would have no "ministries" to send money to. Churches would pay for their transportation and housing while these WOF teachers are at their churches, unless the WOF'er was wealthy enough to pay for this themselves.
I am looking forward to seeing this New Breed arise, hopefully soon. In fact, I've asked God if I could be one of them. We shall see.
__Diane

What Would Jesus Do?

Andrew Strom has given his permission to post this, so I will as it is sooo good.

WHAT WOULD the CHURCH DO??
- by Ian Hall.

What would the modern church do to Jesus if He were on the
earth today?:

- They would tell Him to say a little prayer.
- They would invite Him to their church.
- They would tell Him to give ten percent of his money to the
church, and rebuke Him for giving it (and more) to the poor.
- They would give Him self-help books to heal his "inner hurt."
- They would tell Him that He needed to get rich in order to receive
God's blessings.
- They would tell Him that apostles and prophets don't exist
anymore, and that most of the spiritual gifts aren't for today.
BUT being a Church greeter is a "spiritual gift."
- They would tell Him to go to seminary school to "perfect" his
preaching gift.
- They would tell Him, with their actions, that it is OK to sin, as
long as you either, (a) Hide it well enough, or (b) Use Scripture
to justify it.
- They would tell Him to stop playing with the children during the
sermon.
- They would tell Him to stop preaching repentance, because
people don't like it.
- They would tell Him to preach messages with a "warm, upbeat"
message that make people feel good, so that more people
would come to His church and that He could pay His bills for
His church building.
- They would rebuke Him for saying that the church is people, and
not a building.
- They would tell Him to stop hanging out with 'sinners.'
- They would rebuke Him for making "communion" a meal.
- They would rebuke Him for calling several people in church
authority "hypocrites."
- They would tell Him to stop healing people, because that isn't for
today.
- They would kick Him out of the church for knocking down the
pews and pulpits.
- They would gossip about Him, and say that He was starting a "cult."

Quote of the Week

"The first generation has the Gospel,
the second generation assumes the Gospel,
the third generation loses the Gospel."

___Don Carson

FInally! Some Smart Pentecostals

More and more I am coming to realize that Pentecostalism has pretty well many of the answers we need. Consider the theology of atonement of sins AND healing; deliverance; revelation balanced with Scripture, and that just is the beginning. Sadly, Pentecostals have always been looked upon as rather uneducated simple folk--mostly from the rural South.

But the times - they are a-changin' folks. If you go to this link, you will see something really astounding. Calvin College and Regent University (Pat Robertson's institution) have combined heads, or I should say brains, and are working on a joint project entitled, Science and the Spirit:Pentecostal Perspectives on the
Science/Religion Dialogue.

Here is what they are working on,

• How should Pentecostalism posture itself in relationship to the sciences?
• How does the scientific endeavor challenge Pentecostal perspectives and practices?
• Do Pentecostal perspectives and experiences contribute to the science-religion dialogue, and if so, how?
• What specific scientific disciplines can help us further understand Pentecostal experiences?
• How might Pentecostal perspectives illuminate specific interdisciplinary issues and debates in the natural and human sciences?

The professors on the list are truly impressive and I would imagine their projects are only understandable by other Ph.d's. Here is a sampling,

*Donald F. Calbreath, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Whitworth College
Project: "Serotonin, Psyche, and Sin: Can We Develop a Pentecostal Theology of Depression?"

"This proposal will explore how modern neuroscience can bring better understanding to Pentecostal church leaders (who seem to encounter more depression in their congregations than do other types of churches) in the realms of depression and its treatment, in terms of antidepressant effectiveness, limitations and hazards. Pentecostal leaders can facilitate differentiation among depressed states due to natural causes, personal sin or supernatural (demon possession)."

*Wolfgang Vondey, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Regent University School of Divinity
Project: "The Holy Spirit and Time: Investigations Into the Structure of Scientific and Theological Paradigm Shifts"

"This research project examines the theological appropriation of scientific paradigm shifts with particular focus on the replacement of classic Newtonian physics by Einstein’s theory of relativity. The operating research questions are if and how the operation of God as Spirit is also expressed in the scientific laws of physics and, in turn, whether contemporary pneumatology reflects the paradigm shift in the laws of science. The focus of this research is a pneumatological approach to the question of “time.”

*Telford Work, Associate Professor of Theology, Westmont College
Project: "Science in the Pentecostal Cosmic Narrative"

"Pentecostal sensibilities are trained by the last things rather than just the first things. What is in the universe is significant for the doctrine of creation, but not determinative. What is determinative is what the universe is becoming at the turn of the ages. Charismatic and Pentecostal theology thus offers potential contributions to the current science-and-religion conversation in its distinct respect for the relationship between God and the world in the Spirit’s powerful indwelling in the Church as the center (but not the exclusive terrain) of eschatological divine work. A specifically Pentecostal doctrine of Christ as healer and baptizer with the Holy Spirit funds not just the usual Christian conviction that God acts supernaturally, but a particular eschatology in which the natural and the supernatural are both distinct and incomplete and the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the earthly apostolic fellowship, brings about the cosmic telos among the nations through that fellowship’s normal exercise of his transforming power in signs and wonders. A twofold hypothesis follows: First, while Pentecostalism often suffers from an overly narrow sanctificationist soteriology and an anti-intellectual attitude toward science, in fact its eschatology supports the opposite. Second, the specifically ecclesial focus of the Spirit’s life and activity refuses to marginalize ecclesiology in God-world relationships."

Serial KIllers, Pedophiles and Christians

Chris Seay, emergent pastor from Texas, tells about a survey done a year and a half ago. People were asked who they would not like to have as friends.

In first place were serial killers; in second place were pedophiles; and, sadly, in third place were evangelical Christians. It shouldn't surprise us since the Christian right has practically ruined any chance of our fellow citizens understanding what the gospel really is all about. I am wondering if every church and ministry organization preached the gospel ALONE combined with the works for our fellow citizens (that should follow our faith) where we would fall on the list.

I guess we shall never know.....at least not in these times of chruch marketing, hype, emergent, felt needs, gospel lite, gospel no, and so forth.

Are Theologians Passe?

In Ministry Today magazine, Dr. C. Peter Wagner (the Head Apostle of the New Apostolic Reformation Council), writes an interesting column entitled "Goodbye, Theologians."

In the article he argues for the banishment of the term 'theologian' for the following reasons:
1) The office of "theologian" isn't listed in the NT
2) Theologians consider themselves to be the "elite" guardians of the truth
3) They disagree with each other so truth is never consistent in the entire Body of Christ
4) At times they are not in sync with what the Holy Spirit is doing

How are we to resolve complex theological issues then? According to Dr Wagner, the Apostle-teacher should be doing this, not the theologian.

Well, ok. But my observation would be,
1) I've noticed that many of the Apostles today seem to consider that they are the "elite" guardians of the truth.
2) What happens if they disagree with each other?
3) I'm not sure these particular apostles are always in sync with what the Holy Spirit is doing.

What do you think?

Church for the Unregenerate?

I got this snippet from Old Truth.com. I thought it summarized very well the seeker sensitive and even emergent approach in today's churches. Instead of church for the ekklesia - the called out ones in the original Greek; many churches today try to please the non-ekklesia.

This quote is from Iain Murray, but please read the whole post (link above at oldtruth.com). It's really good.

The antithesis between regenerate and unregenerate is passed over and it is supposed that the interests and ambitions of the unconverted can somehow be harnessed to win their approval for Christ. Then when this approach achieves 'results' - as it will - no more justification is thought to be needed. The rule of Scripture has given place to pragmatism.

UPDATE
As soon as this post came out, a friend, after reading it, emailed me the following. I thought it was really excellent....so here it is:

Non-truth for God's truth
Non-regeneration for regeneration
Pragmatism for Scripture
Entertainment for sound Biblical teaching
Do your own thing for The Truth shall make you free
Whatever's easy for In this world you shall have tribulation
Damnation for Salvation
Hell for Heaven
This is not the Body of Christ on earth.

What To Do With Our Christian Youth?

*From an article in this month's Christianity Today:

"Unfortunately, many students today exhibit theological confusion. 'Too many college students are not convinced about the exclusive claims of Christ and the eternal lostness of humanity,' says Terry Erickson, InterVarsity's director of evangelism. 'Students today are more grace-oriented than truth-oriented.' Erickson notes that young people on missions trips today may not be articulating the gospel's promise of eternal salvation through Christ's death on the Cross as clearly as they are demonstrating their concern for social justice and compassion for the poor.
Such reluctance to combine grace and truth—as Jesus did—is troubling, perhaps even fatal, if not addressed. A large chunk of the missionary movement of previous generations, of course, foundered on the rocks of the social gospel. But if today's students can bring together their works of grace with the Haystack organizers' words of truth, perhaps the evangelization of the world will see significant progress in this generation."

*And, from an elderly saint in my church, who taught children's Sunday School for years, as to why she finally resigned from doing that:

"They aren't teaching the children the Bible anymore. They are teaching them values.
She was essentially saying that it was all secularly-value-based, rather than Biblically value-based.

*And here are parts from an ad for an upcoming youth workers and youth conference:

Reality Check: 2006 Student Discipleship Conference
December 27-29, 2006
at the Park Vista Hotel
in Gatlinburg, Tennessee

Confronting...man-centered, entertainment-based views of youth ministry.
Exposing... youth to the deep pleasures of the One true God.
Challenging… youth and church youth groups with real biblical truth concerning knowing and loving God and walking in true discipleship.

CONFERENCE DISTICTIVES
GLORY OF GOD FOCUSED — We strive in everything to be God-centered, which is to focus on God and His glory.
PARENT DRIVEN — We believe parents are God’s best for the discipling of their youth. We strongly encourage parents to attend the conference. As the Spirit moves on the hearts of dads, moms, sons, and daughters, together they can experience revival and renewal.
DOCTRINALLY SOUND — We are committed to sound Bible doctrine as expressed by the historic confessions of Protestant church history. We glory in the doctrines of grace including the mandate to confront every man with the Gospel, urging them toward repentance and faith. We adamantly reject “easy believism” on the one hand and hyper-Calvinism on the other.
BIBLE PREACHING — We hold that God’s primary means of evangelism and sanctification is the preaching of the Word of God. We choose to center the conference not on music, drama, comedy, or other entertainments but on the faithful preaching of His Word.
MUSICAL EXCELLENCE — We hold a strong conviction concerning sound doctrine in music. Truth is more important than tune. We have great music both from the historic anthems of faith and contemporary choruses.
TRUE CHRISTIAN CONVERSION — It seems that a spirit of “easy believism” has become the norm in many Christian circles. True biblical conversion requires new birth (regeneration), evidenced by biblical repentance and faith. No effort will be made to manipulate to get quick decisions. These types of decisions typically bear no lasting fruit and prove to be false.

-->I've given the above three examples as proof that there are still a remnant left in the USA with some common sense pertaining to our children and our youth. Looking at the fruit of children's and youth ministries on the whole in the last 30-35 years, I don't think we've done that well. And many of our present evangelical leaders are exhibiting the shallow Biblical training they received during their youth years in their churches. It's no wonder we have seeker sensitive and emergent as this is almost exactly the pablum presented to them in their youth.
But perhaps now, some people are going to turn that around. I do hope so.

Quote of the Week

From the Internet Monk blog:

The problem is that the mall-churches Warren and Hybels have built are not the future of evangelicalism. They are its last gasp. Super-sizing won’t help. The end isn’t near. It’s here. What’s going to happen to evangelicalism in the next 50 years will make the term “implosion” the most overused term in religious journalism.

Can We Help Christians? Please?

One of my passions is the church taking care of its own, which sadly, most churches don't have a clue as to how to do or why they should. Churches today have this notion of taking care of the whole town while their own members fall through the cracks. Dan Edelen reposted one of his old blogs on this subject and he says it so well. I hope you will click on the following link and read his post. It's short, but sweet.

You cna read it here:
The Anti-Church.

A Muslim Who Follows Jesus??

Thanks to Internet Monk, I found an interesting article in Mission Frontiers magazine, the magazine from the U.S. Center for World Mission. Bob Goldman has an interesting article about cross-cultural missionary work and what ACCLERATES it and what INHIBITS it. It's the usual fare we are hearing nowadays from missionaries on the cutting edge. That is, let the nationals do it. Let them try to raise the money. Let them be the leaders with the Westerners in a mild supporting role IF NEEDED.

I agree with all of the above to a certain extent. But he, as well as others I've read, promote two issues that I think better be thought out and debated a little more before we rush into these things.

First, Goldman suggests we use national converts in leadership. I understand his reasoning but are these seasoned Christians or new ones? He really doesn't say in this description:
Local Believers provide leadership right away for the emerging fellowship in their family or community, rather than having foreigners provide "temporary" leadership. My big question would be, are these local believers rather new Christians or have they had a chance to be discipled? If they have been discipled, by whom?

And this:

Local fellowships have natural leaders that may or may not meet the Bible criteria for elders.

I see the problem here as the missing teaching about apostles. It's apostles (real ones, not the Third Wave version necessarily) who disciple (pastors and teaches) and prophesies to the new converts until some are ready to be elders. The Bible makes it very clear that elders MUST be mature men, not new converts or people not of Biblical eldership characteristics and qualifications. I've found that if the Bible sets up an organizational structure, there is a very good reason for it doing so. I'm sure many of us have been in certain churches and have seen the havoc created when elders are chosen willy nilly for all kinds of reasons - but not Biblical reasons. Goldman goes on to say that an inhibitor is when "Church leadership is for mature believers, often professional pastors who've had seminary training." I think we can eliminate the seminary training part, but certainly not the mature believers part. Leadership is for mature believers. Who else should fill those shoes. In this I must disagree with Goldman strenuously.


Second, he suggests we don't be too insistent that new converts leave their faith communities. He gives the example of a Muslim who still calls himself a Muslim but also says he is a follower of Jesus. For Jews, I see no problem since being a Jew is more a racial identity today, at least here in the United States where 90% of Jews are secular, not religious Jews. However, religious Jews that refuse to part with their religion and call themselves Christians are IMO adding to the confusion and are such a good example of why most of the book of Galatians was written. And, no I'm not anti-Semitic so please don't even go there.

The Greek word for church is "ecclesia," meaning the called-out ones. I think that describes it quite well. I realize that people who can stay in their communities by "pretending" they are a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever might win a few converts, but at what price? By being deceptive? Or more seriously, by changing true Biblical Christianity to "fit their particular religion? Much of the current Messianic Christian movement IMO is extremely disturbing for this reason.

Much of Goldman's article is very good, such as his points under Community-Oriented Fellowship. He says churches can meet on days other than Sunday if it is problematic to the culture to have it on that day. Also, there doesn't need to be church buildings; but rather, like the early church in Acts, meeting in homes. He also wants the Bible to be the only text used, not church doctrines and denominational practices. And like so many in the missions field today, Goldman believes the Bible used should be contextualized into the particular culture, not a "western" translation into that culture's language without any reference to some terms. For example, in some cultures, sheep might be a foreign concept. What would that culture understand then to be analogous to what shepherds and sheep do?


You may read this interesting article (it's on .pdf) here:

Are We Accelerating or Inhibiting Movements to Christ?.

Calvinists, Calvinians, Arvinianists and Armenians (And No, It's Not a Typo)

Thanks to a comment and subsequent email to this blog from George, I now know what I am. An Arvinianist. That is a mix of an Arminian and Calvinist. Or it could be a Calvinian. But that would be too Calvinistic. I seem to be suspended somewhere in the middle between the two, so I guess that would be an Arvinian.

To update those of you who don't have a clue to what I am babbling about, here is a short synopsis of Calvinism and Arminianism. And afterwards will come a funny Arminian story.

The Calvinist doctrine can be shown in the anagram T.U.L.I.P. It came out of the Synod of Dordt and summarizes the theology of Jean Calvin, one of the 16th century Reformation people. That's why it's called Calvinism...:).

T=Total Depravity - No, this doesn't mean someone is insane. It means man (and woman too) do not have the capacity to choose God and His ways and therefore cannot choose salvation all by themselves.

U=Unconditional Election - Since man cannot save himself, God has to save him. But since not everyone is saved, it becomes obvious that only a chosen few (in Presbyterian-land this is called "the frozen chosen") can be saved. And, it's only God who can save them. In other words, they are unconditionally elected [by God].

L=Limited Atonement - Since not everyone is elected, Christ died only for those who are.

I=Irresistible Grace - Those who are elect must come to salvation as God's grace toward them is irresistible. But of course, they must hear the gospel first and that is where evangelism comes in....so the elect can hear and then believe.

P=Perseverance of the SaintsThose who are elect cannot lose their salvation as God will keep them.


At the opposite end of the theological spectrum was Jacobus Arminius, also of the 16th century. His beliefs, in contrast to Calvin's and Luther's, are as follows:
Partial Depravity - God's election of people to salvation is conditioned upon their faith response to the gospel, and while every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that they are unable to place faith in God of their own accord.
Conditional election - This holds that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation.
Unlimited Atonement - The belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person believes.
Resistible Grace - God calls all to salvation, but many people resist and reject this call.
Conditional Salvation - The view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose their salvation.
So there it is. Choose one, or an in-between like so many of us have decided we must do.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
And as I promised, here is my funny Arminian story.
I was on a Christian forum where a thread (a topic) appeared on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I've never seen a Christian forum where this thread isn't eventually brought up. After much heated debate, a woman posted the following,
"I think you people are being very mean to the Armenians. I'm sure they are very nice people."
I happen to live in the city with the largest enclave of Armenians outside of the capital of Armenia, Yerevan. My city in California has 210,000 and 40% are of Armenian descent, mostly coming here in the last 25 years. We have the two types - those from Armenia and those from the Middle East who are descended from those who survived the genocide of 1906.

So, I patiently explained to the woman on the forum that Armenians (with an "e") were people from Armenia, a former Republic of the Soviet Union but now a free country on its own. Arminians (with an "i") are followers of Jacobus Arminius' theology.
She was a bit embarrassed and thanked me for setting her straight.