A place for United Methodists and others to explore and share their ideas, resources, visions, and dreams of or about mission, ministry and worship in the emerging missional way... Hosted by Taylor Burton-Edwards, Director of Worship Resources, GBOD. http://www.umcworship.orgworship@gbod.org
If we look at the beginning of Christ's ministry in Matthew 4 we will find that He goes out preaching repentance and the kingdom of heaven. At the same time He serves all the people in the area curing diseases restoring sight... etc.
This 'take the hill' method of mission does cover the spreading of the message of repentance and faith, at the same time it neglects the service which always accompanied Christ's message.
Moreover, this "take the hill" bit is a downright cheesy psych-up ploy to get people who should already be sharing their faith excited about doing so. I do not mind the military model, the salvation army was very successful with that type of thinking, but the balanced the message with service.
On the flip side, I think the 'Emergent' movement is born out of a backlash to methods like the ones in this video, and the backlash has gone beyond where it should and neglected the audible communication of message altogether replacing it entirely with service and works of compassion.
"Missional" should imply both service and audible communication of the gospel message.
Yes, it's missional, because they are doing what they believe is necessary to "save" lost souls. It's not the kind of mission I agree with, of course, but I'd be hard pressed to say it's not missional just because I don't agree with the mission.
It's a mission of sorts but it horrifies me. I don't think we honour Jesus when we put mission on like rallying troops for a battle. It's things like this that have pushed me into the post-evangelical camp. I see Jesus engaged in peaceful mission, not like the storm-troopers that these videos conjure up.
There is a difference beyond how mission is being carried out that I would note related to the Salvation Army. The army metaphors and uniforms there were and are not combat uniforms. They are officer uniforms. And they never, ever carried guns or drove tanks. The guns and the Chenoweth vehicle you saw in the video were real, and they were brought onto the campus of SWBTS-- and the machine gun was brought into chapel and fired 50 times (blanks-- but the report and sight of the firing was no less real!) by the president of the seminary on the stage of the seminary chapel, while he was wearing camo and a helmet right after he jumped out of the Chenoweth.
With Salvation Army you know their army metaphors are about organization for deployment and not about targeting people or any threat of violence. In these videos, not so much...
Joe- What you say is exactly what I fear drives most of the 'post-evangelical movement'. A desire to not be like them is very much different than a desire to be like Him. Christ did indeed preach everywhere that men must repent, and His parables are laced with images of impending judgement and even hell. At the same time Jesus is all compassion, serving, fighting for justice and mercy. If we are to model our ministry after Christ we will continue to speak hard words of repentance, but it must be accompanied by true compassion and Christian service. When we serve without audible proclamation of the Gospel we are a mere service agency. When we proclaim the Gospel without tangible service we are mere resounding gongs. Dead fundamentalism and post evangelicalism both miss the mark and true biblical ministry exists in between the two extremes. The danger is when both extremes react to the opposite side by going further into their extreme.
I agree with what you just said. However when you watch that video you will see that the primary drive is to organize not be militant. The imagery used is to engage the emotions and show people the reality of the battle.
Again, I disagree entirely with the videos, I think they are pretty lame. But they are attempting to organize and structure... and I doubt they will roll up to houses in tanks.
btw I love this blog, wish you had more time to post.
Yes, indeed, Jesus did preach repentance and coming judgment. No question.
But why? And toward what end? And where?
The synoptics are very clear that Jesus' proclamation was not about getting people to follow him, much less to accept him or his death as a basis for the forgiveness of their sins. It was about one thing: God's reign has drawn near, and that changes everything. His works of mercy were entirely of one piece with that message.
When Jesus sent the 70 into Galilean villages what did he tell them to do? Go door to door and tell people to believe in Jesus? No. He told them to do what he was already doing-- declare God's kingdom has drawn near with words (public) and actions that demonstrate their truth. Did they identify Jesus as the prophet of this message? No doubt. But the message was about God's reign.
The missiology that informs the emerging missional movement comes straight out of that proclamation, and should regularly include it.
I agree there appears to be some reticence about proclaiming anything publicly. We do need to get over that.
But I think we also need to get over the idea that public proclamation of the good news of God's reign is the main form of communicating gospel that we have as church. It's one essential tactic, but not the only one, and maybe not the main one we ALL can or should do reasonably in daily life.
It is clear that good works in themselves are ambiguous. They declare nothing clearly. We need words, which also means we need relationships that make sense of those words. It also means those words and many of those actions happen either to constitute (in some cases) or in wholecloth with (likely in far more cases) those relationships-- the people we meet in whatever contexts we find ourselves.
Yes words. Yes actions. Always both.
Yes public preaching. Yes direct face relationships-- always both, though mathematically, far more of the latter are usually open to us.
Taylor- I think I am in agreement with you on this. I think.
I would caution your wording a little bit on why Jesus spoke on impending judgement. Yes it was part of the declaration of God's reign, but also it is truth. Jesus did not conjure up some notions about judgement in order to further His cause of proclaiming God's reign. Jesus proclaimed truth about God's judgement in order to declare God's reign.
I would say that most fundamentalists, even those from this video would assert that they are doing exactly that. In fact I would suggest that most fundamentalists even of the most legalistic sort would agree that the missiology that informs them is the declaration of the kingdom.
I would also assert that the Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation, and that declaring (audible proclamation) is still the primary means of Gospel communication. You are spot on when you affirm that this ought to occur on a relational level, more so than a public venue.
I have difficult time finding common ground with the 'emergent' movement, but your comments have done much to help me see areas where I am in line with emergent thinking.
I absolutely agree that judgment was no rhetorical prop on Jesus part to bolster his declaration of God's reign. The coming of the kingdom was already judgment on the kingdoms of this world. And its ongoing coming would definitely bring more-- and still will. His message might be stated as "Look-- God's reign is coming and is here. It undoes and judges all other claims to authority. God's reign is true destiny. The rest ends up at the very least on the ash heap of history." (Gehenna = Gar Hinnom, Jerusalem's garbage dump).
Here's the problem I think a lot of us have with the fundamentalist meta-narrative on show in the videos. It makes all of the claims-- except for judgment-- exclusively personal and individual, and primarily about right thinking rather than right living. Jesus was calling people to realize that the arrival of God's kingdom meant they didn't have to live they way they had before any more-- they could LIVE differently-- and if not-- well, as John puts it, "they are condemned already." If they wish to settle for such condemnation when new life is on abundant offer, so be it.
That's not what these folks are saying. They're saying that unless you assent to the beliefs that the Bible is literally true and that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, died as a vicarious sacrifice to God for your sins, and was raised on the third day, and pray a prayer to God that acknowledges all of these things and asks Jesus to "come in and be my personal savior" and pledge to follow him as Lord, when you die you will go to hell. But if you do those specific things asserting those specific beliefs, and you follow in obedience to Jesus to get baptized and join a local church, you will go to heaven.
I affirm every article of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds without hesitation. The deal is it isn't my affirmation of those things that MAKES me a Christian or that saves me. I trust that God is saving me and working for the salvation of the whole cosmos in and through Jesus. As we say in our baptismal liturgy, we get to be "incorporated into God's mighty acts of salvation." Salvation and God's kingdom are truly God's. Jesus is not my personal savior-- though I know he is saving me, too-- he is Lord of all and has invited me to participate as fully as I can in what he continues to do through me, through his body the church, through the Holy Spirit, and even at times, despite themselves, through other people and things in the world.
That salvation is primarily about me having right beliefs before I die is the heart of the fundamentalist meta-narrative. Jesus' judgment is about sending everyone who didn't make him their personal savior to hell, while giving those who did (who are already in heaven) even more abundant life. God's kingdom in this meta-narrative is heaven--the place where God REALLY reigns-- and the people who have the right theology. This is a denial of the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus is Lord-- because he is REALLY only Lord of the individuals who believed the right way.
So that metanarrative represents a serious truncation of the good news Jesus declared and has enabled the church to live and witness to. In the classic Christian metanarrative, Jesus is Lord of all, already exercising his reign in, through, and beyond the church. The church includes his disciples, witnesses to this reality, declarers of it, and participants in it here and now, as part of what we understand to be God's plan for the re-newal of all things, new creation in Christ. That does include judgment, no question. But it's judgment generated from the degree to which we have allowed God's reign to operate in our lives-- viz Mt 25-- and far less on our capacity at some point in time, in this age or the next, to articulate a correct statement of theology or pray the right words in a prayer. God's kingdom is God's activity here and now and evermore to save us-- not a place, and not solely a people, though we get to be included as well.
Thanks for helping me make sense of your position. I think I am in complete agreement with your last comment.
We proclaim the gospel as the power of God unto salvation... which is a present tense awareness of the kingdom, growing in holiness, and service to God and man which eventually carries into eternity where the salvation which has already begun ultimately is perfected.
We do not proclaim the gospel as theological mental hoops which are required to be jumped through in order to avoid hell.
I what I just said is agreeable to you, I would say we hold the same position. Our position seems to be pretty 'fundamental' in the true sense of the word.
This was a good dialog, take the last word, and I will be glad to join in on your next post whatever that may be.
I also like your last post Journeyman; but as yet will remain post-evangelical. I write from the UK and there may be a difference between America and the UK. For me the evangelicalism of the UK is very prescriptive of what needs to be believed in order to be a Christian. Alpha is typical. I cannot accept the current stance!
Taylor are you trying to get me upset? heh heh... I'd say to everyone on this topic to balance the videos with a good reading of Diana-Buttler Bass's new book, "A People's History of Christianity", and then read where this "manifest destiny" of "salvation" might have seeped into our church over the years. And then take a look at the Misso Dei and find out that God is already at work and we join into God's mission, not us going on one. Thanks!
13 comments:
Is this missional?
Yes and No...
If we look at the beginning of Christ's ministry in Matthew 4 we will find that He goes out preaching repentance and the kingdom of heaven. At the same time He serves all the people in the area curing diseases restoring sight... etc.
This 'take the hill' method of mission does cover the spreading of the message of repentance and faith, at the same time it neglects the service which always accompanied Christ's message.
Moreover, this "take the hill" bit is a downright cheesy psych-up ploy to get people who should already be sharing their faith excited about doing so. I do not mind the military model, the salvation army was very successful with that type of thinking, but the balanced the message with service.
On the flip side, I think the 'Emergent' movement is born out of a backlash to methods like the ones in this video, and the backlash has gone beyond where it should and neglected the audible communication of message altogether replacing it entirely with service and works of compassion.
"Missional" should imply both service and audible communication of the gospel message.
thats my two cents.
Yes, it's missional, because they are doing what they believe is necessary to "save" lost souls. It's not the kind of mission I agree with, of course, but I'd be hard pressed to say it's not missional just because I don't agree with the mission.
It's a mission of sorts but it horrifies me. I don't think we honour Jesus when we put mission on like rallying troops for a battle. It's things like this that have pushed me into the post-evangelical camp. I see Jesus engaged in peaceful mission, not like the storm-troopers that these videos conjure up.
Jay,
There is a difference beyond how mission is being carried out that I would note related to the Salvation Army. The army metaphors and uniforms there were and are not combat uniforms. They are officer uniforms. And they never, ever carried guns or drove tanks. The guns and the Chenoweth vehicle you saw in the video were real, and they were brought onto the campus of SWBTS-- and the machine gun was brought into chapel and fired 50 times (blanks-- but the report and sight of the firing was no less real!) by the president of the seminary on the stage of the seminary chapel, while he was wearing camo and a helmet right after he jumped out of the Chenoweth.
With Salvation Army you know their army metaphors are about organization for deployment and not about targeting people or any threat of violence. In these videos, not so much...
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Joe-
What you say is exactly what I fear drives most of the 'post-evangelical movement'. A desire to not be like them is very much different than a desire to be like Him.
Christ did indeed preach everywhere that men must repent, and His parables are laced with images of impending judgement and even hell. At the same time Jesus is all compassion, serving, fighting for justice and mercy. If we are to model our ministry after Christ we will continue to speak hard words of repentance, but it must be accompanied by true compassion and Christian service.
When we serve without audible proclamation of the Gospel we are a mere service agency. When we proclaim the Gospel without tangible service we are mere resounding gongs.
Dead fundamentalism and post evangelicalism both miss the mark and true biblical ministry exists in between the two extremes.
The danger is when both extremes react to the opposite side by going further into their extreme.
I agree with what you just said. However when you watch that video you will see that the primary drive is to organize not be militant. The imagery used is to engage the emotions and show people the reality of the battle.
Again, I disagree entirely with the videos, I think they are pretty lame. But they are attempting to organize and structure... and I doubt they will roll up to houses in tanks.
btw I love this blog, wish you had more time to post.
Jay and all:
Yes, indeed, Jesus did preach repentance and coming judgment. No question.
But why? And toward what end? And where?
The synoptics are very clear that Jesus' proclamation was not about getting people to follow him, much less to accept him or his death as a basis for the forgiveness of their sins. It was about one thing: God's reign has drawn near, and that changes everything. His works of mercy were entirely of one piece with that message.
When Jesus sent the 70 into Galilean villages what did he tell them to do? Go door to door and tell people to believe in Jesus? No. He told them to do what he was already doing-- declare God's kingdom has drawn near with words (public) and actions that demonstrate their truth. Did they identify Jesus as the prophet of this message? No doubt. But the message was about God's reign.
The missiology that informs the emerging missional movement comes straight out of that proclamation, and should regularly include it.
I agree there appears to be some reticence about proclaiming anything publicly. We do need to get over that.
But I think we also need to get over the idea that public proclamation of the good news of God's reign is the main form of communicating gospel that we have as church. It's one essential tactic, but not the only one, and maybe not the main one we ALL can or should do reasonably in daily life.
It is clear that good works in themselves are ambiguous. They declare nothing clearly. We need words, which also means we need relationships that make sense of those words. It also means those words and many of those actions happen either to constitute (in some cases) or in wholecloth with (likely in far more cases) those relationships-- the people we meet in whatever contexts we find ourselves.
Yes words. Yes actions. Always both.
Yes public preaching. Yes direct face relationships-- always both, though mathematically, far more of the latter are usually open to us.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Taylor-
I think I am in agreement with you on this. I think.
I would caution your wording a little bit on why Jesus spoke on impending judgement. Yes it was part of the declaration of God's reign, but also it is truth. Jesus did not conjure up some notions about judgement in order to further His cause of proclaiming God's reign. Jesus proclaimed truth about God's judgement in order to declare God's reign.
I would say that most fundamentalists, even those from this video would assert that they are doing exactly that. In fact I would suggest that most fundamentalists even of the most legalistic sort would agree that the missiology that informs them is the declaration of the kingdom.
I would also assert that the Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation, and that declaring (audible proclamation) is still the primary means of Gospel communication. You are spot on when you affirm that this ought to occur on a relational level, more so than a public venue.
I have difficult time finding common ground with the 'emergent' movement, but your comments have done much to help me see areas where I am in line with emergent thinking.
Jay,
I absolutely agree that judgment was no rhetorical prop on Jesus part to bolster his declaration of God's reign. The coming of the kingdom was already judgment on the kingdoms of this world. And its ongoing coming would definitely bring more-- and still will. His message might be stated as "Look-- God's reign is coming and is here. It undoes and judges all other claims to authority. God's reign is true destiny. The rest ends up at the very least on the ash heap of history." (Gehenna = Gar Hinnom, Jerusalem's garbage dump).
Here's the problem I think a lot of us have with the fundamentalist meta-narrative on show in the videos. It makes all of the claims-- except for judgment-- exclusively personal and individual, and primarily about right thinking rather than right living. Jesus was calling people to realize that the arrival of God's kingdom meant they didn't have to live they way they had before any more-- they could LIVE differently-- and if not-- well, as John puts it, "they are condemned already." If they wish to settle for such condemnation when new life is on abundant offer, so be it.
That's not what these folks are saying. They're saying that unless you assent to the beliefs that the Bible is literally true and that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, died as a vicarious sacrifice to God for your sins, and was raised on the third day, and pray a prayer to God that acknowledges all of these things and asks Jesus to "come in and be my personal savior" and pledge to follow him as Lord, when you die you will go to hell. But if you do those specific things asserting those specific beliefs, and you follow in obedience to Jesus to get baptized and join a local church, you will go to heaven.
I affirm every article of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds without hesitation. The deal is it isn't my affirmation of those things that MAKES me a Christian or that saves me. I trust that God is saving me and working for the salvation of the whole cosmos in and through Jesus. As we say in our baptismal liturgy, we get to be "incorporated into God's mighty acts of salvation." Salvation and God's kingdom are truly God's. Jesus is not my personal savior-- though I know he is saving me, too-- he is Lord of all and has invited me to participate as fully as I can in what he continues to do through me, through his body the church, through the Holy Spirit, and even at times, despite themselves, through other people and things in the world.
That salvation is primarily about me having right beliefs before I die is the heart of the fundamentalist meta-narrative. Jesus' judgment is about sending everyone who didn't make him their personal savior to hell, while giving those who did (who are already in heaven) even more abundant life. God's kingdom in this meta-narrative is heaven--the place where God REALLY reigns-- and the people who have the right theology. This is a denial of the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus is Lord-- because he is REALLY only Lord of the individuals who believed the right way.
So that metanarrative represents a serious truncation of the good news Jesus declared and has enabled the church to live and witness to. In the classic Christian metanarrative, Jesus is Lord of all, already exercising his reign in, through, and beyond the church. The church includes his disciples, witnesses to this reality, declarers of it, and participants in it here and now, as part of what we understand to be God's plan for the re-newal of all things, new creation in Christ. That does include judgment, no question. But it's judgment generated from the degree to which we have allowed God's reign to operate in our lives-- viz Mt 25-- and far less on our capacity at some point in time, in this age or the next, to articulate a correct statement of theology or pray the right words in a prayer. God's kingdom is God's activity here and now and evermore to save us-- not a place, and not solely a people, though we get to be included as well.
Thanks for helping me make sense of your position. I think I am in complete agreement with your last comment.
We proclaim the gospel as the power of God unto salvation... which is a present tense awareness of the kingdom, growing in holiness, and service to God and man which eventually carries into eternity where the salvation which has already begun ultimately is perfected.
We do not proclaim the gospel as theological mental hoops which are required to be jumped through in order to avoid hell.
I what I just said is agreeable to you, I would say we hold the same position. Our position seems to be pretty 'fundamental' in the true sense of the word.
This was a good dialog, take the last word, and I will be glad to join in on your next post whatever that may be.
Jay,
I would say to your note... Amen.
Thanks for the dialog.
And let's keep talking!
Peace,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
I also like your last post Journeyman; but as yet will remain post-evangelical. I write from the UK and there may be a difference between America and the UK. For me the evangelicalism of the UK is very prescriptive of what needs to be believed in order to be a Christian. Alpha is typical. I cannot accept the current stance!
Taylor are you trying to get me upset? heh heh... I'd say to everyone on this topic to balance the videos with a good reading of Diana-Buttler Bass's new book, "A People's History of Christianity", and then read where this "manifest destiny" of "salvation" might have seeped into our church over the years. And then take a look at the Misso Dei and find out that God is already at work and we join into God's mission, not us going on one. Thanks!
Post a Comment