One World Missions

The Church And Its Mission: Part 3

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:16:00 -0500

We understand that the Scripture serves as the basis for our understanding of the church and its mission. We have already established that if a separation is allowed to exist between our study of Ecclesiology and our study of Missiology, the result is that neither achieves its purpose in the earth. If the understanding of church is not informing our understanding of mission the church will forever remain disconnected from the mission of God. There may be limited forays into mission, occasional attempts, but there will always exist a divide between the local church and its foreign mission. We will continue to allow there to be "mission-people" and a "non-mission-people". The church will function as one entity under one set of standards and mission will always be no more than an adjunct activity of the church carried out occasionally by a few.

So, let us revisit my pastor friend's statement, "We want our Missiology to be a reflection of our Ecclesiology". While I completely agree with this statement, it poses one very obvious question. What if our Ecclesiology isn't biblical? What if the way we view the church, the way we understand its function isn't biblical? I mean it is possible that characteristics of our church are non-biblical.

What if our Ecclesiology isn't biblical?

We look at the church throughout history and certainly not every church, everywhere has been a biblical representation of the Body that Christ envisioned. This begs the question, among those that are more or less biblical, which model is correct? How are we to know how to do church, what church is? If our understanding is influencing the way we carry out mission, it is extremely important that our understanding of the church is right--and by right I mean biblical. We have to acknowledge that there may be aspects of the church that are not biblical. Beyond this, there are many aspects of the church that may not be antithetical but they are not necessarily fundamental either. We could refer to these characteristics that define a church as being extra-biblical, they are not non-biblical but we have no Scriptural support for them as foundational for the church. They are the particulars. We often think of church in terms of our traditions or our own cultural expression, limited by our perceptions: culturally, generationally, etc. Again, the church may take on many forms and indeed has taken on many forms down through history without becoming non-biblical. However, if we believe that our Missiology is a reflection of our understanding of the church, we readily see that it is imperative that our understanding of the church as far as it is influencing our practice of mission must be biblical and everything that is extra-biblical is going to be of little use in informing our actions in mission. Occasionally our practice of mission reflects non-biblical perceptions of the church but more often, we see extra-biblical perceptions of the church hindering the birth and growth of a truly biblical expression of the church among a people. Our tendency is to export our particulars, often because we only understand the church from our limited perspective. However, we really don't understand the church. We understand, or at least we think we do, in our context but when we attempt to multiply the church elsewhere more often than not our focus is on the particulars. We then begin with a less than biblical expression of the Church and what would certainly be a failed cultural expression of the church. The result of this is that we transplant a very unnatural expression of the church.

Ecclesiology needs to begin with a Biblically minimum understanding of the church

This new church is lacking the living DNA of the Spirit and will never take hold in the cultural soil of the new community. The church that is established will never serve as a local representation of local believers gathering in community to worship, pray, grow in faith and reach out. So we must begin by looking to Scriptures to inform our understanding of the church as it was created, as it existed and even as it was contextualized throughout history as a model for us today. This will help us establish an understanding of what is a biblically-minimum church and serve as a starting point. Beginning with this understanding, we can then allow the church to take on differing forms, even extra-biblical characteristics that represent the context of the people that make up that church. So think of the church not as something you export or replicate but something you plant and nurture. Our Ecclesiology needs to begin with a Biblically minimum understanding of the church and strive to contextualize the church from there all the while never compromising the biblical standard set by Christ. In this way, our Ecclesiology can safely inform our Missiology because both are being informed by the Scripture.

The Church And Its Mission: Part 2

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:31:00 -0500

In part one of this post I introduced how historically there has existed a divide between those who studied Ecclesiology and those that study Missiology. I shared with you the statement by my pastor friend, indicating their desire to see their Missiology reflect their Ecclesiology. In essence, they are saying we believe that our understanding of the church needs to inform our understanding and practice of Mission. While I wholeheartedly agree, our understanding of God's mission needs to inform the way we structure and practice church. Without a Biblical understanding of both Ecclesiology and Missiology and how they work together, we run the risk of missing the importance of both and diminishing the importance of either one.

Many churches exist today without any sense of God's purpose

If missiology is not informing ecclesiology we run the risk of allowing the church to develop along lines that are not Biblical, much less missional. Many churches exist today without any sense of God's purpose for man or for the church. They are living within an endless cycle of programs all designed towards self--improvement. When the church loses its focus on mission we betray one of the primary functions of our existence. With this loss, the church increasingly turns inward and loses its evangelical fervency. His church was to be the mechanism by which his Kingdom would be advanced in the earth.

If Ecclesiology is not informing our Missiology, we lack the framework for understanding the means Christ intended for fulfilling His mission on the earth. Our Kingdom mission was meant to be embodied in the church--the church is God's means. Christ's intention was that the Good News would be expressed in and through His body the Church and that the whole world could look upon His

Our objective is to see people joined to other Bible believers

church as a sign and wonder testifying of His love. When we separate the mission from the church we can be guilty of losing sight of the relational element of the Great Commission. God wants a family. It is not enough to think strategically about our Task. We cannot think of people as objects to be conquered. The objective of our mission reaches beyond evangelizing and even discipling. Our objective is to see people joined to other Bible believers, or new faith communities (churches) formed capable of locally facilitating the advance of the Kingdom. Mission is about restoring order to all of creation and restoring the creation to right relationship with the Creator. When this is accomplished there will be no more mission, but the family of the redeemed, Christ's body and the Church will stretch into eternity.

In conclusion, the church has a mission to facilitate the local and global expansion of God's eternal Kingdom. The objective of our mission is and will always be the establishment and strengthening of local faith communities, capable of completing God's redemptive mission. Thus the cycle continues.

Hopefully, as we continue this study we can truly see how vitally important it is that the Bible serves as the basis for studying ecclesiology and missiology. It is my desire that we see the manner in which each study informs our understanding of the other. Then we will see once again, that there can be no separation between the church and its mission, without destroying the integrity of both.

The Church And Its Mission: Part 1

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:01:00 -0500

I recently had a pastor say to me, "We want our Missiology to reflect our Ecclesiology," or the way we do mission to be a reflection of the way we see the church. On the surface I agree with this idea and I understood perfectly what this pastor was trying to say to me, but this statement really caused me to think. This may be fine in theory but what if the way you see the church is just completely wrong? What if the way you see the church is right but only in your limited context? Do we really understand just how our understanding of the church has influenced not only our philosophy of mission, but our practice of mission as well?

We should probably define some terms.

Our Missiology and Ecclesiology need to develop together

Ecclesiology: The branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution and functions of a church. I would define it as the study of the church as Christ introduced it and the New Testament writers expounded upon it, but would include every Biblical expression of it throughout history. The Question: What is the church, where is the church, who is the church, why is the church?

Missiology: The study of the Missio Dei - The Mission of God to reveal himself as loving Father, expressed through a merciful savior, sent to redeem a people unto himself from every people group on earth. The Question: Who is the Mission, where is the mission, what forms and strategies should we utilize as we set out to fulfill the Mission, how do we know when the mission is complete?

As I further researched, prayed and studied about this subject I began to see the way in which historically Missiology and Ecclesiology have been separated into different and even opposing studies. There are those that say that its Missiology, not Ecclesiology that is really important. They would assert "We must begin with mission; that is to say, we begin with God and His mission of Redeeming a people unto himself through Christ, and what God is continuing to do in the world through the church to enact his purposes throughout the earth."

Then there would be those that counter, "No, it's Ecclesiology, not Missiology that is important," They would state, "God begins and ends with a people—the church. The church is the agent through which God's mission is carried out, and so in that sense I think ecclesiology must precede missiology. I think the biblical pattern in both the Old and New Testaments indicate this—God calls a people to himself (first Israel, now the Church), constitutes them under his rule and pours out his blessing on them, and then sends them out to be his agents and witnesses in the world. In the book of Revelation we see that the end of God's mission of redemption will be concluded, but the community we now call the church will be living in relationship to God throughout eternity."

Let me suggest: These are not separate, and certainly not opposing theological studies but rather one unified revelation. Our Missiology and Ecclesiology need to develop together—each informing our understanding of the other and both completing our understanding of God's plan for mankind. Our ecclesiology shapes how we understand and practice mission and our lives lived on mission continue to shape how we understand and be the church. Ecclesiology and missiology—one does not "come from" the other, but they are both derived from scripture, interact with each other and can be understood only in light of the other.

I hope that you will continue to follow us in this discussion, I believe there is much we have to learn about this important subject. I ministered on this subject at a recent conference and you can view the video here.

Grace--God's Operational Power by Brad Brede

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:30:00 -0500

This is a guest post by a very good friend of mine, Brad Brede. Brad has been a respected leader in the body of Christ for thirty years. I am going to be following this post with some of my own thoughts. I hope this encourages further discussion and Biblical study of this important subject. The result of getting this wrong leads us down a very slippery and very scary path. There seems to be much confusion and controversy in these last days concerning the grace of God. I've heard simple statements like "mercy is not getting what you deserve" and "grace is getting what you do not deserve." Grace being that undeserved or unmerited favor of God. Although these are true statements, they reveal only a very shallow understanding of God's grace. "...even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." - First Peter 4:10 There are many sides to God's grace. But, there has been so much focus on just the undeserved or unmerited favor that this powerful truth has been pushed to an extreme resulting in little or no fear of God. The result is false doctrine which leads people into error, fills the Church with worldliness and slothfulness, and prevents Christians from walking in the fullness that God has for them. The most common word for grace in the New Testament is charis. Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible defines it as the divine influence upon the heart and it's reflection in the life. It is an operation of God's power within our lives. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." - Ephesians 2:8

Grace teaches or trains us to live uprightly.

There had to be a "divine influence upon the heart" in order for anyone to be saved or born-again. Yes, only God could do something about our sin nature, and yes, we did not deserve it. However, our believing in Jesus Christ and making Him our Lord (an act of faith) brings the power (grace) of God to bear upon our hearts and causes us to become new creations in Him. Once born-again (saved) as a result of that divine influence upon the heart, there is a "reflection in the life." Grace teaches or trains us to live uprightly. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Titus 2:11,12 Grace (the divine influence on the heart) has delivered us from sin so we may live godly lives (reflection in the life). "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear." - Hebrews 12:28 Please notice that it does not say, "let us have grace, whereby we may serve God with irreverence, disobedience, unfaithfulness, and sin." Grace is not God tolerating sin. It is freedom from sin. Grace is not a license to sin. It is the power to live godly. Who we are in Christ and everything that we can do in Him is a result of God's grace. "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - First Corinthians 15:10 The Apostle Paul said, "I am what I am because of the divine influence upon my heart." Yet, he labored. There was a reflection of that grace in his life. But, it wasn't really him. It was the grace that was with him. That grace made him who he was and equipped him to do what he did. It is only because of the divine influence on our hearts that we can live in righteousness and holiness, walk in His ways, and carry out His will on this earth.

Do not allow yourself to be confused and misled concerning grace. Rather, be empowered by grace!

Our privilege to pray and receive answers to prayer is the grace of God. Our ability to exercise authority in this world is the grace of God. We are what we are and can do what we do only by the grace of God. Everyone of us has been given grace (Ephesians 4:7). It is with you. You can come boldly unto the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). His grace is sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:9). Therefore, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 2:1). Do not allow yourself to be confused and misled concerning grace. Rather, be empowered by grace!

Morality and Ministry

Mon, 16 May 2011 12:01:00 -0500

I just recently spent several days and many hours teaching on the subject of Ministerial Ethics at a Bible School overseas. I think that we would all agree that we generally want our ministers to behave in such a way that does not publicly bring dishonor to the name of Christ and His church in the earth. Over the years, we have been embarrassed by the indiscretions of men and even women that have stood in ministry as leaders and have failed so publicly. We read about it in magazines and newspapers, we see it all over the internet in terribly vivid detail and it even occasionally makes the evening news on the television. When asked to tackle this important subject, I thought long and hard about how I wanted to approach the teaching. My mind immediately was drawn to the most obvious passages on the subject written by Paul to his young protégés Timothy and Titus. He was instructing them concerning qualifications they should look for when appointing people to various positions of leadership in the church. However, in praying about how I was to address the subject I realized that we often approach this subject a bit backwards and that could at least in part explain why we are not seeing the results that we desire. You see when we look for specific behaviors to define a person's abilities to stand in a position of leadership, we often overlook what is most important--the character that underlies that behavior. Someone once observed, "Conduct is three-fourths of life, however Conduct of itself is merely the outward expression of character and character is deep-seated in the person". Therefore, if we are to transform the three-fourths of our life (behavior), it is this one-fourth of life (character) that we must turn our attention to.

ministry activity, no matter how "fruitful", is not the measure we should be using for judging the minister

The reality is that ministers, just like everyone else, are people with either a character of quality or of deficiency. A person's behavior is simply a reflection of character. Jesus told us in Matthew 7 that we should be able to look at the minister's life and judge the minister by the quality of the fruit his life produces. He states that a good tree will bear good fruit and a bad tree will naturally bear bad fruit--period. The question is what is the standard (fruit) we should be using to judge these ministers and their ministries by. First, we are told what it is not. Jesus states that many will come to me at judgment and say "We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name". Jesus' response makes it very clear that ministry activity, no matter how "fruitful", is not the measure we should be using for judging the minister. Herein lies part of the problem, we have done just that. In our society popular ministers with apparently successful ministries can fail morally and there is now little thought given to it. Why? Because we assume that successful ministry is a mark of God's approval on the minister, that their success in ministry is an indicator of Godliness. Friends, the Scripture is clear, the fruit we are to judge our lives by is the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22), the character of Christ that is being formed in us as we are being transformed by a dynamic interactive relationship with our resurrected Savior. Right behavior is a reflection of right character and right character is formed by the work of the Holy Spirit over time. This is one of the reasons that Paul admonishes Timothy that when choosing leaders, do not choose leaders that have not been long in Christ (1 Tim. 3:6). Let's look for real fruit in our ministers lives and let's give time for that fruit to form before we judge their ministry as "fruitful or successful". Like Paul, we want our ministers to meet a set of socially acceptable standards for behavior, but what we really should want is for their lives, their behavior to reflect the type of character that will produce Christ-like behavior. What we want is not for our ministers to meet a minimum standard of behavior but rather live lives that reflect the inward transformation they are experiencing living in relationship with Christ.

allow the Holy Spirit to produce the necessary heart change that would result in making right decisions and living a right life

We need to focus on character formation and heart transformation. I believe it is time we start concentrating our efforts on developing in our ministers the right heart, rather than teaching Ministerial Ethics as a specific set of do's and don'ts. We often seek to enforce holiness by defining for people what constitutes right and wrong behavior. However, I do not believe that we are going to change people's behavior through decrees. This approach will result in either rebellion or outward compliance with no real heart change (which produces animosity over the long run and as soon as the pressure to change is removed, they revert right back to previous patterns of behavior). If we take a legalistic approach to Ministerial Ethics, we will only have a group of leaders that might or might not follow the letter of the law. Unfortunately, sinfulness in man cannot be curtailed through a specific set of prohibitions; the sinful heart always finds a way to satisfy sinful desire and justify doing so. I am convinced that what Christ wants from us is not compliance to a list of rules and regulations but rather that we allow the Holy Spirit to produce the necessary heart change that would result in making right decisions and living a right life. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit is the only one that can bring about this transformation, but it has to occur on the inside and work its way outward. We have already seen it will never work the other way around.

Training Verses Trying - Part 2

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:59:00 -0500

If you have come to a point in your faith where you are having to face the ugly reality that there often exists a serious gulf between what you intend on your best day and the poor decisions that you make on your worst, let me assure you, you are not alone. Let's look at a great example of this in Scripture. Peter was one of the disciples that followed Jesus the closest. He loved the Lord and served Him faithfully. He was a leader of men, bold, sincere and passionate, but like each of us, Peter was a work in progress. He was prone to emotional, even angry outbursts. He was proud and self-assured, arrogant and completely ill-prepared for the challenges he was about to face.

The night before Jesus was crucified, He gathered with His disciples to celebrate a very important passover meal. Towards the end of the evening, Jesus made a statement that alarmed everyone. He said, "Tonight I will be betrayed into the hands of my enemy and all of you will desert and abandon me". He then addressed Peter specifically, saying, "Peter I have prayed for you; when you have repented strengthen the others". At this Peter blurts out, "Even if all the others deny you surely I will not". Now let me ask you a question, do you believe that Peter was sincere in his statement? Did he really mean this? Did he fully intend on remaining faithful no matter what? I believe he was but as we have already established, there is often a difference between what we intend and how we act. Notice, Jesus did not just fix him. He did not do anything to prevent him from facing this trial. No, Peter would have to face this and through it grow into the person that God had called him to be. I assure you, this is a lesson Peter would never forget. I am sure that in his dying days, shortly before his own martyrdom, he reflected on this life lesson often. Jesus prayed for Peter and then left him in the hands of His Father. These events played out exactly as Jesus had predicted.

Luke 22:54 NIV
[54] Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance.
The one that had followed him so closely now follows from afar or as the Message versions puts it "a safe distance".

Matt. 26:69-75 NLT
69 Meanwhile, Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant girl came over and said to him, "You were one of those with Jesus the Galilean."
70 But Peter denied it in front of everyone. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said.
71 Later, out by the gate, another servant girl noticed him and said to those standing around, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
72 Again Peter denied it, this time with an oath. "I don't even know the man," he said.
73 A little later some of the other bystanders came over to Peter and said, "You must be one of them; we can tell by your Galilean accent."
74 Peter swore, "A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!" And immediately the rooster crowed.
75 Suddenly, Jesus' words flashed through Peter's mind: "Before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me. "And he went away, weeping bitterly."

We must understand that good intentions are not enough.

He wept bitterly. He is sincerely repentant, brokenhearted over his actions, truly sorrowful. So what happened, how do we explain Peter's failure--our own failure? Like Peter, we find ourselves in this position of acting contrary to our heart intentions. Try as we might our efforts often fall short of our intentions. Jesus had warned him; Jesus even prayed for him. Please understand I believe that the answer surely is in the reality that Christ has set us free from the overpowering control of sin. In no way do I want to diminish the sacrificial work of Christ, the victory He has already won over sin. So why do we still sin? There has to be more. Dallas Willard says this about Peter, "All of his sincere and good intentions, even though specifically alerted by Jesus' prediction and warning a few hours earlier, were not able to withstand the automatic tendencies ingrained in his flesh and activated by the circumstances". We must understand that good intentions are not enough. We have relied on "trying" for too long. We must realize that there are latent tendencies, call them habits, that exist even after Christ has broken the power of sin in our lives.

Christ came to set us free from bondage to these ingrained tendencies or a hypocritical existence pretending to be something we are not. Christ did not bid us to come and follow Him and He would give us the appearance of transformation. No, He came to give this life to us in reality not just in theory. The Scripture promises that you will never face a temptation that is not common to man or beyond your ability to withstand. Indeed God is faithful and compassionate toward us and He promises to give us "strength of resistance and the power of endurance". He has promised that He will provide a way of escaping sins grasp. (1 Corinthians 10:13 AMP) Now whether we choose this path of escape or not is another matter. We have in fact, been given a certain victory over the power of sin. Peter was specifically warned and then given what I believe was a way out or at least a way through the temptation he was about to face. When Christ invited him to join Him in the garden for prayer, He was modeling for him a solution to combating these ingrained tendencies of his flesh. Christ was demonstrating that our battle with the flesh is not one that can be attempted with a frontal assault. He tells Peter that it is imperative that in the face of an imminent attack to be vigilant. He helps us to see how prayer positions us and prepares us for the battles we will most certainly face. Jesus tells Peter, "PRAY, pray that you do not yield to this temptation". Christ tells him what each and every one of us have learned, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". The Message puts it this way, "There is a part of you that is eager, ready for anything in God. But there's another part that's as lazy as an old dog sleeping by the fire."

Disciplines are, in essence, activities in our power that enable us, by grace, to do what we cannot do by direct effort.

Jesus is trying to teach Peter how to weaponize prayer, how to use prayer as a discipline against the ingrained tendencies of his flesh that are warring against his spirit. Dallas Willard defines discipline this way, "Disciplines are, in essence, activities in our power that enable us, by grace, to do what we cannot do by direct effort--by 'just trying'." They are, "Necessary components of life with Christ--they are simply activities that we undertake, activities in our power. They are something we do that enables us to disrupt evil habits and patterns in our lives and receive grace to enable us to grow increasingly toward easy, routine obedience to Christ." Christ is showing Peter that the only way you can overcome the temptations you face in life is not through direct effort but rather by developing the spiritual character of Christ within you and by replacing the ingrained habits, failed responses and lusts with new ingrained spiritual character. There are simply no short-cuts. Without the cross, we would have no power to exercise over sin. But without spiritual growth and formation, we will never experience that power.

Training Verses Trying

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:57:00 -0500

I would like to talk about the often great divide that exists between our intentions and the reality of our actions. As Dallas Willard states, "Most people deeply desire to be good, but they are prepared to do evil, and to do it repeatedly." Paul candidly and transparently addresses this subject in Romans chapters seven and eight--so candidly that we almost feel embarrassed reading it. We feel like we are reading some diary entry where he is bearing his soul's shame. Let me quote just a portion of it:

Romans 7:15,18-24 (MSG) [15] What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. [18] I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. [19] I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. [20] My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time. [21] It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. [22] I truly delight in God's commands, [23] but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge. [24] I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me?

Paul's words are so candid, so raw and so revealing. But let's be honest, we have all felt this rush of emotion, this same hopelessness that overwhelms us at the moment of our weakness and failure. The mistake is to believe "I will do better next time" or "this is the last time" or "I will try harder and have more discipline." That is what you said last time and you were as sincere then as you are now.
Fortunately, Paul concludes in Chapter eight by talking about how Christ came and conquered the power of sin to rule us. Let me quote again:

Romans 8:2-3 (MSG) [2] A new power is in operation. The Spirit of life in Christ, like a strong wind, has magnificently cleared the air, freeing you from a fated lifetime of brutal tyranny at the hands of sin and death. [3] God went for the jugular when he sent his own Son. He didn't deal with the problem as something remote and unimportant. In his Son, Jesus, he personally took on the human condition, entered the disordered mess of struggling humanity in order to set it right once and for all...

Most of us at this point are thinking then what is the problem? To begin with, many mistake Christ's redemptive act as it pertains to sin. Believers often mistakenly believe that Christ has set them free from sin, when, in fact, this is not true. We know this because believers have proven quite capable of going right on sinning. No, Christ has not set us free from sin because we continue as free moral agents quite capable of sinning. The New Testament writer James puts it this way, "Temptation to sin still is still active in our lives when we are drawn away, enticed and baited by our own evil desire (lust, passions)" James 1:14. These still remain a part of our lives as long as we do nothing to renew our minds, address habits and other ingrained tendencies. The reality is that Christ did not free us from sin but rather the control of that sin. You see, before Christ, sin had dominion over man, he could not through any effort of his own free himself from slavery to sin. Christ set us free from this enslavement and the death consequence of sin. We, however, must by God's grace work to see our minds renewed, old habits changed and our lives transformed by his indwelling presence.

Discipleship is What Makes Christian Character Possible

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:49:00 -0500

I want to begin with some thoughts on discipleship. Dallas Willard states, "The growing assumption today among professing Christians is that we can be "Christians" forever and never become disciples--as if it is optional." The idea is that I can choose Christianity without embracing a life of discipleship. At this point, some definitions might be helpful. The word Christian appears in the New Testament only three times and was initially used to describe individuals in the church at Antioch that presumably reflected the character and life of Christ. Let me contrast this with our modern concept of the word Christian. Today, it simply means one who was born into a particular religion or possibly one who has chosen that religion through some profession of faith. The aspect of Christ-likeness has almost been completely lost. The word disciple appears in Scripture over 250 times and refers to one who receives instruction from another. One who accepts the doctrines of his leader and assists in spreading them. A disciple is a learner, a student, an apprentice--a practitioner. Now ask yourself this question, which comes first? Often we mistakenly believe that Christianity is the doorway to discipleship. We concentrate all of our efforts into convincing someone to "accept" Christ as Savior as if this is what makes them Christian and completely ignore a lifestyle that produces Christ-likeness in us. We treat discipleship as if it is optional but in no way is it required. The reality is quite the opposite, it is discipleship that makes Christianity possible--at least that is, if Christ-likeness is what we are searching for. Look at the disciples that followed Christ and answer this question for me, when were they "born again" or when did they "become Christian"? Well technically speaking it would have to have been after Jesus' resurrection. Most people would point to John 20:22, when after His resurrection Jesus breathed upon them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." However, at this time they had been following Christ as his disciples for over three years. I am not trying to diminish the importance of a personal profession of Faith. However, that profession is not the end but just the beginning. What we are striving for is that Christ-likeness and it is discipleship that makes it possible. Let me explain. In the book of Acts, Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin and asked to give an answer for the spiritual uproar that was occurring in Jerusalem and the healing of the crippled man that once sat at the entrance to the Temple? The religious leaders marveled at the courage, the boldness, the intellect and eloquence, not to mention the power that was upon these ignorant, unschooled and ordinary men from Galilee. They attributed this to the fact that they had been with Jesus. They had indeed been with Jesus, not as casual acquaintances but as followers. They were His disciples and Jesus was their teacher. They had spent the better part of three years going where He went, listening to Him speak, watching His every move. John, much later in his life, would begin one of his great letters to the church by reminding his hearers of this special relationship he had had with the Master. He said, we were with Him, we followed Him everywhere, we listened to His teachings, we observed Him and everything He did with our own eyes. We were personal eyewitnesses to all that He did everywhere He went. We touched Him and He has eternally touched us. They witnessed the miracles He did. They were there when He healed the crippled man's withered hand. They were there when He gave sight to Bartimaeus from Jericho. They were there when He interrupted a funeral procession in the city of Nain and raised the widow woman's only son from the dead. They were there and personally participated as He multiplied a little boy's lunch into enough food to feed a multitude numbering probably more than 20,000 people. Both Peter and John had answered that call to come and follow Christ. They had left behind their old lives and found new life in following Christ. Now, several years later, there is no denying and there is no other explanation for the transformation that has occurred in their lives. They have been with Jesus. This association with Jesus was recognized because of their dedication to become like him in thought, manner and word. They were recognized as followers of Christ or as Christian because of the long years they had spent as His disciples. The truth is this, a disciple is not, as Dallas Willard states, "a deluxe or heavy-duty version of the Christian--especially padded, textured, streamlined and extra-powered for the fast lane on the straight and narrow way." No, a disciple is one who, "intent upon becoming Christ-like in his Faith and practice, systematically and progressively rearranges his affairs to that end." Christ has called each and every one of us into a dynamic, life-giving relationship with Himself. He is still calling us to come and follow Him, to become His student, to make Him the master and teacher. If we do this, some day, somewhere someone will look upon our life and note--they have been with Jesus.

For audio messages on Discipleship and other topics click here or download directly from this link: "A Call to Discipleship"

Why Contextualization is Important!

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:41:00 -0500

Over the past several months we have been taking time to focus and understand the importance of contextualization in missions. Our understanding of this topic is critical as we advance the knowledge of the Lord in the nations.

2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (italics added)

This is precisely what is taking place in the hour in which we live. GOD is making the fragrance of the knowledge of Himself known in all the nations (2 Cor 2:14). It is important for us to recognize that this is God's mission, not ours. He is King and He will accomplish His mission in the earth. With this in mind we have a proper perspective to engage the nations for we understand that God is inviting us to take part in his plan for the nations. This produces rest and peace in our hearts because we know that the fate of the nations does not rest on us alone. It also invigorates us to engage the nations because we know that we have been invited to participate as a co-laborer with God in His great plan to reach the nations.

Right now all across the globe people groups that have never once heard the name of Jesus proclaimed are hearing His name for the first time. Two years ago a list of the top 639 unengaged people groups was published. Unengaged means that these people not only have never heard the gospel, but that no one is laboring among them. Since that date over half of those people groups have been engaged and these people are hearing the gospel for the very first time.

This should set off an alarm in our spirit. Not a negative one, but one of great rejoicing which urges us on to ensure we are working with the Lord and not against. This is also when our understanding of contextualization becomes key. If we lack contextualization, the price can be costly. As the church of Christ emerges in the nations, among both the unreached and reached, those who are carrying the message must be careful to present the message in a manner that allows for the truth to penetrate the hearts of men and women without cultural baggage and without adding or subtracting from the gospel. Contextualization is the process which addresses this. We must be diligent to process our preaching of the gospel in a manner which will transform the worldview of the receptive hearer. We must preach the word stripped of our own culture, and infused only with the culture of Christ. Simply translating our preaching from one language to another will not suffice. Knowing that God is at work in an incredible way in the nations at this very moment, our effort should be structured in a way that creates an open avenue for him to move, rather than a roadblock.

This is why contextualization is important, and why we must make every effort to understand the deeper dynamics of the people we are working among. Without proper contextualization, men and women end up receiving a gospel that may effectively not be the gospel at all. Without contextualization the faith that we preach may simply become a cloak of "form", rather than a heart invigorated with the Spirit of Christ.

Reason for the Season

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:03:00 -0500

A few months ago we began this blog because we really desired to have an opportunity to engage with you in a conversation about very important topics as they relate to missions and that conversation will continue, we hope you will join us.

However, I think that it is important during this time of year that we remind ourselves of the real reason: for the "Season", for our ministry, for our very existence on this earth. In his book, "Let the Nations be Glad" John Piper wrote, "Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. It's the goal of missions because in missions we simply aim to bring the nations into the white hot enjoyment of God's glory. The goal of missions is the gladness of the peoples in the greatness of God". Piper stresses that Missions is not ultimate because man is not ultimate--God is. Therefore, the purpose of our work, and the very purpose of our existence is that we might worship Him and through our lives all men might come to know His love. In all of our strategy, with all of our models we cannot lose the central message of God's love and sacrifice. This keeps of our mission efforts and mission giving from losing their purpose. Everything we do and everything we are should be to bring glory and honor to a loving Father who announced through his angels, "There is now peace on earth, peace between God and man (Luke 2:14)." This is our message throughout the year, not just this "Season". This is our message throughout the earth. God has demonstrated His eternal love for mankind in sending us a Savior and for this reason we proclaim let the whole world worship Him.

What is our Motivation in Giving?

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:40:00 -0500

I do not want to be critical of other ministries and for that reason I am not citing any particular examples and I am naming no names, but I would like to address the various methods being used to raise funds these days. We have seen everything from heart-felt pleas to down-right begging. We have seen clever programs as well as almost every gimmick conceivable. We understand as much as any ministry the role that finances play in fulfilling our ministries goals, however I truly believe that we need to be careful that we maintain proper motivation as well as communicate a proper message about our mission. First of all a need-based approach to missions sends the wrong message both to contributors and recipients of our efforts. It has long been believed that personal connection was necessary to motivate people's giving. Organizations created adopt a child, church, orphan, student, etc programs. We witnessed ministries shifting the focus of communication to raise funds or even worse opening orphanages not because they were needed but as revenue streams. All of this created a tremendously powerful motivation for people to give based upon deeply emotional pleas. However, both Christian and secular organizations are starting to question the use of these emotional pleas for a number of reasons. First of all it is now largely believed that this leads to a feeling-based giving. If I feel like giving--I give. If I do not feel like giving--I do not give. The needs we face in our mission work cannot be subject to the emotional whims of our contributors. Secondly, we have witnessed over and over that there is a limit to the ability of peoples to respond emotionally to any given scenario. People will become overwhelmed and exhausted. When this happens, giving will simply dry up. Tim Dearborn describes it this way: "The good hearted people always want to respond with compassion and kindness but we have worked ourselves into exhaustion with exhortations to give more, do more, care more, serve more, love more, if we are not careful we reduce missions to no more than a human response to human need. The Church's involvement in mission is its privileged participation in the actions of almighty God. Without this news of great hope and full confidence in God's infinite love, we will have the sense of missions as an exhausting human enterprise. We'll feel as if we have been handed the Great Commission as a great duty, and that the job is completely up to us. This inevitably leads to burnout. Missions was never intended to be an exhausting human enterprise. Misssion is our privileged participation in the life-giving action of our God." I suggest that our message needs to change but this cannot occur if our attitude does not change.

Lastly, we must be careful that we are not sending the wrong message about our understanding of the Kingdom and our role in extending it. To quote Rolland Allen, "The Ministry cannot become primarily a financial operation, and we constantly hear our missionaries lament that they cannot open new works where they are sorely needed, because they have not the necessary funds. But it ought not properly to be a financial operation, and the moment it is allowed to appear as such, that moment very false and dangerous elements are introduced into our work." I would suggest that the Kingdom is being built because God is King. I believe that he is fully capable of funding His work without our begging, our manipulating, without gimmicks and without emotional pleas. I believe that we should present God's people opportunity to participate in His endeavors as both a means of honoring Him as King and using our lives and resources to participate in His eternal purpose. I believe this should be our motivation.

What is Contextualization?

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:44:00 -0500

I want to talk about the importance of contextualization. Contextualization is presenting and practicing the Christian faith in such a way that is relevant to the cultural context of the target group in terms of conceptualization, expression and application yet maintaining theological coherence, biblical integrity and theoretical consistency. This may involve the use of stories, parables, illustrations or any such valuable and adequate compartments in other religious and philosophical systems to explain biblical truth to a specific culture so that they eventually internalize it into their own thought system. This must involve the communication of the gospel not only in ways the people understand and are relevent, but in ways that also challenge them individually and corporately to embrace the transformational power of God. If the Gospel does not confront their condition apart from Christ it can leave the door open for Syncretism. Syncretism is the mixing of Christian faith with secular attributes of culture that are incompatible with Christianity so that the result is not Biblical Christianity.

We have several examples of contexualization in scripture including Christ's approach to the Samaritans in John chapter four and the apostle Paul's ministry along his missionary journeys. Paul summed up this approach to ministry when he wrote:
1 Cor 9:19-23 NLT
19 Even though I am a free man with no master, I have become a slave to all people to bring many to Christ. 20 When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. 21 When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. 22 When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. 23 I do everything to spread the Good News and share in its blessings.

Paul understood that the Message of Christ was never to be limited to a particular people group or a particular time and with this understanding, he sought to communicate truth in such a way that is could be understood, conceptualized, internalized and passed along. Ultimately, our goal is to reach people. We know that the message of Christ is powerful and life-changing so we need to make sure that we are not artificially creating barriers to people's acceptance because of the way in which we are communicating. The Willowbank report reads, "Sometimes people resist the gospel not because they think it false but rather they perceive it as a threat to their culture, especially the fabric of their society. Sometimes the Gospel is presented to people in alien cultural forms. Then the missionaries are resented and their message rejected because their work is seen not as an attempt to evangelize but as an attempt to impose a foreign custom and way of life." It should be our desire to seek the common ground, to find the bridge between people and Christ's message. It should be our desire to become all things to all men, that at all costs and in any and every way we might save many by winning them to faith in Jesus Christ.

Redemption is our Mission

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:21:00 -0500

The Bible contains central truths that are absolutes and must be understood by all. The central theme of the Bible is the story of man's creation, his fall and his redemption. Bill Stearns said in his book 20/20 Vision "The story of the Bible has a simple unified theme: The Redeemer offers every ethnic group on Earth the blessing of joining God's family. He is putting together a people from every people group on Earth. This theme appears throughout the Bible. The presence of a mission mandate throughout scripture is settled." There is one plan to redeem all of mankind and it is clearly and consistently revealed from Genesis to Revelation. This plan must be central to our mission.

The scripture states, "Everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard" (Rom 3:23 and Ps 53:3, Ps 130:3, Prov 20:9, Eccl 7:20, Isa 53:6, Gal 3:22, 1 John 1:8). Stanley A. Ellison wrote, "In that moment of decision Man thrust himself outside the stabilizing axis of God's will and began the swirling catapult into the oblivion of a godless existence." This makes sin universal to everyone and therefore sin eternally separates all men from God (Rom 6:23).

But, "God so loved the world" that rather than leave man in this fallen condition "he gave his one and only Son, that whoever would believe on him would not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Romans 5:8 says, "God demonstrated his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us". Jesus Christ freed us from sin when he paid the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. (Rom 3:24, 25) Jesus was handed over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification (Rom 4:23). Paul writing to Timothy tells us, "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6) in order that we may not have to "pay the penalty of eternal destruction" (2 Thes. 1:9) and those who "Believe in the Lord Jesus, shall be saved," (Acts 16:31). And this is God's desire, "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth of their salvation (1 Tim. 2:4)". The sacrifice of Christ was the only way to provide salvation for man and salvation has been universally made available to all those who will receive. This is not to imply that all man will universally accept Christ. Sadly we know this will not be the case.

We have to make sure our doctrine is clear; there is no other way, there is no back door, all religions do not lead to the same end, everyone is not right. There is only One Truth, One Path that leads to eternal life and that is acknowledging your sin and believing upon Christ Jesus as your eternal savior. When we understand sin and its power to separate eternally we must conclude that everyone who exits this life without having received the redemption of sins by receiving Christ Jesus is eternally separated from God. People have asked, "What about those around the world that have never heard--what about the Muslims, Hindus, or even the Jews"? Let me state emphatically all we have to shape our understanding of this matter is Scripture and we cannot speculate beyond that. I understand this is a terrible, terrible reality and for those who love deeply these peoples it can be very painful to even contemplate this, but the truth is that there is only one way and we do not have the right to invent alternate theologies in order to simply soothe our souls. We need to embrace the truth and the responsibility to communicate this truth to a lost world. This is our mission--Redemption.

The Dismantling of Missions' Structures

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:13:00 -0500

As we work around the world we are constantly bombarded by the varying degrees of dependency some of which has been created as the result of misguided missionary efforts. Where missions has existed the longest we are now seeing the dismantling of missions' structures: hospitals, schools and even churches that were never created to be self-sustaining and when the money shifted elsewhere, the organizations pulled out or the missionaries died off so ended the ministry. This is the unfortunate result of creating dependent mission structures. Ministry become obsolete for a number of reasons: Local leadership capable of carrying on the vision was never developed. The local leadership simply may not have the resources to maintain what outsiders built. It may be determined by local leadership that what was built is un-necessary for the spiritual well-being of the local community. Lastly, could it be because the missionaries have had some wrong assumptions concerning our mission? Let me quote from Roland Allan. He writes,

"Our modern practice in founding a church is to begin by securing land and buildings in the place in which we wish to propagate the Gospel. Since it is obviously impossible that the natives should supply these things, even if they are anxious to receive our instruction, it naturally follows that we must supply them. Hence the opening of new missionary endeavors has become primarily a financial operation, and we constantly hear our missionaries lament that they cannot open new works where they are sorely needed, because they have not the necessary funds to purchase and equip the barest missionary establishment. But it ought not properly to be a financial operation, and the moment it is allowed to appear as such, that moment very false and dangerous elements are introduced into our work. Nor is this all. The first glance at these missions financed from abroad naturally suggests that the religion which they represent is foreign. They are supported by foreign money, they are often foreign in appearance. Eastern people almost universally look upon Christianity as a foreign religion, and they do not want a foreign religion. They cannot supply what they think to be needful, and so they learn to accept the position of passive recipients. Native congregations have before now been held to their allegiance by threats of the withdrawal of financial support. But unity so maintained, by an external bond, is not Christian unity at all. It is simply submission to bondage for the sake of secular advantage and it will fail the moment that any other and stronger motive urges in the direction of separation."

Over time and after the expenditure of a great deal of resources what is the result? Has the Kingdom really been advanced? Are we any closer to a people turning to Christ? Has a culturally relevant pattern for the church emerged? Is that church now capable of evangelizing their peoples as well as participating in cross-cultural outreach? I am suggesting that we need to re-evaluate our long-term objectives in missions and make sure that our strategies will produce that desired end. Otherwise in a generation we may find that the works that have fallen into obsolescence are the ones we have built.

Exploring Dependency in Mission

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:18:00 -0500

Over the past few years we have been greatly influenced by a book written by Glenn Schwartz called, "How Charity Destroyed Dignity." You can purchase this book at a very low cost through our online store. This book addresses the issues of dependency in mission and how to avoid it. Truthfully the book does not represent itself as having all of the answers; rather I believe the purpose of the book is to get those of us that do mission work to begin asking the right questions. Too many times we simply act, just respond, to the needs that we perceive in our work among the nations without thinking about the ramifications of our actions. We do not think about the long term impact of our actions. We do not consider how our "good-hearted intrusions" may be destroying initiative, killing the very personal faith we are endeavoring to foster. We often do not recognize that actions taken from far off are in all probability discouraging a more localized and more appropriate response. Too often we assume that others are incapable of caring for themselves and we are the very one perpetuating dependency in people. If people are taught to depend upon others they will in time learn to rest entirely and passively upon others, thus the cycle of dependency is begun. It is continued when the people wait for others to act on their behalf. The longer they do so, the more incapable they become of any independent action. The cycle is further perpetuated when we as leaders begin to believe that their inactivity is due to a lack of capacity. The fatal mistake we have made is in teaching others to depend upon man or institution rather than trusting in the God who provides. Like many others it is my sincere desire to give a compassionate response where a compassionate response is needed. I understand our Lord's instruction to care for the orphan and the widow, to cloth the naked and feed the hungry. I certainly believe that in times of crisis the church should be the first to respond. I am not arguing this. What I am addressing is the manner in which our policies and practices may be having disastrous results long after the present crisis is over. What I am asking is, can't we minister in such a way as to foster complete dependence on God. Can't we work among the nations without also creating the dependency we have historically created all over the world? Can't we do this in a way that is honest and Christ-honoring? Can't we fashion a strategy that takes into consideration the complexities of our actions? I believe that Love requires that we do.