“People give to what they can relate to and participate in. They don’t give to institutions anymore. They give to movement and something tangible. They give to something that they can see.”

We begin offering articles from a host of contributors from around the world who engage their context or others with the “mission of God.” We begin today with Russ Rankin. You may find more information about Russ on our Contributors Page.

The Kingdom Principle

Several years ago I accompanied a friend on hiking trip. Our objective was more than just spending a few days in the great outdoors. The location was a restricted-access country in Asia where mission work is forbidden. My friend, a strategy coordinator for an unreached people group, asked me to join him on the trip high in the mountains to locate and mark with a GPS villages previously untouched by Westerners. His desire was to count doors, do a needs-assessment and hopefully encounter men of peace through whom he could introduce the Gospel to a secluded people. As a journalist, I planned to do a feature package on the people and the challenge of bringing the Gospel to them.

We spent our first day navigating dusty trails and narrow goat paths straight up a mountain nearing 10,000 feet. At one point, having run out of water, we resorted to drawing and filtering from streams that were no more than mud puddles. Periodically, we encountered people living on the mountain; villagers tending to crops on semi-flat fields or goat herders on patches of mountain grass. At one rest stop, two members of our team engaged a couple of farmers in light conversation and gave them tracts in their language.

In our ignorance, we didn’t realize those farmers were heading down the mountain to a village at a lower trailhead. I can imagine their report to the local officials: white devils were on the mountain handing out (illegal) materials. To our dismay, as we broke camp the following morning we saw coming up behind us a trail of military vehicles. Needless to say, the language barrier didn’t mean much as the officials angrily interrogated our leader and hauled us all off the mountain.

Read more…

As we draw to the end of this series, we feel compelled to point out what all of us felt was an obvious point. It has been reported that some who read this blog have the mistaken impression that we do not support the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. This entire series was written by seven guys who are offering suggestions as to what we see are necessary changes that the GCRTF could recommend. To suppose or pre-suppose that, despite our clear words, we are somehow against the GCRTF demonstrates a failed judgment of our motives and a EPIC FAIL in the evaluation of our writings.

For those who are newcomers to this blog and may not be as familiar with our past involvement with “The Dark Side,” the men listed on the Editors page were, for 2-3 years, avid (some might say “rabid”) critics of the SBC and, often, some in its leadership. Though motives were questioned then as well (both by us and toward us), to a person our goal was to try and instigate some type of reform that would address the backroom politics, good ole’ boy nomination processes and bureaucratic redundancies all of which we felt were suppressing the SBC’s creative talent and innovation, disenfranchising younger leaders and threatening the long term viability of the Southern Baptist Convention. While we were critical of some of the entity heads within the convention, we also recognized that any lasting change would have to come as a result of the “blog conversation” moving into the arena of official leadership. On June 18, 2007, on the last “SBC” commentary on my (Marty) first blog, SBCOutpost, I wrote that “change must come from Frank Page, Thom Rainer, Geoff Hammond, David Dockery, Timothy George, Danny Akin and others of their tribe.” Sans Geoff Hammond, each of these leaders is involved at some level of driving change in the SBC. Knowing that these men have stepped up to the plate does not make us mad; it gives us varying degrees of hope from fleeting to great.

Having said that, anything that appears to be criticism from our end should be read as a hope that the GCRTF will go the distance and not be, to use biblical phrasing, “of those who shrink back and are destroyed,” but will press to the farthest extent and let the convention itself decide. In other words, we believe the GCRTF should bring “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” to Orlando and let the assembled messengers determine how to proceed from there. We do not want them to “shrink back” out of fear, uncertainty or concerns about walking on the toes of feudal lords.

Therefore, if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, we would make the following recommendations:

1. That the Southern Baptist Convention intentionally downsize is structural complexity by recognizing the series of autonomous relationships that exist between churches, associations, state conventions/fellowships and the national body and that the local churches must take the lead in re-shaping this autonomy to all extremes in each direction.

2. That the Southern Baptist Convention re-focus NAMB’s ministry tasks, retaining only on those areas that empower the churches through national coordination and facilitate the planting of churches in frontier areas. This would be best accomplished through decentralization. NAMB should begin to act as a true missionary sending agency while funding those missionaries accordingly.

3. That the Southern Baptist Convention cease from the practice of voting on “Resolutions.” The purpose of resolutions in theory makes sense, but in practice they are great tools for making Southern Baptists look like fools. We have long passed the point that our society cares at all what we think about its ills; resolutions have become points of disparagement for our host culture, another stigma that must be overcome by Southern Baptist churches and do nothing to help us fulfill the Great Commission.

4. That the Southern Baptist Convention focus its coordinated efforts toward only what local churches, associations, or state conventions cannot do alone or by voluntary networking. By definition this implies the closure of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

5. That the Southern Baptist Convention instruct the International Mission Board to implement strategies that empower national believers rather than seeking to primarily deploy western missionaries and make those stories a focus of all promotion.

6. That one-third of the trustees on Southern Baptist Convention entity boards be comprised of men and women younger than 40 years of age and that the total number of years that a single person shall be able to serve on all boards combined is twelve.

7. That churches be given the option to direct their Cooperative Program funds through their local association consistent with the mission of the local church and the accountable practices at all levels of our cooperative effort toward fulfilling the Great Commission.

8. That all bodies within the SBC–local churches, associations, state conventions and fellowships, and all national entities–strive for absolute accuracy in reporting of statistics and that a differentiation be made between what is accomplished by our own direct ministry efforts and those of groups with whom we partner both in North America and internationally.

9. That the Southern Baptist Convention explore alternative methods of theological training that retain an emphasis on conservative, classic theology, but are local church-centric and host culture specific. A new educational paradigm should be introduced which places Missiology on the same plane as Theology proper, Christology and Pneumatology and staffed accordingly.

10. That funding the Cooperative Program not be considered as the basis for being a cooperating church. The basis for cooperation should be missional engagement as the local church furthers the stated goals of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Cooperation” should not be reduced to money.

Dr. David Dunbar is President of Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA. Dave has been offering thoughts on the school’s theological convictions in his “Missional Journal.” Biblical Seminary continues to press through to “missional theological education.” Some want to talk about missional theology. Biblical is committed to missional theology. Rather than nuance theology in missional terms, Biblical is committed to theology that is rooted and rises from the missio dei. You may follow the links in the footnotes and read the complete statement of theological convictions that guide Biblical Seminary in its theological project. Biblical Seminary now offers a MA in Missional Church Planting. Thanks to Dave for allowing us to post his article here at MissioScapes.

———-

“Through a Glass Darkly”

With these words St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) contrasts the limitations of our present spiritual vision and understanding with the fullness of knowledge that will be ours at the return of the Lord.  This metaphor may be helpful as we consider the last of Biblical Seminary’s theological convictions.

The Necessity of Cultural Engagement

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.[1]

There are three points I want to make about this statement:  1) culture as the context for mission, 2) culture as a way of seeing, and 3) the need for cross-cultural learning.

1.    Culture as context

By “culture” we refer to the traditional ways of thinking, speaking, and acting that characterize a particular group of people. In our highly mobile Western world, we must think of culture not as a single entity but as a complex interplay of contrasting and even competing ways by which different groups construe their world.

This diversity of cultures is one reason the church in North America must now think of itself as a missionary church. We are surrounded by groups of people who do not share our way of viewing the world. To bring the gospel to our world we will need to engage in the missionary task of translation.  We must communicate the truth about Jesus in ways that are faithful to Scripture and effective in crossing cultural boundaries.

Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, understands this challenge better than most. “When Paul spoke to Greeks, he confronted their culture’s idol of speculation and philosophy with the ‘foolishness’ of the cross, and then presented Christ’s salvation as true wisdom. When he spoke to Jews, he confronted their culture’s idol of power and accomplishment with the ‘weakness’ of the cross, and then presented the gospel as true power (1 Cor. 1:22-25).”[2] In affirming one gospel, Keller nonetheless argues that different “forms” of the gospel are appropriate to people of differing cultural backgrounds.

So, in the context of his own ministry in New York City, Keller recognizes that people with religious backgrounds understand the concept of sin as an offense against the law of God.  These people can therefore be reached with the more traditional evangelical summary of the gospel which presents the cross as divine provision for human sin and guilt.

But Keller notes, “…Manhattan is also filled with postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.”[3]  For this audience Keller finds it more effective to speak of sin not as guilt but as idolatry.

My point is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of Pastor Keller’s specific approach to preaching, although I agree with much of his article. The point is rather to emphasize the missional challenge we face. Careful interpretation of Scripture must now be combined with careful interpretation of culture(s) if we are to witness faithfully to our generation.
Read more…

We Need More Cowboys!

Sitting on his stallion, he overlooks a range full of cattle about to begin the long drive to market. The cowboy, that quintessential image of the Old West, knows the days will be long, the trail difficult, and the season, though short, will feel like forever. Yet he embraces the challenge that lies before him, for the sake of the herd, his employer, his family, and even himself.

The Old West means many things in American history. It was a period of time encompassing the latter half of the nineteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth. It was also a location, that huge area of land purchased by President Jefferson in what was known as the Louisiana Purchase and is now known as the area West of the Mississippi River. The Old West was a time of great expansion and growth in USAmerica. It was even a time when many thought we had finally fulfilled our “Manifest Destiny” as we extended our country from sea to shining sea.

It was the rugged, creative, and self-reliant nature of those who moved West that allowed the country to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The West was not a place for those seeking an easy life. It was dangerous and difficult. Some flourished. Others could not handle it. It was full of lawlessness, a much different way of living from those in the genteel East.

The West is where people on the fringe live. They go there because they get to be creative without the reach of those trying to control. This is where our country was changed. It is where our own denomination can be changed.

For the purposes of this article, I want to define the West as any area where Southern Baptists have limited influence in United States, primarily in the West, Northeast, and Midwest. Read more…