Thursday, June 19, 2008
Driven "Big Give" to Aid ClearView Church
Driven will be held July 26-29 at Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio. Registration for the four-day event is still open. Click here for more information.
“Young people want to roll up their sleeves and ‘DO’ something,” says Jonathon Wiley, a member of the Driven steering committee who is helping plan the Big Give. “We want to provide a creative outlet for conference participants to tangibly impact people in the name of Jesus.”
“Our desire is that the Driven family will do two things,” adds Wiley, who is on staff at the Grace Brethren Church of Columbus (Ohio). “We want to make Jesus Christ exceedingly attractive to the unsaved world we encounter, that we would spread everywhere the fragrance of Christ, and practically, we want to make contacts to assist ClearView as they minister to bring people into a maturing relationship with Jesus.”
“Pray for a great experience for Driven people and God’s movement in people’s lives as these young adults serve and love in practical ways,” notes Andy Wirt, pastor of Clearview Church.
The funds for the Big Give are being provided by friends of the Driven conference. Participants will not be permitted to use their own money during this adventure.
The long weekend features speakers such as Jeff Bogue, Kary Oberbrunner, Sarah Cunningham, Kondo Simfukwe, and Keith Minier. The conference also includes practical workshops, three-fold communion, and a variety of activities designed for young adults – whether single or married.
For more information or to register for Driven, click here.
Comments:
<< Home
“Where did the term ‘church launching’ come from?” Traditionally we’ve used the biblical metaphors of “planting” and “birthing” but this new metaphor has become increasingly popular… is it just semantics or is it introducing to us something new in the area of church planting? Do you have any thoughts… perhaps you can share them here."
Unfortunately, though I am a missiologist, I do not the origin of "launching" a church because I have served as a church planter outside of the States for 21 years (churches are not “launched” in Europe). But since you invited input, a few observations:
“Launch” can have an appropriate connotation: “make a sudden energetic movement,” “start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise),” “introduce to the public for the for the first time.”
Launch is however primarily used to describe sending things off. We launch boats, missiles and rockets. My guess is that the term reflects the influence of Corporate America in the Church; it is a business term—launching a campaign, a program or a software package.
If so, then a couple of possible scenarios present themselves. Launching churches could reflect a corporate or business view of the fundamental nature of the church. This would be unhealthy because the Church is a “bride” (Eph.5) with a “body.” Even the “temple” metaphor is filled with life and composed of living stones. If the term reflects a business-like view of the nature or even primary form of the church, it will be counter productive in the medium or long term as American society moves deeper into postmodernism that prides itself in its visceral rejection of institutions. But worse, it becomes an android, not the beautiful woman that Jesus intends for His Church to be.
A second possibility is that it refers to the form of the church as a finished product that is revealed to the public. This happens when church “planters” do evangelism and preparatory work and then a year, two or three later, they publicize a celebration and “go public.” The organic “planting” of seeds, watering and harvest (1 Cor. 3) is presupposed then overtaken by a highly organized model. It can be contextually appropriate but would not be transferrable. (The beauty of the biblical metaphors is that all cultures know about farming, everybody has a “body” - 1 Cor. 12; they are adaptable across cultures.) If one launches a church as a finished product, special emphasis would need to be made on mobilizing the priesthood of believers. This would be difficult because “launched” products are assumed to be beta-tested and somewhat perfected, and so dynamic contribution from others would be frowned upon; only minimal debugging and maintenance of the well-thought-through final product would be welcomed, unless one is a specialist. This mentality undermines the universal priesthood of believers (1 Cor. 14; 1 Peter 2).
I do not believe that we need to woodenly insist on a biblical glossary; dynamic equivalents are systematically used in other cultures. But care does need to be taken when importing terms because they carry meaning that will reveal itself sooner or later. Just as in Tom Julien’s story of the painter he once saw whose head swiveled back and forth, back and forth from the landscape that he was painting to the canvas on which he was painting, we too, as we sow gospel seeds and plant churches, regardless of the terminology we employ, must prayerfully be looking back to Scripture as we paint, plant or launch a church.
So there are some of my thoughts for what they are worth…
Unfortunately, though I am a missiologist, I do not the origin of "launching" a church because I have served as a church planter outside of the States for 21 years (churches are not “launched” in Europe). But since you invited input, a few observations:
“Launch” can have an appropriate connotation: “make a sudden energetic movement,” “start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise),” “introduce to the public for the for the first time.”
Launch is however primarily used to describe sending things off. We launch boats, missiles and rockets. My guess is that the term reflects the influence of Corporate America in the Church; it is a business term—launching a campaign, a program or a software package.
If so, then a couple of possible scenarios present themselves. Launching churches could reflect a corporate or business view of the fundamental nature of the church. This would be unhealthy because the Church is a “bride” (Eph.5) with a “body.” Even the “temple” metaphor is filled with life and composed of living stones. If the term reflects a business-like view of the nature or even primary form of the church, it will be counter productive in the medium or long term as American society moves deeper into postmodernism that prides itself in its visceral rejection of institutions. But worse, it becomes an android, not the beautiful woman that Jesus intends for His Church to be.
A second possibility is that it refers to the form of the church as a finished product that is revealed to the public. This happens when church “planters” do evangelism and preparatory work and then a year, two or three later, they publicize a celebration and “go public.” The organic “planting” of seeds, watering and harvest (1 Cor. 3) is presupposed then overtaken by a highly organized model. It can be contextually appropriate but would not be transferrable. (The beauty of the biblical metaphors is that all cultures know about farming, everybody has a “body” - 1 Cor. 12; they are adaptable across cultures.) If one launches a church as a finished product, special emphasis would need to be made on mobilizing the priesthood of believers. This would be difficult because “launched” products are assumed to be beta-tested and somewhat perfected, and so dynamic contribution from others would be frowned upon; only minimal debugging and maintenance of the well-thought-through final product would be welcomed, unless one is a specialist. This mentality undermines the universal priesthood of believers (1 Cor. 14; 1 Peter 2).
I do not believe that we need to woodenly insist on a biblical glossary; dynamic equivalents are systematically used in other cultures. But care does need to be taken when importing terms because they carry meaning that will reveal itself sooner or later. Just as in Tom Julien’s story of the painter he once saw whose head swiveled back and forth, back and forth from the landscape that he was painting to the canvas on which he was painting, we too, as we sow gospel seeds and plant churches, regardless of the terminology we employ, must prayerfully be looking back to Scripture as we paint, plant or launch a church.
So there are some of my thoughts for what they are worth…
# posted by 
: 10:23 AM
: 10:23 AM
I found your question intriguing, “Where did the term ‘church launching’ come from?” Traditionally we’ve used the biblical metaphors of “planting” and “birthing” but this new metaphor has become increasingly popular… is it just semantics or is it introducing to us something new in the area of church planting? Do you have any thoughts… perhaps you can share them via e-mail."
Unfortunately, though I am a missiologist, I do not the origin of "launching" a church because I have served as a church planter outside of the States for 21 years (churches are not “launched” in Europe). But since you invited input, a few observations:
“Launch” can have an appropriate connotation: “make a sudden energetic movement,” “start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise),” “introduce to the public for the for the first time.”
Launch is however primarily used to describe sending things off. We launch boats, missiles and rockets. My guess is that the term reflects the influence of Corporate America in the Church; it is a business term—launching a campaign, a program or a software package.
If so, then a couple of possible scenarios present themselves. Launching churches could reflect a corporate or business view of the fundamental nature of the church. This would be unhealthy because the Church is a “bride” (Eph.5) with a “body.” Even the “temple” metaphor is filled with life and composed of living stones. If the term reflects a business-like view of the nature or even primary form of the church, it will be counter productive in the medium or long term as American society moves deeper into postmodernism that prides itself in its visceral rejection of institutions. But worse, it becomes an android, not the beautiful woman that Jesus intends for His Church to be.
A second possibility is that it refers to the form of the church as a finished product that is revealed to the public. This happens when church “planters” do evangelism and preparatory work and then a year, two or three later, they publicize a celebration and “go public.” The organic “planting” of seeds, watering and harvest (1 Cor. 3) is presupposed then overtaken by a highly organized model. It can be contextually appropriate but would not be transferrable. (The beauty of the biblical metaphors is that all cultures know about farming, everybody has a “body” - 1 Cor. 12; they are adaptable across cultures.) If one launches a church as a finished product, special emphasis would need to be made on mobilizing the priesthood of believers. This would be difficult because “launched” products are assumed to be beta-tested and somewhat perfected, and so dynamic contribution from others would be frowned upon; only minimal debugging and maintenance of the well-thought-through final product would be welcomed, unless one is a specialist. This mentality undermines the universal priesthood of believers (1 Cor. 14; 1 Peter 2).
I do not believe that we need to woodenly insist on a biblical glossary; dynamic equivalents are systematically used in other cultures. But care does need to be taken when importing terms because they carry meaning that will reveal itself sooner or later. Just as in Tom Julien’s story of the painter he once saw whose head swiveled back and forth, back and forth from the landscape that he was painting to the canvas on which he was painting, we too, as we sow gospel seeds and plant churches, regardless of the terminology we employ, must prayerfully be looking back to Scripture as we paint, plant or launch a church.
So there are some of my thoughts for what they are worth…
Unfortunately, though I am a missiologist, I do not the origin of "launching" a church because I have served as a church planter outside of the States for 21 years (churches are not “launched” in Europe). But since you invited input, a few observations:
“Launch” can have an appropriate connotation: “make a sudden energetic movement,” “start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise),” “introduce to the public for the for the first time.”
Launch is however primarily used to describe sending things off. We launch boats, missiles and rockets. My guess is that the term reflects the influence of Corporate America in the Church; it is a business term—launching a campaign, a program or a software package.
If so, then a couple of possible scenarios present themselves. Launching churches could reflect a corporate or business view of the fundamental nature of the church. This would be unhealthy because the Church is a “bride” (Eph.5) with a “body.” Even the “temple” metaphor is filled with life and composed of living stones. If the term reflects a business-like view of the nature or even primary form of the church, it will be counter productive in the medium or long term as American society moves deeper into postmodernism that prides itself in its visceral rejection of institutions. But worse, it becomes an android, not the beautiful woman that Jesus intends for His Church to be.
A second possibility is that it refers to the form of the church as a finished product that is revealed to the public. This happens when church “planters” do evangelism and preparatory work and then a year, two or three later, they publicize a celebration and “go public.” The organic “planting” of seeds, watering and harvest (1 Cor. 3) is presupposed then overtaken by a highly organized model. It can be contextually appropriate but would not be transferrable. (The beauty of the biblical metaphors is that all cultures know about farming, everybody has a “body” - 1 Cor. 12; they are adaptable across cultures.) If one launches a church as a finished product, special emphasis would need to be made on mobilizing the priesthood of believers. This would be difficult because “launched” products are assumed to be beta-tested and somewhat perfected, and so dynamic contribution from others would be frowned upon; only minimal debugging and maintenance of the well-thought-through final product would be welcomed, unless one is a specialist. This mentality undermines the universal priesthood of believers (1 Cor. 14; 1 Peter 2).
I do not believe that we need to woodenly insist on a biblical glossary; dynamic equivalents are systematically used in other cultures. But care does need to be taken when importing terms because they carry meaning that will reveal itself sooner or later. Just as in Tom Julien’s story of the painter he once saw whose head swiveled back and forth, back and forth from the landscape that he was painting to the canvas on which he was painting, we too, as we sow gospel seeds and plant churches, regardless of the terminology we employ, must prayerfully be looking back to Scripture as we paint, plant or launch a church.
So there are some of my thoughts for what they are worth…
# posted by : 11:03 AM
: 11:03 AM
Thanks for eliciting Paul's thoughtful response on the issue raised at the ministerium gathering last week. I too have often puzzled over the terminology and have often found the semantics to be linked with the business model that Paul hints at and especially a focus on the worship meeting or Sunday Service as that which is 'launched.' As such the defining aspect of church becomes something less than the nature of the church as a household or family of families with the supporting imagery of body and temple described in the Epistles. I found the 'launch' language to be particularly Western, North American and completely irrelevant to the reality of establishing the first local churches in a relational place like Albania where there was no church culture and meetings were associated with the propaganda of the former days of the Communist Party. My sense is that the launch idea creates a measureable, tangible mark in church life which then lays the groundwork for a church growth paradigm that drives the continued measure of success by quantitative concerns and not those of qualitative assessment. These are not as easy to discern and require a wisdom more in tune with an art than a science.
Looking forward to more interaction on the matter.
Looking forward to more interaction on the matter.
# posted by : 11:03 AM
: 11:03 AM
I will be more than happy to MUDDY the waters on this subject.
I choose to let 'Theologians and Missiologists' debate the content of what appears to be semantics to me. The heart of God is to see his Church, his Kingdom multiply. That should happen personally, locally and globally. It should happen from small group to large group. What we "CALL" that multiplication process in my opinion does not matter and I don't think it matters to God. I believe God is FAR more concerned that we are doing it than what we choose to call it.
I have had four children...my wife gave birth to all of them. Once could certainly argue that they were 'launched' from her womb. That certainly was not a business model. I am fine with whatever metaphor accomplishes the heart of Jesus to multiply his church.
We have referred to our plants as a 'daughter' as having "hived off" as "giving birth" to and when the day for departure and "IT" actually taking place...meaning moving from mere discussion to actually DOING what we had been talking about, we "launched" them.
I choose to use vocabulary that best describes where we are in the process.
Enough for now....let me now "LAUNCH" this email, which could be misconstrued as a business model, as though there is no 'business' aspect to the church...sorry....I could not help myself! (For those of you that are now all uptight) I am sitting here laughing!
Have fun in your discussion. I am off to see the kingdom 'multiply'
I choose to let 'Theologians and Missiologists' debate the content of what appears to be semantics to me. The heart of God is to see his Church, his Kingdom multiply. That should happen personally, locally and globally. It should happen from small group to large group. What we "CALL" that multiplication process in my opinion does not matter and I don't think it matters to God. I believe God is FAR more concerned that we are doing it than what we choose to call it.
I have had four children...my wife gave birth to all of them. Once could certainly argue that they were 'launched' from her womb. That certainly was not a business model. I am fine with whatever metaphor accomplishes the heart of Jesus to multiply his church.
We have referred to our plants as a 'daughter' as having "hived off" as "giving birth" to and when the day for departure and "IT" actually taking place...meaning moving from mere discussion to actually DOING what we had been talking about, we "launched" them.
I choose to use vocabulary that best describes where we are in the process.
Enough for now....let me now "LAUNCH" this email, which could be misconstrued as a business model, as though there is no 'business' aspect to the church...sorry....I could not help myself! (For those of you that are now all uptight) I am sitting here laughing!
Have fun in your discussion. I am off to see the kingdom 'multiply'
# posted by : 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
Please allow another slant, referred to by Paul in the first response to this debate.
I had the opportunity to attend two launchings of ships in the 1950's. These were both at the same shipyard and for the same company.
What happened was the launce of the hull of the ship with little or no structure above the decks. This act cleared the ways for the construction of another ship. The newly launched and yet unfinished ship was moved by tug boats on the Delaware River to the "fitting out dock" nearly in the same yard. At this time work would begin on the finishing up of the structure of the ship and the equipping throughout the cabins, wheelhouse, etc.- an ongoing process until completion was accomplished. "Launch" could be an appropriate term for the fists appearances of a new church with much work to be done.
As to biblical propriety of the word. May I remind you of the frequent times nautical terminology is used in the old and new testament. (Solomon, Jonah, Jesus, 4 disciples and Paul with Barnabas or Silas) It seems
that we could get ourselves in a snit over terminology and miss the important wok of getting the job of the Great Commission accomplished.
I had the opportunity to attend two launchings of ships in the 1950's. These were both at the same shipyard and for the same company.
What happened was the launce of the hull of the ship with little or no structure above the decks. This act cleared the ways for the construction of another ship. The newly launched and yet unfinished ship was moved by tug boats on the Delaware River to the "fitting out dock" nearly in the same yard. At this time work would begin on the finishing up of the structure of the ship and the equipping throughout the cabins, wheelhouse, etc.- an ongoing process until completion was accomplished. "Launch" could be an appropriate term for the fists appearances of a new church with much work to be done.
As to biblical propriety of the word. May I remind you of the frequent times nautical terminology is used in the old and new testament. (Solomon, Jonah, Jesus, 4 disciples and Paul with Barnabas or Silas) It seems
that we could get ourselves in a snit over terminology and miss the important wok of getting the job of the Great Commission accomplished.
# posted by : 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
I don’t think you muddied the waters. This is a real discussion, in my opinion, about the “doing” of church-multiplication.
Our church has been doing church planting, not just talking about it. When we describe what we’re doing, in evangelizing and gathering people into a spiritual family, inevitably the question comes, “when are you going to have your “launch Sunday”? We respond, “We already have a group meeting on Sunday.” Well, ok, but when is your big, public, advertised “launch”? We reply, “I guess never.” Then we are made to feel guilty, or inferior by those we thought were on our team. Many do not seem to use the word “launch” like you did, as a synonym for planting or birthing, but as having a specific, different methodological meaning.
So, we who are doing it are judged and criticized by others, some of whom are not even doing it. And all because we do not know what a “launch” is or are not doing it their way. When did this start happening, and why?
I would also ask, though, does not language have something to do with our identity? Could language influence the way the church thinks of herself? Personally, I’m more concerned about the “military” implications of “launching” than I am the “business” ones.
Our church has been doing church planting, not just talking about it. When we describe what we’re doing, in evangelizing and gathering people into a spiritual family, inevitably the question comes, “when are you going to have your “launch Sunday”? We respond, “We already have a group meeting on Sunday.” Well, ok, but when is your big, public, advertised “launch”? We reply, “I guess never.” Then we are made to feel guilty, or inferior by those we thought were on our team. Many do not seem to use the word “launch” like you did, as a synonym for planting or birthing, but as having a specific, different methodological meaning.
So, we who are doing it are judged and criticized by others, some of whom are not even doing it. And all because we do not know what a “launch” is or are not doing it their way. When did this start happening, and why?
I would also ask, though, does not language have something to do with our identity? Could language influence the way the church thinks of herself? Personally, I’m more concerned about the “military” implications of “launching” than I am the “business” ones.
# posted by : 11:06 AM
: 11:06 AM
Since the question has apparently attracted other "church planters," I suppose I should respond. I started one local church "from scratch" in 1965-71 and developed another (already started) from 1971-2004. I have also been present and helpful as other churches were organized. Through the years, I have watched as every generation tried to bring fresh meaning to an ancient process by inventing new methods and new words.
The first thing I would say about the process is that it isn't our work. It is the work of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "I will build my church." He does, and I am along for the ride. It is his church, not mine. I only know the church through local churches, because I am limited by space and time. However, believers in Jesus who gather in mutual commitment to him and each other are part of his church. I confess that we often claim ownership of something that is not ours.
The second thing I would say about the process is that the church is not the same as his kingdom. The church is included in the kingdom, but the kingdom is much larger than the church. I know that it has become quite popular to talk about "building the kingdom," but it's a poor choice of words. Let's stop bragging about something we aren't doing.
The third thing I would say about the process is that anyone who shares the good news in the power of the Spirit is on the team with Jesus. I always considered myself to be the "assistant to the Shepherd" because he gave me the tools necessary to feed and lead the flock in my care. However, Jesus is the owner, the coach and the captain of the team all wrapped into one. By his spirit, he gives me the gifts to be a member of the team. I happen to be the one who feeds and leads, but I am nothing without the other team members.
A church planter - if we must call him that - is someone who gathers believers and feeds and leads them to accomplish the task to which Christ has called us: proclaimers of good news. We all do that through the unique talents and connections given us by Christ - assuming, of course, that we are controlled by his spirit and not ours. Otherwise, we really are simply building our church. Or planting. Or launching. Or whatever.
The first thing I would say about the process is that it isn't our work. It is the work of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "I will build my church." He does, and I am along for the ride. It is his church, not mine. I only know the church through local churches, because I am limited by space and time. However, believers in Jesus who gather in mutual commitment to him and each other are part of his church. I confess that we often claim ownership of something that is not ours.
The second thing I would say about the process is that the church is not the same as his kingdom. The church is included in the kingdom, but the kingdom is much larger than the church. I know that it has become quite popular to talk about "building the kingdom," but it's a poor choice of words. Let's stop bragging about something we aren't doing.
The third thing I would say about the process is that anyone who shares the good news in the power of the Spirit is on the team with Jesus. I always considered myself to be the "assistant to the Shepherd" because he gave me the tools necessary to feed and lead the flock in my care. However, Jesus is the owner, the coach and the captain of the team all wrapped into one. By his spirit, he gives me the gifts to be a member of the team. I happen to be the one who feeds and leads, but I am nothing without the other team members.
A church planter - if we must call him that - is someone who gathers believers and feeds and leads them to accomplish the task to which Christ has called us: proclaimers of good news. We all do that through the unique talents and connections given us by Christ - assuming, of course, that we are controlled by his spirit and not ours. Otherwise, we really are simply building our church. Or planting. Or launching. Or whatever.
# posted by : 11:07 AM
: 11:07 AM
Excellent contribution to this discussion. And I for one, completely agree with you about what I call “the indiscriminate use of the word ‘Kingdom’”. I pray that this whole discussion will prompt someone to ask the Lord what his/her next step is in being an “assistant to the Shepherd”.
# posted by : 11:07 AM
: 11:07 AM
How about another topic? Here's my two cents worth:
I agree that the Mediated Kingdom is in abeyance until the millennium. Of course, every time a believer is added to the church they are also added to the "royal family" of the kingdom. So in a real sense, church planters are working with Christ to build the kingdom even though it awaits actualization.
In the mean time, we remain subjects of what McClain calls the "Universal Kingdom of God." By this he means that God always rules all that exists in space and time without interruption.
So, as members of the universal kingdom gathered into the church awaiting the arrival of the mediated kingdom how should our local churches advance kingdom values in the communities they serve?
During the previous period of the Mediated Kingdom, Moses directed Israel, "to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?...For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:13-19)
How should we love the marginalized in our communities? How should that love inform our principles and practices of church planting? How should we defend and provide for the weak to advance the gospel?
I agree that the Mediated Kingdom is in abeyance until the millennium. Of course, every time a believer is added to the church they are also added to the "royal family" of the kingdom. So in a real sense, church planters are working with Christ to build the kingdom even though it awaits actualization.
In the mean time, we remain subjects of what McClain calls the "Universal Kingdom of God." By this he means that God always rules all that exists in space and time without interruption.
So, as members of the universal kingdom gathered into the church awaiting the arrival of the mediated kingdom how should our local churches advance kingdom values in the communities they serve?
During the previous period of the Mediated Kingdom, Moses directed Israel, "to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?...For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:13-19)
How should we love the marginalized in our communities? How should that love inform our principles and practices of church planting? How should we defend and provide for the weak to advance the gospel?
# posted by : 11:08 AM
: 11:08 AM
While not referring specifically to the kingdom, Lesslie Newbign says, "Almost everything in the 'plausibility structure' which is the habitation of our society [Western] seems to contradict this Christian hope. Everything suggests that it is absurd to believe that the true authority over all things is represented in a crucified man. No amount of brilliant argument can make it sound reasonable to the inhabitants of the reigning plausibility structure. This is why I am suggesting that the only possible hermeneutic of the gospel…" "is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it." The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 232, 227.
A most practical tip that I have heard concerning the relationship between the church and kingdom is from Jim Petersen, that the local church is a "free sample" of the kingdom. It should provide a true taste of what it is like to live where Jesus reigns. "The church is included in the kingdom, but the kingdom is much larger than the church."
It seems to me that the answer to the question "how do we, in the local church, incarnate the gospel?" will be context specific seeing how the gifts and resources of the local church can be used to live out tangibly the gospel in the community. E.g. our church in Dijon was thinking about starting a food bank, but we didn't have the personnel to handle the counseling of the street people who would benefit from it. We realized however that we did have many teachers and so they began to tutor, without charge, students who were having trouble at school. To summarize another of Newbigin's thoughts, I want to live and speak in a way that causes people to ask the question to which Jesus is the answer.
Pursuing the idea of the local church as a free sample of the kingdom, our thinking and practice, which is predominantly shaped by Pauline teaching and example, might be enriched by also considering how Jesus ministered to people because he said, "As the Father sent me, I am sending you" (John 20:21). Peter described Jesus on mission in the world by saying, "…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him" (Acts 10:38). One does not need to consider beginning a deliverance type ministry to learn from Jesus—doing good around us in the power of the Spirit to the glory of God. We are finding that this living of the gospel does indeed open doors for sharing the gospel but it is not a high impact approach; it is a strategy of smallness, of penetration into people's lives, of light, leaven, salt, seeds, water….
A most practical tip that I have heard concerning the relationship between the church and kingdom is from Jim Petersen, that the local church is a "free sample" of the kingdom. It should provide a true taste of what it is like to live where Jesus reigns. "The church is included in the kingdom, but the kingdom is much larger than the church."
It seems to me that the answer to the question "how do we, in the local church, incarnate the gospel?" will be context specific seeing how the gifts and resources of the local church can be used to live out tangibly the gospel in the community. E.g. our church in Dijon was thinking about starting a food bank, but we didn't have the personnel to handle the counseling of the street people who would benefit from it. We realized however that we did have many teachers and so they began to tutor, without charge, students who were having trouble at school. To summarize another of Newbigin's thoughts, I want to live and speak in a way that causes people to ask the question to which Jesus is the answer.
Pursuing the idea of the local church as a free sample of the kingdom, our thinking and practice, which is predominantly shaped by Pauline teaching and example, might be enriched by also considering how Jesus ministered to people because he said, "As the Father sent me, I am sending you" (John 20:21). Peter described Jesus on mission in the world by saying, "…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him" (Acts 10:38). One does not need to consider beginning a deliverance type ministry to learn from Jesus—doing good around us in the power of the Spirit to the glory of God. We are finding that this living of the gospel does indeed open doors for sharing the gospel but it is not a high impact approach; it is a strategy of smallness, of penetration into people's lives, of light, leaven, salt, seeds, water….
# posted by : 11:09 AM
: 11:09 AM
Where in the world did this conversation originate? Who really has time for this kind of discussion anyway?
# posted by : 1:35 PM
: 1:35 PM
I think this is a good discussion. Terry, why don't you make it it's own post?
Post a Comment
# posted by : 10:00 AM
: 10:00 AM << Home
