Thursday, February 25, 2010

Missional Literature Review - Part 2 - Commonly Held Reasons for Change: The Argument from Contextual Change

Commonly Held Reasons to Adopt Missional Living
A review of the literature clearly documents a call for the church and its programs to change. The call for change most commonly begins from one of three starting points: contextual change in the West, the institutional crisis facing the Church, or a personal crisis of faith (Junkin, 1996). Though not as common as the previous three starting points, a missional hermeneutic is also beginning to gain ground as a foundation upon which the need for change is established. (see Wright, 2006). Though each of the four starting points are distinct, they are often connected and interdependent as they form one powerful argument concerning the need for the church to change in the West.

Argument from Contextual Change
The notion that the world is changing is certainly nothing new to most contemporary people. It might seem, then, that the call for the church to change that arises from an analysis of contextual change in the world is unnecessary. However, the authors from whom the contextual analysis come claim that the change currently taking place in the world is abnormal, “discontinuous change” (Roxburgh, 2006, p. 7). Roxburgh (2006) categorizes discontinuous change as “disruptive and unanticipated” (p. 7) and claims it always challenges commonly held assumptions.

Though no one seems to be able to define, list, and name the discontinuous change in precisely the same way, the same general culprits of change are often repeated: globalization, religious and cultural pluralism, relativization or democratization of knowledge, advances of science and technology, the collapse of Enlightenment and modern principles and worldviews, growth of postmodernism, secularization of the West, dominance of capitalism and the continue presence of a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and the loss of confidence in primary social structures and relationships (Bosch, 1991; Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994; Hirsch, 2006; Roxburgh, 2006, 2008; Turnipseed, 1998; Van Gelder, 1996, 1998). Summarizing these changes, Wright (2006) says the Enlightenment Tower of Babel built in modernity has collapsed into the fragmented world of post-modernity.

Within the new, fragmented, and confusing world, the position of the church in the West has been drastically altered. Religious diversity has created an environment for individualized faith to flourish and true religion to fade in the light of uncertainty (Turnipseed, 1998). Secularization has de-Christianized the West, leading to a commonly held belief throughout the world that Western theology is suspect at best (Bosch, 1991). It is in this light of a new world and a new position for the church that the call for a missional change comes. The church must realize the West is a “mission field” (Roxburgh & Boren, 2009, p. 75) and should see itself with “exilic eyes as ‘resident aliens,’ an adventurous colony in a society of unbelief” (Hunsberger, 1996, p. 18).

Monday, February 22, 2010

Missional Literature Review - Part 1: Introduction

As part of an Action Research Project being done for the completion of my M.A in Ministry degree, I am researching churches that are transitioning to a more missional identity and structure, particularly in the area of small groups. Over the next several days, I will post short sections from the literature review portion of the paper. If you would like information on any of the cited references, I would be happy to assist. Also, I would love to hear your response to what the literature seems to be saying.

INTRODUCTION
Criticism of the small group movements of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s is growing increasingly strong. For instance, Boren (2007) writes, “In short, good old American pragmatism [has] turned small groups into a modernistic program that leaders could control and produce growth. … Most of us bought into a set of small-group myths that resulted in growth but little radical transformation” (p. 10). Hirsch (2007) is another example, claiming small groups were used as nothing more than “prop-ups to the ‘real-deal,’ weekend-based church” (p. 4). Smith (2007) is perhaps most scathing of all, saying small groups quickly became “protective, hoarding, territorial and inwardly focused” (p. 15) in the old system.

In addition to this critique of small group movements, Paul M. and Inagrace T. Dietterich (1994) comment on the nature of the church of recent history in the West and call for a missional transformation, claiming the church is caught in “the trap of success” and suffers from “success syndrome [emphasis in original]: a pattern of organizational thinking, behavior, and functioning” (p. 5). Symptoms of the syndrome include insular thinking, parochialism, complacency, and belief in infallibility (Dietterich, 1994). Churches caught in this trap rely on what worked in the past when confronted with new challenges and are unable to be open and creative or accept new ideas and insights. Such churches need a “dramatic shock” to challenge and change the “theological self-understanding” of the church body and bring it into an “entirely new frame of reference” (Dietterich, 1994). Many authors contend that a transition to missional living in congregations is the needed corrective for the problems facing both small group ministries and the institutional church (see Barrett, 2004; Boren, 2007, 2010; Carter, 2009; Dieterrich & Dietterich, 1994; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal 2009; Rouse & Van Gelder, 2008; Van Gelder, 2007).

The critique levied against the small groups and the institutional or “Established Church” (Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994) by missional scholars and authors is pointed and clear. Less clear, however, are the solutions offered or the changes proposed. Roxburgh and Boren (2009) admit that the missional concept is hard to define and avoid limiting their thinking to models and structures, leaving many pragmatists wondering how to do missional living in their churches. The missional concept is compared to a flowing river (Boren & Roxburgh, 2009), “not a what but a who,” [emphasis in original] (McNeal, 2009, p. 20), and a Spirit-led initiative unique in every local context (Van Gelder, 2007). Trying to identify clear proposals and solutions to problems in missional literature can be much like grasping at air. Those who write in this field not only recognize this difficulty, but also celebrate it as a move away from the rigid programs in recent church history and toward a more contextual ministry (e.g. Roxburgh & Boren, 2009).

Though writers at times attempt to refrain from limiting missional concepts to definitions and models, a review of the literature seems to show commonalities among scholars, authors, and practitioners alike. The commonalities occur in the areas of why the church needs to live missionally, what missional living looks like, and how Christian communities can begin the missional transition process.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Gracious Intrusion

     Genesis is an absolutely fascinating read. The author of Genesis, traditionally believed to be Moses, used a literary device to clearly mark ten headings (like chapter titles) throughout the book. The Hebrew phrase ‘elleh toledot occurs eleven times in the book of Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1 [36:9]; 37:2) and has been translated in many ways including “these are the generations of,” “this is the family history of,” “this is the history of the descendants of” and “this is the account of.”  When these headings are in view, the structure of Genesis is seen as follows: a prologue describing the significance of creation, followed by ten stories of the people of God.
     As the ten stories (or chapters) of Genesis are read, a pattern becomes evident.  One author described this pattern as the sovereign and gracious intrusion of God into human history.  God did not simply create humans and then step back and allow them to do their own thing.  Instead, God worked to ensure humans would fulfill his purposes, despite their obvious sinfulness and short comings.  This is most clearly seen with Abraham and his descendants.
     In Genesis 12, God promises Abraham that He will give him a land, make him a blessing, and grow a nation or people through him.  The rest of the book of Genesis details God building the nation/people.  Constantly God is forced to overcome threats to this promise created by human sinfulness or stupidity.  For instance, Abraham and his descendants are constantly taking matters into their own hands, instead of seeking out God's plans.  Abraham sleeps with his maidservant to have a child, believing Sarah to be barren.  God intervenes to build the lineage through Sarah. Threat solved.  Then God tells Abraham to kill his only son, Isaac.  This is an obvious threat to the lineage.  God provides a ram - threat solved.  One day Abraham thinks it would be a good idea to tell a foreign king Sarah is his sister.  The king takes Sarah as one of his lady-friends.  Again, God has to act, sending a sickness until the king figures out what has happened - threat solved.  Surprisingly, Isaac will do the same exact thing with his wife.  Jacob steals the blessing of Esau, causing enmity between the two brothers.  Jacob's father-in-law later tries to hunt him down. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery.  Enslaved in Egypt, Joseph is falsely accused and thrown in jail.  Meanwhile, his family is about to start starving due to a famine.  What does God do?  He graciously intervenes each time his people are threatened and builds them into a great nation.
     Through the story of Joseph, Jacob's people, the descendants of Abraham, end up in Egypt.  Once in Egypt, they are incubated for about 400 years until God releases his huge nation from their captivity to fulfill his purposes in the world.  God graciously intrudes into human history to ensure his purposes are realized on this earth.
     God still graciously intrudes into this world to see his purposes fulfilled and he continues to build his people to carry out these purposes.  The church is one mechanism of God's gracious intrusion into the world.  Therefore, I contend it is the responsibility and role of every Christian and every Christian community to graciously intrude into the lives of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, sports teams, social clubs, etc.  In recent history, a growing number of voices are calling for the church to begin to refocus on graciously intruding in the lives of those in the community.  I agree, and often find myself asking, Who's life am I intruding with the grace of God?  My guess is we should all be asking this question.