More Inside Missional Baseball
The goal of believers with a “Missional” outlook is to do things that will positively effect change in culture through the multiplication and growth of communities of believers. Such a cultural movement is usually called a church planting movement. These movements occur somewhat rarely but there are usually a few occurring somewhere in the world. A current and particularly exciting one has been featured in a book highlighting some of the factors and methods that helped this movement flourish.
The two factors that went unmentioned in the book are somewhat surprising and unexpected given that they go against a lot of the dominate thinking in missiology these days:
(1) The most successful work in the movement occurred where the established church was involved.
(2) The most successful planters and apostolic workers were open about their intentions and who they were.
These factors represent the opposite of what most people seeking movements are doing. In practice it is understandable. Established communities of believers tend to be out of touch with the culture around them. They also have a lot of “baggage” and imperfections that a church planter would like to avoid when starting new work. The temptation to do an end around many existing churches is strong. As to the second factor, many cultures can be closed to “Christian” workers. In most cases words like “Christian” and “Missionary” have taken on negative and mistaken meanings so it is either desirable or sometimes imperative to shy away from these labels. In an example of a pendulum overcorrection, many people seeking to aid movements have gone “under cover” as it were.
In truth, these factors should not come as a surprise. Good theology of missions would make them expected. The Bible is clear when it speaks of the Church effecting change in the world, and it should only be expected that churches as the people of God would have a role to play in accomplishing that purpose. It is also plain when it repeatedly says that followers of Jesus will be unpopular in the world. Seeking to be acceptable while carrying a message that is often unacceptable to our audience would naturally lead to that message being silenced or at least watered down to where it is ineffective.
The two factors that went unmentioned in the book are somewhat surprising and unexpected given that they go against a lot of the dominate thinking in missiology these days:
(1) The most successful work in the movement occurred where the established church was involved.
(2) The most successful planters and apostolic workers were open about their intentions and who they were.
These factors represent the opposite of what most people seeking movements are doing. In practice it is understandable. Established communities of believers tend to be out of touch with the culture around them. They also have a lot of “baggage” and imperfections that a church planter would like to avoid when starting new work. The temptation to do an end around many existing churches is strong. As to the second factor, many cultures can be closed to “Christian” workers. In most cases words like “Christian” and “Missionary” have taken on negative and mistaken meanings so it is either desirable or sometimes imperative to shy away from these labels. In an example of a pendulum overcorrection, many people seeking to aid movements have gone “under cover” as it were.
In truth, these factors should not come as a surprise. Good theology of missions would make them expected. The Bible is clear when it speaks of the Church effecting change in the world, and it should only be expected that churches as the people of God would have a role to play in accomplishing that purpose. It is also plain when it repeatedly says that followers of Jesus will be unpopular in the world. Seeking to be acceptable while carrying a message that is often unacceptable to our audience would naturally lead to that message being silenced or at least watered down to where it is ineffective.
Comments
Post a Comment