This past week, a GO team from Martinsburg, Pennsylvania was in London ministering with us and learning firsthand what ministry looks and feels like here. They had multiple opportunities to connect with people and help them take the next step in their spiritual journey. They provided the environment in which Monia, a new believer from a Muslim background, was able to share her salvation testimony for the first time. One team member, Dan, connected with Chris who lives on the streets of London – and shared the Gospel with him. Several of the team members helped show Christ's love through the Soup Kitchen at the American Church (see photo).
As Europe becomes more mobile and urbanized, a significant implication is the transiency of relationships – people with each other and in relation to the Church. People simply move more frequently. The consequences of this change are numerous – some positive and some negative.
On the negative side, it is increasingly rare for a person to live his/her entire Christian experience in one local church (i.e. first exposure to the Gospel, conversion, baptism, discipleship, service & outreach). Many relationships in the Body of Christ are short- rather than long-term.
But on the positive side, this increased mobility is a huge opportunity for the Gospel and Jesus’ Church. If we can plant the seed of the Church in individuals with whom we work, they can take that with them wherever they go.
In the midst of that mobility, God allows us to help in the journey of many individuals who may never be a part of one of our churches. But all of these small touches in Jesus’ name will see the larger Body of Christ built up and Jesus’ Church progress in a global sense, without necessarily being easily measurable.
Another example, a definite highlight for us this year, was the recent baptisms of Kim, Shaun and Steve. We know them through Goodenough Trust, where we lead a Bible-reading group each Tuesday evening. Just weeks after her conversion, Kim came on an April mission trip to Serbia with a whole group from Goodenough (I was a part of that group as well). During that trip and over the subsequent weeks, God used MaryAnn and myself in a discipling relationship which led to her baptism.
Kim may not become a member of a Grace Brethren Church, but God clearly used us in her life to move her to a point of believer’s baptism. And we count it a great privilege to be able to journey awhile with people like Kim, Monia and the Martinsburg GO team in their walk with Jesus.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The Trinity and teamwork
In April, on the flight back from GBIM board meetings, I read a doctoral thesis that needs to be broadly circulated—“God and Teamwork: Implications of the Unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for Christian Ministry Teams.”
Utilizing a biblical theological approach, Roger Peugh examined all Scriptural passages where at least two persons of the Trinity are mentioned. From these texts he distilled principles about how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit harmoniously and flawlessly participate together on mission, even though, as Roger says, “we can scarcely imagine the issues that God faces.”
Negatively, in the godhead there are no pride or related attitudinal problems, no selfishness or self-seeking, no power struggles, no sinful or self-driven competition, no jealousy, no evil suspicions, no lack of trust, no ulterior motives, no hatred, no resentment, no communication problems, no miscommunication, no misunderstandings, no lying deceit or exaggeration, no tension, no backbiting, no slander, no gossip, no put downs, no griping or complaining about situations or other teammates, no work related problems, no failure, no laziness, no unfaithfulness, no disappointment, no betrayal, no insecurity, no negative surprises.
Positively, the three persons of the Trinity enjoy unity of being, love, trust, submission, honor, respect, fellowship, communication, mutual support, faithfulness, loyalty, clarity regarding personal identity, all functioning simultaneously.
Whew, talk about a utopian spiritual community!
Sadly, American evangelical missions are characterized by discord that clouds our collective luminescence. Missional teams talk about birthing spiritual communities, but all too often do not connect the dots between teamwork and spiritual community.
Our unity wordlessly declares that Jesus was sent by the Father and that He loves the people of the world. But if teammates do not palpably love each other why should others to believe that the Father loves them? (see Francis Schaeffer, "The Mark of the Christian") If we talk about teamwork, but cannot get teams to work, what makes us believe that we will do better with spiritual communities?
So to practice teamwork and give some examples of evangelicals of common heart and vision serving Christ together on mission, a friend and colleague, Tom Barlow, will be making contributions to this blog.
To start things off, Tom will be sharing practical examples of some Grace Brethren colleagues who are serving with other evangelical groups on mission in Europe. (Tom, himself, is partnering with the American Church in London, England.) Of course, he has his own style and focus; and I am quite confident that the diversity Tom brings will be both refreshing and appreciated!
May our missionary God be pleased with this micro-example of collaborating together to the glory of Jesus.
Utilizing a biblical theological approach, Roger Peugh examined all Scriptural passages where at least two persons of the Trinity are mentioned. From these texts he distilled principles about how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit harmoniously and flawlessly participate together on mission, even though, as Roger says, “we can scarcely imagine the issues that God faces.”
Negatively, in the godhead there are no pride or related attitudinal problems, no selfishness or self-seeking, no power struggles, no sinful or self-driven competition, no jealousy, no evil suspicions, no lack of trust, no ulterior motives, no hatred, no resentment, no communication problems, no miscommunication, no misunderstandings, no lying deceit or exaggeration, no tension, no backbiting, no slander, no gossip, no put downs, no griping or complaining about situations or other teammates, no work related problems, no failure, no laziness, no unfaithfulness, no disappointment, no betrayal, no insecurity, no negative surprises.
Positively, the three persons of the Trinity enjoy unity of being, love, trust, submission, honor, respect, fellowship, communication, mutual support, faithfulness, loyalty, clarity regarding personal identity, all functioning simultaneously.
Whew, talk about a utopian spiritual community!
digging teamwork in Dijon
J-P says, "Teamwork makes me strong!"
Sadly, American evangelical missions are characterized by discord that clouds our collective luminescence. Missional teams talk about birthing spiritual communities, but all too often do not connect the dots between teamwork and spiritual community.
Our unity wordlessly declares that Jesus was sent by the Father and that He loves the people of the world. But if teammates do not palpably love each other why should others to believe that the Father loves them? (see Francis Schaeffer, "The Mark of the Christian") If we talk about teamwork, but cannot get teams to work, what makes us believe that we will do better with spiritual communities?
Jesus prayfully expressed it to his Father this way
(The Message John 17:21-23):
(The Message John 17:21-23):
“The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind—
Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
So they might be one heart and mind with us.
Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.…
I in them and you in me.
Then they'll be mature in this oneness,
And give the godless world evidence
That you’ve sent me and loved them.”
Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
So they might be one heart and mind with us.
Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.…
I in them and you in me.
Then they'll be mature in this oneness,
And give the godless world evidence
That you’ve sent me and loved them.”
So to practice teamwork and give some examples of evangelicals of common heart and vision serving Christ together on mission, a friend and colleague, Tom Barlow, will be making contributions to this blog.
Tom (above) and I have been on mission together in Europe for over fifteen years
To start things off, Tom will be sharing practical examples of some Grace Brethren colleagues who are serving with other evangelical groups on mission in Europe. (Tom, himself, is partnering with the American Church in London, England.) Of course, he has his own style and focus; and I am quite confident that the diversity Tom brings will be both refreshing and appreciated!
May our missionary God be pleased with this micro-example of collaborating together to the glory of Jesus.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Who is farther from God ?
Who is farther from God, the Australian aborigine animist in the bush wearing a loincloth or the Parisian positivist on the Riviera wearing a monokini?
This is the introduction to the last set of entries in the series, “religious smoke, philosophical mirrors and cultural incandescence.” I have blogged on these subjects in order to:
Explain some of the dynamics of mission in Europe.
Question: “Why is evangelism and church planting slower in Europe than elsewhere?”
Answer: the Crusades, the Inquisition and atheistic philosophy have created a culture that conditions Europeans to have an allergic reaction to the gospel.
Explain contextualization.
Question: “Why don’t apostles (‘sent ones’ / cross-cultural missioners) to Europe just use proven American methods to share the gospel and plant churches?”
Answer: The role of the missioner in any culture is to share Jesus and his riches using local language, expressions, thought forms and behavior, not foreign ones (Eph. 3:8-9).
I therefore encourage the GBIM team to act and speak in a way that will cause Europeans to ask the question to which Jesus is the answer.
For example, Paul knew how to talk and behave as an “outlaw” (anomos — one without law 1 Cor. 9:21), while remaining scrupulously careful not to sin. And with unrighteous clergy, the apostle-as-chameleon became convincingly religious in order to win them to Christ.
Affirm that the need for missioners to Europe is real.
Question (a person in a Grace Brethren church asked me this): “Why are you a missionary to France, they are all Christians aren’t they?”
Answer: 1 out of 3 Americans claims to be evangelical. 1 out of 250 French people claims to be evangelical. Europe needs missioners who incarnate and articulate the good news of Christ.
Suggest that the lessons that apostles to Europe are learning could prove valuable to believers in the United States. I often receive the comment, “Yes, it is like that here (in the U.S.) too.” Well, not really, but there are similarities and we can practice cross-pollination, learning from one another.
Remind that prayer is utterly essential. I request your prayers for Europeans, that they would see the glorious light of the gospel of Christ and not be blinded by religious carnage, atheistic philosophy and the incandescence of their culture. More about that soon…
Question: So what about the aborigine and the Parisian?
Answer 1: Arguably the aborigine animist is farther from God if the light of the gospel has never reached him. Apostles need to take the gospel to him.
Answer 2: Arguably the Parisian positivist is farther from God because, unlike aborigine, s/he believes neither in God nor gods. Religious carnage, atheistic philosophy and high civilization have blinded her/him from sensing her/his need for Christ.
By the way, 22% of the detribalized aborigines of Australia are evangelical; only 0.4% of the French people group is evangelical. (see http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php).
This is the introduction to the last set of entries in the series, “religious smoke, philosophical mirrors and cultural incandescence.” I have blogged on these subjects in order to:
Explain some of the dynamics of mission in Europe.
Question: “Why is evangelism and church planting slower in Europe than elsewhere?”
Answer: the Crusades, the Inquisition and atheistic philosophy have created a culture that conditions Europeans to have an allergic reaction to the gospel.
Explain contextualization.
Question: “Why don’t apostles (‘sent ones’ / cross-cultural missioners) to Europe just use proven American methods to share the gospel and plant churches?”
Answer: The role of the missioner in any culture is to share Jesus and his riches using local language, expressions, thought forms and behavior, not foreign ones (Eph. 3:8-9).
I therefore encourage the GBIM team to act and speak in a way that will cause Europeans to ask the question to which Jesus is the answer.
For example, Paul knew how to talk and behave as an “outlaw” (anomos — one without law 1 Cor. 9:21), while remaining scrupulously careful not to sin. And with unrighteous clergy, the apostle-as-chameleon became convincingly religious in order to win them to Christ.
Question (a person in a Grace Brethren church asked me this): “Why are you a missionary to France, they are all Christians aren’t they?”
Answer: 1 out of 3 Americans claims to be evangelical. 1 out of 250 French people claims to be evangelical. Europe needs missioners who incarnate and articulate the good news of Christ.
Suggest that the lessons that apostles to Europe are learning could prove valuable to believers in the United States. I often receive the comment, “Yes, it is like that here (in the U.S.) too.” Well, not really, but there are similarities and we can practice cross-pollination, learning from one another.
Remind that prayer is utterly essential. I request your prayers for Europeans, that they would see the glorious light of the gospel of Christ and not be blinded by religious carnage, atheistic philosophy and the incandescence of their culture. More about that soon…
Question: So what about the aborigine and the Parisian?
Answer 1: Arguably the aborigine animist is farther from God if the light of the gospel has never reached him. Apostles need to take the gospel to him.
Answer 2: Arguably the Parisian positivist is farther from God because, unlike aborigine, s/he believes neither in God nor gods. Religious carnage, atheistic philosophy and high civilization have blinded her/him from sensing her/his need for Christ.
By the way, 22% of the detribalized aborigines of Australia are evangelical; only 0.4% of the French people group is evangelical. (see http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php).
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Contextualization: tailoring good news
In the United States, 1 out of every 3 people claims to be “evangelical.”
In France, 1 out of every 250 people claims to be “evangelical.”
In my last blog entry I claimed that this makes a difference in how one goes about sharing the gospel.
France’s past (see RELIGIOUS SMOKE blogs) explains its paucity of evangelicals. Christ must, therefore, be shared in ways that the French understand in light of, and in spite of, their past in order to help them journey toward a relationship with Him in the present and experience intense enjoyment with Him in the future. This is contextualization.
By the way, contextualization needs to be applied everywhere, whether it be the Czech Republic, the Central African Republic, Canada, S. Carolina or S. California. The gospel never changes, but the way it is presented must be tailored to the person in light of her/his culture and context.
As Lesslie Newbigin stated, “[Contextualization] directs attention to the actual context, shaped by the past and open to the future, in which the gospel has to be embodied now."
So let's look at contemporary France's context. It was founded upon the thinking of philosophers reacting to religious carnage. These secular prophets excoriated the monarchy and Catholic authorities for their atrocities. While the philosophers denounced religious abuses they freely borrowed Christian concepts and ideals, stripping them of Christianity (and later God) to form the intellectual foundation upon which many Europeans build their lives today.
The following is an overview of a few major philosophical voices and the foundation stones that they laid. From their writings one sees that much European thinking has been staunchly anti-religious since 18th century when the United States became one nation under God. The philosophers' teachings are a major cause for the slowness of evangelism and disciple making in France today.
We will pick up the story in the 16th century…
THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHERS REACTED AGAINST THE CARNAGE ENGENDERED BY RELIGION WEDDED TO MONARCHICAL POWER
More than 4,000 Huguenots (believing French Protestants) were murdered in Paris during the Saint Bartholomew massacre (April 24, 1572). Neither women, nor children were spared. “The bodies, stripped naked, were thrown into the Seine,” a nationwide persecution ensued.
Louis XIV abrogated the Edict of Nantes (1685) and sent out the dragoons, the “booted missionaries.” “These soldiers lodged themselves in Protestant homes and exerted immense pressure so that the people would return to the religion of the king: theft, violence, rape were the means used by these ‘converters.’”
Protestant "pastors had two weeks to leave France, while the other Protestants were no longer permitted to leave France, under pain of the galleys or prison.” It is said that when the Huguenots emigrated France lost its soul.
PHILOSPHERS CREATED A FRENCH FOUNDATION BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES PURGED OF GOD
Philosophers decried the harshness and the Wars of Religion. Christendom (the dominant religion wedded with the political power of the Monarchy) incontrovertibly proved itself to be murderous and was “denounced as superstition.” The stage was thus set for the French Revolution.
The French Revolution freed the people from the domination and abuses of the allied French monarchy and Roman church. The revolutionaries dealt with those institutions in a way that resembled Old Testament judgments and established a secular state based upon Christian and Enlightenment values. The resulting French Republic was designed to promote the Rights of Man and to protect its people from religious power.
Robespierre, on the eve of the apex of the Terror (June 8, 1794), formally introduced the worship of the Supreme Being. Though his brand of religion did not last long, deism became the predominant belief of the Enlightenment with the philosophers as its high priests.
Voltaire (1694-1778), denounced the religious hypocrisy of his day. In "Candide or optimism" (required reading in many French high schools today), the main character was interested in seeing the priests of the country of Eldorado. The old man with whom he spoke replied, “My friend, said he, we are all priests.” Candide retorts, “What! You have no monks who teach, who argue, who govern, who plot, and who burn the people who are not in agreement with them?”
Voltaire described the reputation of the religious leaders of his day; he was instrumental in transitioning France from Catholicism to deism, from the pre-modern era ruled by religious tradition, to the modern era ruled by reason. The Enlightenment accelerated, and its “deadening effects” in the religious sphere spread like a black plague.
August Comte (1798-1857) birthed Positivism, “which for many intellectuals… became a substitute for Christianity.” Positivism was the belief in “an invincible law of the progress of the human mind, to replace theological beliefs or metaphysical explanation.” It had “place neither for ‘subjective knowledge,’ nor for the idea that truth might vary according to its context.”
Positivism's hope was placed in politics that were “founded on a rational organization of society, as well as on a new religion without God: the religion of Humanity.” Positivism presupposed that “humans always act rationally.” This was the twilight of religion; the light of science had come. And the Enlightenment juggernaut plowed through the West.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) continued the deification of Man. Nietzsche's superman, Zarathustra, guided Western people into the 20th century declaring, “God is dead."
HOW'S YOUR CONTEXTUALIZATION?
Americans may react to all of this saying, "So what? Nobody reads philosophy anyway!" Not so. It is part of my cultural context. My son is a senior in French public high school. Phillip is a music major, but nonetheless has six hours of philosophy class per week (four hours on Monday morning!). His required reading list includes Voltaire, Rousseau, Zola, Diderot, Camus, Sartre and others.
If you are American, you been heavily influenced by the thoughts of the Founding Fathers (whether or not you have read their works). If you are an American evangelical, how much are you influenced by writers such as D. James Kennedy, Ravi Zacharias, Bill Hybels, Lee Stroble, Rick Warren and others? That is how much Europeans are influenced by the philosophers.
The philosophers' staunchly secular teachings, concomitantly based upon and hostile towards Christendom, are accepted or assimilated by most Europeans. The philosophers' defense against religious atrocities was to embed secular armor into people's intellect through their teachings.
In light of this French and European context, Stuart Murray says, “In post-Christendom evangelism and discipling will both take longer. Evangelism will start further back and move more slowly;… Patience is essential for mission and community-building after Christendom."
By the way, how is your contextualization? My context causes people to be harder toward the gospel because "Christians" in my city burned Protestants at the stake.
Are you faithful to keep the gospel unadulterated while tailor-making its presentation to your interlocutor? (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Colossians 4.3-6). Are the non-Christians around you really understanding who Christ is and what life with Him could be like? Or have you been ignoring historical and cultural elements that are keeping your unbelieving friends from wanting to know Him? How might you tailor your presentations of the good news in order to help them to become better acquainted with Jesus?
Sources (you can purchase the philosopy books mentioned above at Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/) :
Lesslie Newbigin, “Can the West be Converted?” 2.
Bost, 90, 142;
Denimal, 59-60, 63-64;
Latourette, 765-769, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1015, 1063;
Voltaire, “Candide ou l’optimisme,” 315.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire," 58, 206;
La Philosophie de A à Z (Paris: Hatier, 2000), 78.Friedrich Nietzsche, "Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra," 116-117.
Stuart Murray, "Church After Christendom," 156.
In France, 1 out of every 250 people claims to be “evangelical.”
In my last blog entry I claimed that this makes a difference in how one goes about sharing the gospel.
France’s past (see RELIGIOUS SMOKE blogs) explains its paucity of evangelicals. Christ must, therefore, be shared in ways that the French understand in light of, and in spite of, their past in order to help them journey toward a relationship with Him in the present and experience intense enjoyment with Him in the future. This is contextualization.
By the way, contextualization needs to be applied everywhere, whether it be the Czech Republic, the Central African Republic, Canada, S. Carolina or S. California. The gospel never changes, but the way it is presented must be tailored to the person in light of her/his culture and context.
As Lesslie Newbigin stated, “[Contextualization] directs attention to the actual context, shaped by the past and open to the future, in which the gospel has to be embodied now."
So let's look at contemporary France's context. It was founded upon the thinking of philosophers reacting to religious carnage. These secular prophets excoriated the monarchy and Catholic authorities for their atrocities. While the philosophers denounced religious abuses they freely borrowed Christian concepts and ideals, stripping them of Christianity (and later God) to form the intellectual foundation upon which many Europeans build their lives today.
The following is an overview of a few major philosophical voices and the foundation stones that they laid. From their writings one sees that much European thinking has been staunchly anti-religious since 18th century when the United States became one nation under God. The philosophers' teachings are a major cause for the slowness of evangelism and disciple making in France today.
We will pick up the story in the 16th century…
THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHERS REACTED AGAINST THE CARNAGE ENGENDERED BY RELIGION WEDDED TO MONARCHICAL POWER
More than 4,000 Huguenots (believing French Protestants) were murdered in Paris during the Saint Bartholomew massacre (April 24, 1572). Neither women, nor children were spared. “The bodies, stripped naked, were thrown into the Seine,” a nationwide persecution ensued.
The French monarchy and Roman church joined forces in slaughtering the Huguenots
A Catholic neighbor invited my wife to go see the film "La Reine Margot" which depicts the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Afterward she exclaimed to Louise, "Why did I have to pick this film to see with you (a Protestant) ?!"
Louis XIV abrogated the Edict of Nantes (1685) and sent out the dragoons, the “booted missionaries.” “These soldiers lodged themselves in Protestant homes and exerted immense pressure so that the people would return to the religion of the king: theft, violence, rape were the means used by these ‘converters.’”
King Louis XIV
The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV
Protestant "pastors had two weeks to leave France, while the other Protestants were no longer permitted to leave France, under pain of the galleys or prison.” It is said that when the Huguenots emigrated France lost its soul.
PHILOSPHERS CREATED A FRENCH FOUNDATION BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES PURGED OF GOD
Philosophers decried the harshness and the Wars of Religion. Christendom (the dominant religion wedded with the political power of the Monarchy) incontrovertibly proved itself to be murderous and was “denounced as superstition.” The stage was thus set for the French Revolution.
The storming of the Bastille
“It is highly significant that this series of revolutions had its beginning and its early course in Christendom and that the ideas which inspired and shaped them had their birth and initial formulations in lands and among peoples which for centuries had been under the influence of Christianity. Many of the revolutionary programmes repudiated that faith, but most and perhaps all of them embodied ideals and conceptions which had come through it. They took only part of what had been given by Christianity and to a lesser or greater extent distorted what they took, but even when they did not recognize or acknowledge their source, they were deeply indebted to it."
Even though the French Revolution and the subsequent revolutions it catalyzed attempted to make breaks from religion, many Christian concepts were nonetheless retained; Christian ideals simply assumed secular forms. Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette comments:
The French Revolution freed the people from the domination and abuses of the allied French monarchy and Roman church. The revolutionaries dealt with those institutions in a way that resembled Old Testament judgments and established a secular state based upon Christian and Enlightenment values. The resulting French Republic was designed to promote the Rights of Man and to protect its people from religious power.
Robespierre, on the eve of the apex of the Terror (June 8, 1794), formally introduced the worship of the Supreme Being. Though his brand of religion did not last long, deism became the predominant belief of the Enlightenment with the philosophers as its high priests.
Robespierre and "the Terror"
Voltaire (1694-1778), denounced the religious hypocrisy of his day. In "Candide or optimism" (required reading in many French high schools today), the main character was interested in seeing the priests of the country of Eldorado. The old man with whom he spoke replied, “My friend, said he, we are all priests.” Candide retorts, “What! You have no monks who teach, who argue, who govern, who plot, and who burn the people who are not in agreement with them?”
Voltaire described the reputation of the religious leaders of his day; he was instrumental in transitioning France from Catholicism to deism, from the pre-modern era ruled by religious tradition, to the modern era ruled by reason. The Enlightenment accelerated, and its “deadening effects” in the religious sphere spread like a black plague.
The French title of Voltaire's book is "Candide ou l'optimisme" (Naïve or optimism)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) spoke of the “ardent missionaries of atheism” of the late 18th century. Then the 19th century saw “movements which seemed to threaten the very existence of the faith” in Europe. People increasingly put their belief in Man, in reason, in progress.
In "Reveries of the Solitary Walker," Rousseau presented his revelation that “man is naturally good and it is by these institutions alone that men become evil!”
August Comte (1798-1857) birthed Positivism, “which for many intellectuals… became a substitute for Christianity.” Positivism was the belief in “an invincible law of the progress of the human mind, to replace theological beliefs or metaphysical explanation.” It had “place neither for ‘subjective knowledge,’ nor for the idea that truth might vary according to its context.”
Positivism's hope was placed in politics that were “founded on a rational organization of society, as well as on a new religion without God: the religion of Humanity.” Positivism presupposed that “humans always act rationally.” This was the twilight of religion; the light of science had come. And the Enlightenment juggernaut plowed through the West.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) continued the deification of Man. Nietzsche's superman, Zarathustra, guided Western people into the 20th century declaring, “God is dead."
HOW'S YOUR CONTEXTUALIZATION?
Americans may react to all of this saying, "So what? Nobody reads philosophy anyway!" Not so. It is part of my cultural context. My son is a senior in French public high school. Phillip is a music major, but nonetheless has six hours of philosophy class per week (four hours on Monday morning!). His required reading list includes Voltaire, Rousseau, Zola, Diderot, Camus, Sartre and others.
If you are American, you been heavily influenced by the thoughts of the Founding Fathers (whether or not you have read their works). If you are an American evangelical, how much are you influenced by writers such as D. James Kennedy, Ravi Zacharias, Bill Hybels, Lee Stroble, Rick Warren and others? That is how much Europeans are influenced by the philosophers.
The philosophers' staunchly secular teachings, concomitantly based upon and hostile towards Christendom, are accepted or assimilated by most Europeans. The philosophers' defense against religious atrocities was to embed secular armor into people's intellect through their teachings.
In light of this French and European context, Stuart Murray says, “In post-Christendom evangelism and discipling will both take longer. Evangelism will start further back and move more slowly;… Patience is essential for mission and community-building after Christendom."
By the way, how is your contextualization? My context causes people to be harder toward the gospel because "Christians" in my city burned Protestants at the stake.
Are you faithful to keep the gospel unadulterated while tailor-making its presentation to your interlocutor? (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Colossians 4.3-6). Are the non-Christians around you really understanding who Christ is and what life with Him could be like? Or have you been ignoring historical and cultural elements that are keeping your unbelieving friends from wanting to know Him? How might you tailor your presentations of the good news in order to help them to become better acquainted with Jesus?
Sources (you can purchase the philosopy books mentioned above at Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/) :
Lesslie Newbigin, “Can the West be Converted?” 2.
Bost, 90, 142;
Denimal, 59-60, 63-64;
Latourette, 765-769, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1015, 1063;
Voltaire, “Candide ou l’optimisme,” 315.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire," 58, 206;
La Philosophie de A à Z (Paris: Hatier, 2000), 78.Friedrich Nietzsche, "Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra," 116-117.
Stuart Murray, "Church After Christendom," 156.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)