Back to school: teachers' workshop

Many of us were trained to teach monologically; this was presented as the "Biblical" way of teaching. E.g. in Acts 20:7 one might get the impression that Paul soliloquized so long that Eutychus fell asleep and out the window!

Some people monologue rather well…

The verb dialegeto, however, is variously translated as “spoke” (NIV), “began talking” (NASB), “kept on talking,” “dialogued” (Birkey, 54), or “conducted a discussion” (BAGD, 185).

F.F. Bruce (425) comments, "A conversation rather than an address is indicated, a 'sermon' in the etymological sense of the word (Lat. sermo, 'conversation')."

Birkey (56) reminds, “We must not forget that the New Testament ideas of Christian education are built upon a ‘Hebrew model’ of the Old Testament, which placed the responsibility in the locus of home life (cf. Deut. 6:1-9),” the head of the household informally teaching those under his roof. Also in the Hebrew tradition, rabbis were known for their Q&A approach to teaching.
So some GBIM Europe teammates went back to school, sort of, to explore dialogical, interactive teaching.

(Note: We began gift-based workshops a few years ago to hone our skills and cultivate the gifts the Spirit has given us. Other workshops this year: apostolic, shepherds' and evangelists'.)

Susie, Tom, David, Roy, Scott, John & Louise
November 2008 Teachers' Workshop - Dublin, Ireland

Tom in action

Organizer Tom Barlow had us read articles on dialogical teaching and Günter Krallmann’s book, “Mentoring for Mission.”

He also asked us to share interactively on one of the following:

• What is the sermon you remember the best? Why?
• What person had the greatest impact on your Christian growth? What made their impact so powerful?
• Who is the person you have impacted the most? What methods did you use? What are the signs of your impact?
• What methods did Jesus use to teach / influence others?

Was the workshop helpful? Here are a few teammates comments:

I just want you to know that I had one of the best workshop experiences with all of you this past week! What a joy it was to be able to hear and glean from your rich experiences. Thank you all so much for letting God use you in my life this past week! God is using you in the European body of Christ to help me to grow. What a fantastic week!!! Thank you all so VERY MUCH! And Tom, Thank you for leading us in this great experience.
...

Let me add my thanks and appreciation to all of you for your part in making for a super experience during our days together in Dublin. Special thanks to Tom for creating an atmosphere in which everyone could feel free to share openly.
...

I will add my kudos and appreciation to the teammates who were [in Dublin] last week. It was a great time together and to experience some of what we were talking about, i.e. "withness". Great job, Tom, for prompting us and spurring us on. I am still trying to figure out which of the cats in the cat-herder clip I seem most like.

Some highlights that I mentioned in my presentation from Günter Krallman's book, Mentoring for Mission.

Spend quantities of quality time together
The “essential with-ness principle.” (19)

Mark 1:14 “that they might be with him.” (52-53)

“On the basis of such with-ness he generated a dynamic process of life-transference which was meant to foster wholistic maturity in his friends.” (13)

Consociation - togetherness
“Hence he made the experience of his with-ness the pivot of their training. 'Jesus had no formal curriculum'… no classroom syllabus. Instead, he called his disciples to be with him.” (53)

Coleman, “Truth was not taught in abstract doctrines or regulations; it was caught in the experience of their shared life.” (53)

“He first majored on making friends and only later on sending out apostles (Mk 3:14).” (55)

Discipleship
"The favorite image and the technical term Jesus chose for this action-charged procedure was ‘to follow’ (Greek akoloutheo) him as Master. He viewed discipling as life-transference through the channel of relationship, and not a mere intellectual absorption of certain theoretical precepts." (57)

Priority people come first
“Jesus made himself more readily available to them than to anyone else (Mk 9:30-31), took a special interest in their understanding of his teaching and mission.” (54)
“The time which Jesus invested in these few disciples was so much more by comparison to that given to others that it can only be regarded as a deliberate strategy.” (54)

CM: the reluctant bride

While postmodern Christ followers may condemn inherited church people of being Borg-ish (see last entry), modernist church leaders condemn emerging church people of being a reluctant brides.

Last year I team taught a course entitled, “Guiding Principles for the people of God in a postmodern world.” The most FAQ was how to make disciples — people who obey Jesus from a heart of love — among people between the ages of 20-30. Here is how participants expressed their frustration:

“Here is one general frustration I have: A lack of genuine commitment. Not just to spiritual things (church, personal study, etc.) but a lack of commitment in general. Commitment to work, to relationships and family.”

“Frustrations: They have a lack of commitment.”

“Frustrations [from a pastor under age thirty]… HIGHLY CAPABLE…yet low overall commitment… My frustration is in connecting with this group of people. Not just seeing them connecting for a while then disappear then re-appearing…they are a fluid group…which is cool and frustrating!!”
So can the Bride remain uncommitted?
Would that not frustrate the Groom?!

Marriage involves commitment that leads to greater depth of relationship and birth of society. Marriage represents the ultimate unity of spirit and soul, culminating in bodily oneness. From this union children are born.

Oneness requires the security of righteous acceptance, selfless encouragement, fidelity (no competitors) and unconditional love that “always protects, always trusts, always hopes, [and] always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:7). Such security requires commitment.

One’s wedding day represents the ultimate commitment in human life, a decision of total partnership and sharing “for better or worse.” But for postmodernists, commitment and submission have resulted in the worst.

Translation: "You are divorcing dad. Why can't I divorce my brother? I can't stand him either!"

Many young people fear commitment because they have seen vows broken by their parents. Rampant divorce has hindered them from understanding the value of commitment, submission and sacrificial love—necessary ingredients to enter into the deepest of all relationships.

Invariably in the definitions of church that I have seen, some variation of the word “commit” shows up.

“believers who are committed to being a church…”
“committed to the authority of the Word of God…”

I attempted to define the church once (see Sept.8, 06 entry “homework assignment”). And quite frankly, the definition was not bad (as I unabashedly pat myself on the back). Yet, it was singularly unhelpful (as I slap myself on the back of the head) because it was unwieldy and uninspiring to me and incomprehensible to others.
As I reflected on this dilemma, it occurred to me that the apostle Paul described the church as a “she,” as a woman, a bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).

I realized that asking for a definition of the church would be like someone asking, “Paul, could you define your wife for me please?” The question just doesn’t sound right. Now, “Tell me about your wife,” that’s completely different.


You see, woman is the apex of creation—the beauty that reflects and appreciates God’s beauty, the holistic personality, the completion of all that was lacking in Man. Who will deny that women are not more beautiful, more complex and mysterious than men?!

The perfect woman…
And woman, specifically a bride, is what Paul uses to help us understand the complex nature and beauty of the Church. This metaphor challenges both the modernist tendency toward an institutional church and the postmodernist tendency toward an ephemeral church.
Jesus’ Church is not a business (contra some modernist views). Though the bride’s beautiful body is highly organized with organic systems, I cannot say that internal medicine has ever been the focal point of my relationship with my wife.
Jesus’ Church is not amorphous (contra some postmodernist views). As any groom will appreciate, the bride’s beautiful body has form!

And for local church to be Church, the postmodern allergy to commitment must be overcome so that the story can have the proper French ending, ils vécurent heureux et eurent beaucoup d'enfants jusqu'à la fin de leurs jours. (And they lived happily ever after and had many children)!

CM: Borg or bride?

“Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation…. Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself—its worldview, its basic values, its social and political structure, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world into which their own parents were born. We are currently living through just such a transformation.”
Peter Drucker, in Postmission, 74.

Drucker is in essence saying that fifty years from now we could be facing a world as starkly different to us as the Enlightenment would have been to the Middle Age monk. The West is undergoing tectonic cultural change. While these changes are fundamentally the same in Europe as in North America, the ramifications and outworkings can nonetheless be dissimilar.
A mentor of mine, Tom, would here interject his refrain, “You realize that we are living in significant times!” Indeed, and we church leaders therefore have a tremendous responsibility in guiding the people of God through the vicissitudes of the postmodern period into the pre-whatever-it-may-be future.

So let’s take a look into the future, and specifically, at the Tendara Colony in the year 2348…

This is story of Annika Hansen. Annika's parents were unconventional scientists who left Federation space, in their vessel the Raven, to perform experiments in pursuit of some unique secret theories. On Annika’s sixth birthday, they encounter a Borg vessel.



(Note: The Borg are a race of humanoids in Star Trek. The Borg claim to seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" as they pursue their quest for perfection. The Borg function as automatons, their minds are collectively connected to the Borg Queen. They are characterized by relentless pursuit of targets for assimilation, thus the show describes the Borg as "the ultimate consumer" against whom "resistance is futile.")



Annika’s parents studied the Borg ship for a long while, but Annika didn’t have a good feeling about all of this. With reason, because the Hansen’s scientific curiosity pulled them in to a trap! (add your own scary music here)

They are detected. Annika’s parents appear to have been killed. She is assimilated and raised as a Borg. Her Borg name becomes "Seven-of-Nine."



So, when she was very young, Annika lost touch with her human side. Seven-of-Nine has had no experience of socializing as part of an adult group. In fact, any individual characteristics she once possessed are now suppressed.


Many postmodern people feel this is what has happened to the Church, a beautiful young girl, the bride of Christ, has been assimilated by a sinister culture—modernism. Today, they feel, the church is more Borg than bride, more machine (read institution) than woman. She is emotionless, without community, and in the collective only one way of thinking is allowed.

But there is hope!


When the Borg are compelled to form an alliance with the crew of Star Fleet's U.S.S. Voyager, Captain Janeway requests that a single Borg act as a representative of the collective. Guess who is chosen?!

During a conflict, the Voyager crew is forced to sever Seven-of-Nine’s link to the Borg collective. She goes into shock and her human side starts to reassert itself, rejecting her Borg implants. With her human and Borg elements in constant conflict, Seven-of-Nine is in physical danger!

Her first instinct is to return to the Borg, but the Captain won't allow it. So the Doctor replaces many of her Borg components, making her far more human than she has been for nearly 20 years.

THE END (play your own happy music here)


To be continued…

Church Morphing: Foundationalism vs. Fresh Insight

What happens when people disagree on interpretations or understandings of a Truth in Scripture?

The postmodernist shrugs her shoulders and says, “Whatever… let’s live the Gospel.” The modernist digs in and refuses to budge until there is either uniformity of interpretation or separation.


An unfair description? Let’s call it a caricature, but one that I have seen in people of both mindsets—modern & postmodern. And this is what happens when emerging church theologians, who accept the authority and inspiration of Scripture, challenge foundationalism, accusing the Western Inherited Church of theological provincialism.

(Note: This entry will pick up on the article from the June 24 “ Church Morphing: hermeneutical community”.)

“Foundationalism is a theory about knowledge… about how claims to know can be justified. When we seek to justify a belief, we do so by relating it to (basing it on, deriving it from) other beliefs…. Foundationalists insist that this chain of justifications must stop somewhere; it must not be circular, nor must it constitute an infinite regress. Thus, the regress must end in a ‘foundation’ of beliefs that cannot themselves be called into question.” Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997, 9). In Emerging Churches Gibbs, Bolger, 69.


But even postmodern philosopher like Michel Foucault whose “archeology of knowledge” admits no center or solid ground, did not slide into infinite regress; he depended upon philosophical principles to develop his reasoning.

So for Christian disciples what is unquestionably foundational?

Those who accept Scripture as the immutable foundation must also ask the questions: Am I willing to examine all else in light of Scripture? To what extent do we depend upon the convictions of those who preceded us as we “stand on the shoulders of giants”? Who are the giants? How do we know they were right?



DISAGREEMENTS & DISCERNMENT
Modernists espouse convictions such as “charismatic”, “pentecostal”, “covenantal” or “dispensational” as foundational, unassailable, to question them borders on heresy.

The emergence of terms like “post-charismatic”, “post-evangelical” and similar epithets indicates that some twenty-first century believers, employing a hermeneutic of skepticism, are not so sure that these schools of theology got it all right. They are more comfortable with embracing the Scriptures and ancient creeds—Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, that which the ancient Church accepted as semper ubique ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by everyone”)—as foundational.

For those who hold to adages like, “The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible”, all else may be questioned in light of Scripture. Why?



Disagreements over that which is truly foundational—that which should be accepted without question—will occur. How therefore will one react? Or better, how should one proact?

I recently heard from a young disciple who wanted to create an adult Sunday School class by reaching people who were not yet Christians, or at least very new believers. “God blessed and a number of couples made commitments to Christ and were baptized and added to the church.”

He began to look for resources to help these people who needed Jesus, but who did not understand traditional "church speak." He shared what he was reading with his church’s pastors who, rather than discussing with him what he was reading or how he might better help these new believers, relieved him of his responsibilities because he was “into the emergent stuff.” He wrote candidly, “Frankly, I didn't know I ever was. All I thought I was doing was trying my best to respond to the call of God in my life as a lay-leader in the church, to learn what I could, to love people that God put in my path, and to try to help.”

He left the church and the church lost lost a good man who continues to pursue Christ.

PROACTIVELY SPEAKING
First, for those of us who embrace the Bible as absolute Truth, we need not fear questions. The twelve disciples constantly asked questions, sometimes outrageous ones, and it did not seem to shake Jesus in the least. He didn’t exclude them, he walked and talked with them some more until they got the point.



Second, disagreements are fine as long as attitudes remain godly. Unholy reactions, even over the questions of Truth and what Scripture means, do not receive God’s blessing and hinder the evangelical church’s mission—winning people to Christ, making disciples and planting churches.

"Space Giants" Sigh! They sure don't make TV shows like they used to…

When the watching world sees people who claim to follow Christ “biting and devouring each other” over interpretations and convictions, attitudes that Paul attributes to the flesh not the Spirit, unbelievers shy away (Galatians 14-18, note especially the sins listed in vs. 20—hatred, discord, fits of rage, dissensions).

When “factions” form, whether one be an emerging or inherited church proponent, we are rightly perceived by unbelievers as intolerant. We therefore get no hearing because we have violated true spiritual unity and belie the fact that the Father sent the Son because of his love for all people (John 17:20-23, Romans 14, Eph.4:3).

Francis Schaeffer’s prophetic voice still strikes a chord today (The Mark of the Christian, 190-1),
“But after [emerging and inherited church proponents] have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives in the observable love of true Christians for true Christians.… This is what is needed if men are to know that Jesus was sent by the Father and that Christianity is true.”

Third, we do not need to have uniformity on secondary and tertiary theological positions (see qualifiers on June 24). Differing convictions can actually preserve facets of God’s grace that would be lost in a uniform, vanilla evangelicalism.

I agree with Nicholas von Zinzendorf, that collective convictions can be of God and that a denomination can serve as “‘a school of wisdom’ with its own particular contribution to make to the whole Body of Christ.” (A.J. Lewis, Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer, 1962,14).

In Europe where plurality is presupposed and dogmatism eschewed, I find that by explaining my conviction, respecting those who differ, appealing to the Truth of Scripture with the assurance that God indeed knows the perfect meaning, this approach usually gets me a hearing and at times open the door for me to influence the person for Christ.

Fourth, in order to prepare godly people empowered by the Spirit, who will lead local churches from modernist into postmodernist ecclesiastic forms founded upon Scripture and relevant to the culture (because that is the focus of these Church Morphing entries), believers need to have ownership of their theology, i.e. they must have heartfelt and mind-embraced convictions or those beliefs will not last once those enforcing adherence to a belief are out of the picture.

Giving the impression, accurate or not, that I have a virtually perfect understanding of Scripture and a virtually perfect application of Scripture smacks of Pharisee-ism and Laodicean-ism. And I dupe myself if I think that by simply telling a hyper-skeptical postmodern person what to believe, that those beliefs will be adopted. Oh how many stories I have to tell about that.


Lastly therefore, by encouraging believers to ask questions and seizing opportunities to join the asker in a study of the Scriptures, the Spirit can give fresh, commonly shared insight, and more pertinent application and forms.

The Spirit of Truth reveals the Truth of Scripture; we need not fear this but can pursue such an approach in faith. It helps disciples (whether modernist or postmodernist) to develop needed godly discernment in the Western climate of pluralistic information overload and to cultivate the spiritual reflex of seeking Spirit guided answers in the Scriptures accompanied by a mature believer.

Whew! So glad to know there are some things that never change…
Immutable: “unchanging over time or unable to be changed” (NOAD)

Admittedly foundationalism versus fresh insight is a false dichotomy. It nonetheless provided the platform to delineate often overlooked ways of moving forward into the future together—modernist and postmodernist to the glory of Christ and to the benefit of the world that needs him.