Helpful stuff. I can’t identify a number one .. many of these are related and can’t be addressed in isolation.
These three are strongly related:
2. Theological diversity
3. Community Hermeneutics
7. Role of theological education
And 5 (leadership development), 8 (church planting), and 10 (theo of culture) are strongly related also.. Read more…
David Warkentin writes,
This month has seen its fair share of top ten lists, most reflecting on 2009 or the decade past. One such list reflects on the past ten years of the Mennonite Brethren (MB) movement, the Christian denomination to which I belong. As one hanging onto the notion that denominations can still serve a purpose in the grander scheme of the global Christian church, reflecting on recent developments can be a valuable exercise towards better understanding, and as Christians, hopefully better faithfulness. In discussion with the author, former MB Herald editor, Dora Dueck, I suggested an interesting exercise would be to explore the next ten years as well (not unlike Bono’s list for the world in general). Dora promptly replied that such a task is likely better suited to the likes of the younger MB’s. So I got the not-so-subtle hint (thanks Dora!) and decided to contribute yet another top ten list - “Beyond 2010.” Read more…
The Gospel Coalition is movement among some popular Reformed Christian leaders that is catching a lot of attention. David Fitch summarizes their emphasis in 5 convenient points.
Fitch responds with a call to what he has labelled the Neo-Anabaptist Missional Vision
For the reasons stated above, and indeed some more reasons I have not posted, I suggest that the Neo-Anabaptist Missional impulse is a viable alternative to the Neo-Reformed groups including TGC. For both historical reasons and theological reasons, I believe the Anabaptist Missional impulse has much to offer the dwindling churches of N America in engaging the new post Christendom cultures of the West. I include in this camp Alan Hirsch, Alan Roxburgh, Shane Claiborne, Neil Cole, Scot McKnight. I myself have tried to write to contribute to the furtherance of this vision. Tim Keller has characterized the Neo Anabaptists on this blog as follows: “… As you know, I think that the neo-Anabaptist missionals are a bit too rigid in what they are putting forth for the future, but its emphasis on process over program, ecclesial liturgy over experientialism, deep community, concern for the poor and justice, and contextualization-are all quite right. and traditional mega churches don’t see this.” I agree with Tim Keller on his description, including the being “a bit too rigid” part. Such statements however encourage me to believe that Neo Reformed and Neo Anabaptist should be in dialogue together to further Christ’s Kingdom (some of my best friends are Neo-Reformed :)). So I am open to dialoguing and even being proven wrong on the five positional statements above that I suspect the Gospel Coalition of advocating. Where am I right? Where am I wrong?
As the church wanders through this transitional time it does seem like two streams are forming. Have traditional anabaptists lost an appreciation for the elements of their tradition so much of the rest of the church is enamoured with right now?
Questions about the nature of the atonement have been the subject of some debate within the MB Conference over the last little while. The following is one attendee’s reflection on a conference on the atonement held at ACTS Seminaries in March, 2009.
Several months ago I attended a conference at ACTS Seminaries which dealt with the nature of the atonement. Among the questions under discussion were: How is it that the work of Jesus actually saves? What does Jesus save us from? For what purpose does Jesus save us? The questions we ask and the answers we offer on this subject will have a huge influence on both the content of and the method in which we present the gospel of Christ.
The two speakers at the conference were, I presume, brought in to offer somewhat different approaches to the question but were in fact remarkably similar. Glen Scorgie, Professor of Theology at Bethel Seminary San Diego, argued that we need to move away from an over-emphasis on penal substitution as the central meaning of the atonement and allow our understanding to be filled out by the Christus Victor (in the cross, Christ conquers death/evil) and “moral influence” (in the cross [and before], Jesus shows us an example of how to live) models as well.
Mark Baker, Associate Professor of Mission and Theology at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary in Fresno, CA, said virtually the same thing, although he seemed willing to move farther away from penal substitution than was Scorgie (he expresses his distaste for this understanding of the atonement more clearly in his book). Baker argued for a highly contextualized presentation of the atonement. What works in contexts with a highly developed judicial systems, for example, may not work in contexts dominated by implicit codes of honour and shame. Baker argued that we need to be willing to use the full range of biblical understandings of the atonement, and that the context we find ourselves in will have much to say about the approach we take.
This didn’t always go over so well. A sense of growing impatience was detectable from some of the attendees, especially during the Q & A following Baker’s presentations. At times, it was almost as if to say, “yes, yes, Jesus defeats death and evil and shows us a better way of living and all that, but what do people have to believe to avoid hell?” “How do we know if they’re in or out?” What’s the minimum atonement content we have to make sure people “get” so that we’re sure that their eternal status is secure?
There are many things that could be said about this whole approach to the atonement and the presuppositions it betrays, but mainly I’m reminded of Scot McKnight’s post from a few months ago called “The Problem is the Problem.” In it, he questioned whether our presentation of the gospel betrays too small an understanding of the problems that face us. Our world is beset by huge problems that go far beyond individual human beings and their status before God. We are alienated from God, certainly, but also from ourselves, from our neighbours, and from creation. We are the victims of many things beyond our control and, ultimately, we live the bulk of our lives in the full knowledge that emotional and physical pain and death are non-negotiable elements of our future. If our theory of the atonement doesn’t address these things, then we have misunderstood both the problem and the solution provided by the cross.
In my view, the questions put forth by some at the conference revealed that they simply didn’t have big enough problems for Jesus to solve. For some, the problem the cross addresses seemed to be: How do we transfer individual human beings from the “eternally damned” category to the “saved” category? Human beings are born condemned and the cross of Christ represents our entrance ticket into the room marked “escape to heaven.”
We need a bigger problem. In the cross of Christ, God deals with the consequences of human sin, certainly, but if this represents the sum total of our understanding of the atonement something has gone seriously awry. We are not simply perpetrators of sin, but victims as well. And we are not only saved from something (the consequences of sin, yes, but also the power of death and evil) but for a purpose—we need a new vision of how to live according to the reality that the cross makes possible.
I left the conference with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I find it discouraging that people are so easily threatened and so determined to cling to such skeletal understandings of both the problem and the solution represented by the events of Easter. On the other hand, I enjoyed the dialogue and found the speakers to be two immensely encouraging and hopeful people. They had an admirable commitment to the church, a deep love for all that God has made, and a profound hope that the cross of Christ really is the deepest solution to the biggest problems we will ever face.
Dan Steigerwald writes,
“In the second century, in the time of Tertullian, Alan Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk note that in order to belong to the church a person was actually mentored into new habits of life that re-socialized them away from the destructive habits of the world. This focus on formation in Christ-centered community was greatly diminished with the rise of Christendom, when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Quoting church historian, Alan Kreider, Roxburgh and Romanuk note: “Conversion, which had made Christians into distinct people – resident aliens – now was something that made people ordinary, not resident aliens but simply residents.”3 Consequently, Roxburgh and Romanuk argue, church leaders shifted their work away from forming people into an alternative society exemplifying the power of God’s inbreaking Kingdom to “oversight of orthodoxy, proper administration of the sacraments, and regulation of spiritualized and privatized ethical practices.”4
“Later, monastic movements formed “Orders” to deal with laxity in attention to such ecclesial practices (and the associated erosion of the quality of discipleship) as well as the intrusion of worldliness into the church.5
3 Roxburgh and Romanuk, The Missional Leader, 120. See: Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 90.
4 Ibid., 120.
5 Tim Dowley, ed., The History of Christianity (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1977), 213.
I’m curious.. how many who stop by here have heard of or are interested in “missional orders?” Some may know this phrase under a more typical “rule of life.” A “rule” or rhythm lies at the heart of many covenanted communities, most of which are formed around a particular mission.
The conversation around missional orders has been taking place mostly within the new monastic movement, but curiously, a rule of life was at the heart of the birth of the Northumbria community in the UK nearly sixty years ago, and also one of the best known and oldest missional communities in North America: the Church of the Savior.
More recently, it was at the heart of the ALLELON network, and now is part of the conversation in FORGE. Have you heard any echoes of this? If so, add a comment with your thoughts..
It was.. well.. conventional.
It was NOT a conference. While a conference might be more interesting at some levels, I have to say it was just good to be among this tribe. It’s a diverse bunch.. theologically, philosophically, economically, and generationally. I don’t know the numbers, but I would guess the median age to be 50. Yet there was still a decent representation of those under 30, perhaps mostly church planters. And there was even a smattering of cultural diversity.
The opening address was given by Mel Fehr. It was given with a lot of heart, and while I had some theological quibbles, on the whole Mel bore a reasonable witness to the Scriptural call. I wasn’t in Abbotsford for the teaching.
Actually, I wasn’t there for the voting either. I was not sent as a delegate so I didn’t have the right.
I think the best part of the convention for me was hearing the stories of the church planters. These young couples are probably the future of the MB presence in BC, and they are on the cutting edge on the ground. I also appreciated the stories coming out of South Abbotsford MB of their engagement in the community, and working with women on the street. Great stuff.
On Saturday we had the choice of some break out sessions. There were two options of interest for me: church planting, and theological issues around the atonement. I was hoping to hear some discussion and get a sense of why this issue has become controversial. I was aware of Mark Baker’s article as well as his book.
I found the session disappointing. Really, it couldn’t have been anything but - not enough time. Brad and Brian attempted to provide some background and approached the issue through a look at hymnody - old and new. There was no time to even consider some of the assumptions around anthropology, and only two views of the atonement were mentioned, with the penal substitutionary view on the grand stand. I can see this is going to be an ongoing discussion in MB circles, through the influence of Lutherans in the last century and fundamentalists in this one. We are a movement that is now both Anabaptist and Evangelical, and which of these flavors is deepest in our collective souls depends on a variety of complex factors.
Interesting, Ryan posts on the same convention on his blog. I confess that my cynical side tells me that the rabbit hole is deeper than we know. I wonder whether the shift from the dominant lens of the early church (Christus Victor) to penal substitution was occasioned as we cozied up to the Empire. We needed to find a way to become less political. Making atonement and salvation about a distant future kingdom meant that we did not have to worry so much about justice in this world. We could have the cake and eat it too. Ah the joys of dualism.
The conversation and debate will continue in October (15-17) in Saskatoon at the MB Study Conference. The theme for 2009 is “Confessing Jesus in a Pluralistic World.” I assume there will be some position papers available in advance.
Self-discipline
If you set out to seek freedom, you must learn before all things
Mastery over sense and soul, lest your wayward desirings,
Lest your undisciplined members lead you now this way, now that way.
Chaste be your mind and your body, and subject to you and obedient,
Serving solely to seek their appointed goal and objective.
None learns the secret of freedom save only by way of control
Action
Do and dare what is right, not swayed by the whim of the moment.
Bravely take hold of the real, not dallying now with what might be.
Not in the flight of ideas but only in action is freedom.
Make up your mind and come out in the tempest of living.
God’s command is enough and your faith in him to sustain you.
Suffering
Wondrous transformation! Your strong and active hands
are tired now. Powerless, alone, you see the end of your action.
Still, you take a deep breath and lay your struggle for justice,
quietly and in faith, into a mightier hand.
Just for one blissful moment, you tasted the sweetness of freedom,
then you handed it over to God, that he might make it whole.
Death
Come now, highest moment on the road to eternal freedom,
Death, put down the ponderous chains and demolish the walls
of our mortal bodies, the walls of our blinded souls,
that we might finally see what mortals have kept us from seeing.
Freedom, how long we have sought you through discipline, action, and suffering,
Dying, now we behold your face in the countenance of God.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, written on 20 July , 1944 the day he heard that the attempt on Hitler’s life had failed and he knew his fate.
On January 23rd.. the day we left for Mexico.. David Fitch blogged some thoughts on the types of people in the missional conversation. Following similar lines to the work of Bob Webber (2002) David divided the conversation based on the way we view knowledge, and where we anchor our knowing (self or community). He pushed at “tendencies” rather than rigid types, acknowledging that the lines easily blur. He wrote,
“I suggest there are Reformed Missionals, Anabaptist Missionals, and Pragmatic Missionals. I suggest that each of these theologies tends towards a certain kind of epistemology and understanding of culture that influences how we think about missional church.”
Now that is quite a loaded statement. David hits at theological traditions, philosophical underpinnings, and even stance toward culture.. and this last one is hughly influenced by tradition, philosophy, and even personal (rational-emotive) dimensions. But I think the effort at taxonomy, always tentative and limited.. is really helpful. It pushes me to examine my assumptions and to ask new questions.
I dug Bob Webber’s book from my shelf and gave a quick read of the very detailed charts he offers for about ten different areas, including “evangelism,” “leadership,” and “ecclesiology.” Running these thru the grid of David’s post I offer a summary chart. I know.. these terms too beg definition. But if you already stand somewhere in the missional conversation you will get my drift in most cases.
First, here is a post on leadership from last August that offers just one of the charts from .The Younger Evangelicals And now following is my summary chart.
Read David’s post.. what do you think? Is this kind of taxonomy helpful in understanding the different emphases out there? For an alternate taxonomy (asking different questions) of the conversation, check out “Missional, Emergent and Monastic: A Traveler’s Guide.”
In “Saving Paradise” Rita Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker set out across the Mediterranean world in search of art depicting the dead, crucified Jesus. In the process, they made a startling discovery about the traditional history of Christianity and the role of art in the early church: it took Jesus a thousand years to die.
During the first millennium, Christians filled their sanctuaries with images of Christ as a living presence in a vibrant world. He appears as a shepherd, a teacher, a healer, an enthroned god; he is an infant, a youth, and a bearded elder. But he is never dead. When he appears with the cross, he stands in front of it, serene, resurrected. The world around him is ablaze with beauty. These are images of paradise – paradise in this world, the kingdom come to earth as it is in heaven.
But once Jesus appeared in images on the cross, dying was all he seemed able to do.
That is roughly a quote from the cover flap of Saving Paradise. And it came to mind this past Sunday as I listened to a Good Friday sermon. It got me thinking about some of NT Wright’s work, in particular, Surprised by Hope. It got me thinking about the current popularity of the substitutionary atonement, our preoccupation with sin and eternal destiny. It got me thinking about Christus Victor and the early church in conflict with the Empire. It got me thinking about what we have gained and what we have lost. It got me thinking..
Before Jesus is Savior, Jesus is Lord. Before we center his work around our small selves, we ought to make the gospel about the good news he announced: good news of God’s just rule, now breaking into this world… Our gospel, like our god, is too small and other-worldly. Let’s face it, the world has a vested interest in our keeping it that way. Do we?
Jesus reigns!