|
|
|
about the author...  Dave Crampton Dave Crampton writes from Wellington New Zealand. He is addicted to caffeine, relaxes with drum n bass music, and spends a lot of time with his wife and two year old son. He writes columns for Scoop Media and blogs here.
|
Mission, culture and the emerging church by Dave Crampton
Suppose you decided to work within a cross–cultural ministry. What
would be the first thing you would do? Would you attempt to understand
the culture and grasp the language and customs, perhaps, before you
step within that culture?
Well, in my country, if you want to communicate with those in a post Christian culture you don’t have to go any further than outside your front gate. Yep, you can call it cross-cultural mission, and it’s the job of the church, one it's not doing all that well. These days an understanding of the surrounding culture is needed now more than ever as the gap between the church and the neighborhood is increasing rapidly. Our culture may be much less Christian than it was 40 years ago, but it is more spiritual and there is an increasing search for spiritual meaning. Yet the church as an institution is becoming irrelevant to the surrounding culture, and increasingly irrelevant to a growing number of Christians who used to be part of that culture but have left as they see the widening gap between church culture and authentic Christian discipleship. Sure, many secular people have meaningful relationships with churchgoers, it’s just that the relationship does not continue through the church doors. To be seen as authentic, the church has to be viewed as missional groups of people in relationship rather than an institution where denominations are seen as a sign of disunity rather than evidence of diversity. The church needs to be seen as a community that bases it's community formation (let alone spiritual formation) on something other than one major meeting on a Sunday morning. We must be open to and committed to those in the surrounding postmodern culture, and be prepared to invest quality time in the lives of people we naturally come into contact with through our social or occupational lives. We can’t look down on people who are different to us and expect to reach them as to do so would mean we take on the role of a master as opposed to a servant. We may even fear or look down on others if we see they are different. And if we are looking down, we are not looking up. It is not possible for Christians to effectively communicate within a culture or a group of people whom they fear or despise. Those in the church are not very good at making relationships a high priority. That’s because they speak first, and then if a secular person accepts that word, then they are welcomed into the community of faith and a relationship starts. Now that rarely happens. But what if we did our relating first and then the speaking? What if we reversed the order to encourage people to belong to a community of faith so they would be in a familiar environment when they chose to embrace the beliefs of that community? They would not only be more likely to feel like they belonged in community, they may be more likely to take on board the ethos the people within the community. That’s the way of the missional emerging church - to be authentic to both those within the church community and those who are seeking to enter and belong to an authentic community of faith. Mission should be seen as an integral part of the church, not a division of it, and pastors and leaders should see themselves as missionaries. In order to evangelise today’s emerging postmodern culture the church must evaluate its mission in the 21st century so that the Christian community can embrace those who are searching for meaning. Then they will expose people to the positive truth without the negative vibes that religion has. They will also be aware of what questions secular people are asking, and why they are being asked – and also what they are not asking. Rather than declaring the truth of God’s Word we need to demonstrate the practical relevance of the Bible and the authenticity of the Christian faith to everyday life. But rather than declare it’s truth because it works (pragmatism) we then go on to indicate that it works because it is true. A few questions, if I may…. Why do we sometimes try so hard to convince people that Christianity is true without presenting the idea that it might possibly be true? Why do we try to make people guilty for their sin in the hope that the feeling of guilt will turn them toward the Christian faith? What happens then when the guilty feeling has gone? Perhaps it would be better if Christians encouraged people to be ashamed of their sin, rather than feeling guilt. Shame cannot disappear as fast as guilt. But rather than "reaching out" to - or should that be "pulling in" - those people outside the church walls, (a la the modern, seeker sensitive method), wouldn’t it be better to view the church as an authentic mission - as opposed to a method, a journey or a destination? The church may work effectively if it was seen as a mission with those who share the desire to be in community with God and each other. Perhaps secular postmoderns will be more likely to embrace Christianity within such a community - a community more likely to be modeled by those in emerging churches. Dave, I really like the questions you asked. I think the first one you asked about approaching someone with the possibility of Christianity being true demonstrates an openness for discussion on both sides rather than it being a discussion where I am unmoving in what I believe but you better move to where I am. The Apostle Paul's approach in Athens had this very essence. He didn't approach them with an attitude that they were wrong but an openness to talk about their own spiritual pursuit. He started where they were and offered an explanation to something they designated as "an unknown god." Most people start there. good one, Dave
Print-friendly version of this page Mail this article
|