Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #9
I truly enjoyed the peer review of our papers today. I received great feedback on my paper which has led me to change the thesis as well as some of the content of the paper. I appreciate the structure we are using for the remainder of the course.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #9
Today's discussion was very helpful to the creation of my case study. I especially how Dr. Bolger was talking about how mostly all cultures are hybrid in our current world. This creates much broader implications for cross-cultural studies and missions. I have always assumes that, in order to build relations with another culture, one only needs to adapt to said culture. I now know that it is also important to take an inventory of the effects that surrounding cultures have on the creation of said culture.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Second Draft
(I don't know if this post was necessary; nonetheless, I am posting it for your convinience).
THE KINGDOM IN SHORT-TERM MISSION
Introduction:
“You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave to all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”-Mark 10: 42-45.
Short-term missions trips are sometimes at odds with the purpose of the commission of Christ. Dr. Sherwood Lingenfelter states that “ (in mission) We must love the people to whom we minister so much that we are willing to enter their culture as children, to learn how to speak as they speak, play as they play, eat as they eat, sleep where they sleep, and thus earn their respect and adoration” (Lingenfelter, 25). Such statement begs the question: how, than, do we show true God-like love on a short trip? In this paper, I will address the necessary changes we as a group need to make concerning our cultural biases and traditions so that God’s mission will be done and our culture will not get in the way of the kingdom.
Context:
I will be leading a group of men on a trip to Maneadero, Mexico, a city forty miles south of Ensenada (note: said trip will occur before the submission of this paper and hard data will be added in an appendix). Baja Mexico is crippled with a poor, authoritative economic system that creates a large deviation in the household incomes. The society is not very bureaucratic ; thus, there is a low level of diversity amongst the available work. This leads to a severe class society. The Mexican people are also very traditionalistic in terms of family and religion. The men are the power and voice of the family. Many of the men will squander the earnings of the family on status items (i.e. cell phones) before they provide the necessities for their families. I learned this information from nationals and fellow servants on former trips across the boarder; such knowledge has helped me shape how I act in the culture and it helps me to understand where they are coming from.
We will be serving in a soup kitchen as well as visiting a migrant farm where nomadic marginalized persons reside for undeterminable parts of the year. We only have one person in our group that speaks fluent Spanish and we have a few men that can speak Spanish at a conversational level (myself included). We will be bringing resources for the soup kitchen, gifts for the children, our physical labor, and a short gospel message (I will expand this section in a later draft).
The group consists of men from my non-denominational church in Simi Valley. Our church is very missions oriented; however, there is a bias toward merely voicing the gospel as opposed to showing the gospel through action and witnessing. My beliefs and/or inspirations from God are slightly different from a majority of my group; accordingly, I believe that I am alone (amongst the group) in my skeptical approach to short-term missions. My advisor/mentor has told me that the objectives of the service project are to get the men in our group prepared for a life of mission, assist them in using their spiritual gifts to the glory of God, and to get each man out of his cultural comfort zone. Although these motives are benevolent, I believe that they are too inward focused and do not grant enough attention to the needs of the people we are serving. The agenda presented to me stems from a long-term focus in a situation that is inherently short-term and “in the moment”. In other words, the leaders of my group are worried about the spiritual growth of the men so that their future ministries are more fruitful. In the following section, I will further discuss why I believe this to be an inappropriate state of mind for such a trip.
Kingdom in Short-Term Mission:
In all honesty, it is hard to gauge how the kingdom of God can be manifested in this scenario simply because Jesus seemed to prefer to engage the people in community, which is outside of the confining time of a short-term missions trips. In the following passage, an example of why time is a necessary element of mission is given:
“While evangelistic events that reach groups are important ingredients in a church’s evangelism strategy, research consistently shows that the most effective faith-sharing takes place in the context of relationships” (Sider, 78).
It is hard to build relationship with others when one arrives from another culture (carrying all of its influences) and than departs the next morning. It could conceivably take months, if not years, to build solid relationships. Irrespective of this point, I will observe Jesus’ actions and try to extract what practices would exemplify the kingdom of God (I will expand this section in a later draft).
I feel that God’s only mission and purpose for us to go down to Mexico is so that we can share his love with the people. Thus, we should not be focused on how we will grow spiritually from this trip. Rather, we should pay attention to the need we are going to fulfill. We have a future tense, self-oriented mindset. Such an internal mentality is exemplified by the group’s agenda to take many pictures so that we can have a slideshow. This subtle act will make us seem like tourists as opposed to members of the community. We need to focus more on the heart of our function so that we can have an impact similar to what the Lord wills. If we strive for servanthood in love, than the tangent issue (personal growth in missions and spiritual gifts) will come in response. However, we need to make sure that our goal of servanthood is not motivated by our “business model” cultural bias.
“Evangelicals, however, should avoid the temptation to make ‘servanthood’ the tool of effectiveness. Our definitions must be carefully derived from Jesus Christ and Scripture rather than adopted from whatever current leadership trends are popular” (Fitch, 87).
We will come closer to kingdom-type ministry by submitting to the Mexican culture as much as possible, being flexible in our service, and remaining open to learning from the Mexican people. Dr. Lingenfelter states that “an individual who is not ready to give up being an American for a time and to begin learning as a child is not ready for the challenge of cross-cultural ministry” (Lingenfelter, 25). This statement shows how we are to submit like children to our mission field so that we can be all things to all people. (I will expand this section in a later draft).
Action Steps to Find the Kingdom in this Study:
By nature, evangelicals are focused on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I find this to be true and a blessing, however, in supporting such a belief, we tend to have a harder time grasping the importance of community and complete sacrifice for others. Such traits lead us to focus on the benefits we will be receiving even when the project is selfless in nature. Our group must embrace the fact that even though each person might not be grounded in faith or service, this project exists for enriching others so that God may be glorified.
The selfless attitude described above will lead us to do such things as learning Spanish, being comfortable (not uneasy in the different culture), and submitting to the authority of the indigenous partner we have formed. Although it is important for us to promote the social standing of the people we are serving, we must not neglect our holistic responsibility to evangelize through word and/or action.
“A prevalent myth in many churches is that if you give non-Christians a chance to rub shoulders with Christians, they’ll catch a dose of the gospel…It allows churches to feel that they are obeying the Great Commission just by doing good deeds for Christ’s sake. ‘Our actions speak for us’” (Sider, 63).
We have decided that, since Spanish is not universal amongst us, we will evangelize through non-verbal, physical connections. Such actions are tentatively defined as placing stickers on the kids, having friendly and deep eye connection, and listening even if we are not fully aware of what they are saying (for not fluent Spanish speakers). These steps, along with submitting to the authority of our partner, should really show our brothers and sisters of Maneadero that we love them.
Conclusion:
From my perspective, this trip is not about enriching the men, as my mentor alluded to; it is about teaching the men to embrace true sacrifice in service. In the 21st Century, the only way that we can truly evangelize with people is by building relationships with them. As I have presented, this makes it harder to demonstrate kingdom traits through short-term missions. We must leave our cultural biases and our primary desire to grow spiritually (as if short-term missions is a training ground for longer missions), serve our neighbors/partners in the specific manner they need assistance, and evangelize through humble and non-intrusive mediums.
THE KINGDOM IN SHORT-TERM MISSION
Introduction:
“You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave to all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”-Mark 10: 42-45.
Short-term missions trips are sometimes at odds with the purpose of the commission of Christ. Dr. Sherwood Lingenfelter states that “ (in mission) We must love the people to whom we minister so much that we are willing to enter their culture as children, to learn how to speak as they speak, play as they play, eat as they eat, sleep where they sleep, and thus earn their respect and adoration” (Lingenfelter, 25). Such statement begs the question: how, than, do we show true God-like love on a short trip? In this paper, I will address the necessary changes we as a group need to make concerning our cultural biases and traditions so that God’s mission will be done and our culture will not get in the way of the kingdom.
Context:
I will be leading a group of men on a trip to Maneadero, Mexico, a city forty miles south of Ensenada (note: said trip will occur before the submission of this paper and hard data will be added in an appendix). Baja Mexico is crippled with a poor, authoritative economic system that creates a large deviation in the household incomes. The society is not very bureaucratic ; thus, there is a low level of diversity amongst the available work. This leads to a severe class society. The Mexican people are also very traditionalistic in terms of family and religion. The men are the power and voice of the family. Many of the men will squander the earnings of the family on status items (i.e. cell phones) before they provide the necessities for their families. I learned this information from nationals and fellow servants on former trips across the boarder; such knowledge has helped me shape how I act in the culture and it helps me to understand where they are coming from.
We will be serving in a soup kitchen as well as visiting a migrant farm where nomadic marginalized persons reside for undeterminable parts of the year. We only have one person in our group that speaks fluent Spanish and we have a few men that can speak Spanish at a conversational level (myself included). We will be bringing resources for the soup kitchen, gifts for the children, our physical labor, and a short gospel message (I will expand this section in a later draft).
The group consists of men from my non-denominational church in Simi Valley. Our church is very missions oriented; however, there is a bias toward merely voicing the gospel as opposed to showing the gospel through action and witnessing. My beliefs and/or inspirations from God are slightly different from a majority of my group; accordingly, I believe that I am alone (amongst the group) in my skeptical approach to short-term missions. My advisor/mentor has told me that the objectives of the service project are to get the men in our group prepared for a life of mission, assist them in using their spiritual gifts to the glory of God, and to get each man out of his cultural comfort zone. Although these motives are benevolent, I believe that they are too inward focused and do not grant enough attention to the needs of the people we are serving. The agenda presented to me stems from a long-term focus in a situation that is inherently short-term and “in the moment”. In other words, the leaders of my group are worried about the spiritual growth of the men so that their future ministries are more fruitful. In the following section, I will further discuss why I believe this to be an inappropriate state of mind for such a trip.
Kingdom in Short-Term Mission:
In all honesty, it is hard to gauge how the kingdom of God can be manifested in this scenario simply because Jesus seemed to prefer to engage the people in community, which is outside of the confining time of a short-term missions trips. In the following passage, an example of why time is a necessary element of mission is given:
“While evangelistic events that reach groups are important ingredients in a church’s evangelism strategy, research consistently shows that the most effective faith-sharing takes place in the context of relationships” (Sider, 78).
It is hard to build relationship with others when one arrives from another culture (carrying all of its influences) and than departs the next morning. It could conceivably take months, if not years, to build solid relationships. Irrespective of this point, I will observe Jesus’ actions and try to extract what practices would exemplify the kingdom of God (I will expand this section in a later draft).
I feel that God’s only mission and purpose for us to go down to Mexico is so that we can share his love with the people. Thus, we should not be focused on how we will grow spiritually from this trip. Rather, we should pay attention to the need we are going to fulfill. We have a future tense, self-oriented mindset. Such an internal mentality is exemplified by the group’s agenda to take many pictures so that we can have a slideshow. This subtle act will make us seem like tourists as opposed to members of the community. We need to focus more on the heart of our function so that we can have an impact similar to what the Lord wills. If we strive for servanthood in love, than the tangent issue (personal growth in missions and spiritual gifts) will come in response. However, we need to make sure that our goal of servanthood is not motivated by our “business model” cultural bias.
“Evangelicals, however, should avoid the temptation to make ‘servanthood’ the tool of effectiveness. Our definitions must be carefully derived from Jesus Christ and Scripture rather than adopted from whatever current leadership trends are popular” (Fitch, 87).
We will come closer to kingdom-type ministry by submitting to the Mexican culture as much as possible, being flexible in our service, and remaining open to learning from the Mexican people. Dr. Lingenfelter states that “an individual who is not ready to give up being an American for a time and to begin learning as a child is not ready for the challenge of cross-cultural ministry” (Lingenfelter, 25). This statement shows how we are to submit like children to our mission field so that we can be all things to all people. (I will expand this section in a later draft).
Action Steps to Find the Kingdom in this Study:
By nature, evangelicals are focused on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I find this to be true and a blessing, however, in supporting such a belief, we tend to have a harder time grasping the importance of community and complete sacrifice for others. Such traits lead us to focus on the benefits we will be receiving even when the project is selfless in nature. Our group must embrace the fact that even though each person might not be grounded in faith or service, this project exists for enriching others so that God may be glorified.
The selfless attitude described above will lead us to do such things as learning Spanish, being comfortable (not uneasy in the different culture), and submitting to the authority of the indigenous partner we have formed. Although it is important for us to promote the social standing of the people we are serving, we must not neglect our holistic responsibility to evangelize through word and/or action.
“A prevalent myth in many churches is that if you give non-Christians a chance to rub shoulders with Christians, they’ll catch a dose of the gospel…It allows churches to feel that they are obeying the Great Commission just by doing good deeds for Christ’s sake. ‘Our actions speak for us’” (Sider, 63).
We have decided that, since Spanish is not universal amongst us, we will evangelize through non-verbal, physical connections. Such actions are tentatively defined as placing stickers on the kids, having friendly and deep eye connection, and listening even if we are not fully aware of what they are saying (for not fluent Spanish speakers). These steps, along with submitting to the authority of our partner, should really show our brothers and sisters of Maneadero that we love them.
Conclusion:
From my perspective, this trip is not about enriching the men, as my mentor alluded to; it is about teaching the men to embrace true sacrifice in service. In the 21st Century, the only way that we can truly evangelize with people is by building relationships with them. As I have presented, this makes it harder to demonstrate kingdom traits through short-term missions. We must leave our cultural biases and our primary desire to grow spiritually (as if short-term missions is a training ground for longer missions), serve our neighbors/partners in the specific manner they need assistance, and evangelize through humble and non-intrusive mediums.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #8
Today we had a nice change from the normal composition of the class. The voluntary nature of the sessions was good. Our discussion of the The Great Giveaway was enlightening to me inasmuch as I saw the value of the book. It is not that I had missed the points when I was reading it, it is, rather, that I was less defensive about the book when it was discussed in a corporate setting where the main objective was to decipher how the book (positively) applies to our case study.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #8
I was very glad that we had peer review of our first drafts today. Since it is the foundational level of the paper, it is important to have as much criticism as possible. However, I look forward to get back to the class interaction on Wednesday. I am interested to see what Dr. Bolger has to say about Fitch's text.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #7
Today we applied the concepts supported by the kingdom and trinitarian movements and we compared them to what might occur in our case studies. I found this to be useful; however, it was much of an addition to the reflections that we had last time regarding what the kingdom will look like in our case? I guess it was good to compare our natural thoughts on the issue to actual theologies. I liked our small group discussion and Dr. Bolger's story about the large young adult outreach in Manchester. That was awesome!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Case Study First Draft
THE KINGDOM IN SHORT-TERM MISSION
It is hard to participate in kingdom-like practices on a short-term missions trip; however, I feel that such hurdle can be jumped if we focus on the actions of Jesus rather than our own perceptions and “wisdom”.
I will be leading a group of men on a trip to Maneadero, Mexico, a city forty miles south of Ensenada. We will be serving in a soup kitchen as well as visiting a migrant farm where nomadic marginalized persons reside for undeterminable parts of the year. My advisor/mentor has told me that the objectives of the service project are to get the men in our group prepared for a life of mission, assist them in using their spiritual gifts to the glory of God, and to get each man out of his cultural comfort zone. Although these motives are benevolent, I believe that they are too inward focused and do not grant enough attention to the needs of the people we are serving.
In all honesty, it is hard to gauge how the kingdom of God can be manifested in this scenario simply because Jesus was not prone to taking short-term missions trips. Nevertheless, I will observe Jesus’ actions and try to extract what practices would exemplify the kingdom of God. I feel that God’s only mission and purpose for us to go down to Mexico is so that we can share his love with the people. Thus, we should not be focused on how we will grow spiritually from this trip; rather, we should pay attention to the need we are going to fulfill. We will do this by submitting to their culture as much as possible, being flexible in our service, and remaining open to learning from them.
By nature, evangelicals are focused on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I find this to be true and a blessing, however, in supporting such a belief, we tend to have a harder time grasping the importance of community and complete sacrifice for others. Such traits lead us to focus on the benefits we will be receiving even when the project is selfless in nature. Our group must embrace the fact that even though the each person might not be grounded in faith or service, this project exists for enriching others so that God may be glorified. This selfless attitude will lead us to do such things as learning Spanish, being comfortable (not uneasy in the different culture), and partaking in various other activities/disciplines that exert a sense of egalitarian sentiment.
From my perspective, this trip is not about enriching the men, as my mentor alluded to; it is about teaching the men to embrace true sacrifice in service.
It is hard to participate in kingdom-like practices on a short-term missions trip; however, I feel that such hurdle can be jumped if we focus on the actions of Jesus rather than our own perceptions and “wisdom”.
I will be leading a group of men on a trip to Maneadero, Mexico, a city forty miles south of Ensenada. We will be serving in a soup kitchen as well as visiting a migrant farm where nomadic marginalized persons reside for undeterminable parts of the year. My advisor/mentor has told me that the objectives of the service project are to get the men in our group prepared for a life of mission, assist them in using their spiritual gifts to the glory of God, and to get each man out of his cultural comfort zone. Although these motives are benevolent, I believe that they are too inward focused and do not grant enough attention to the needs of the people we are serving.
In all honesty, it is hard to gauge how the kingdom of God can be manifested in this scenario simply because Jesus was not prone to taking short-term missions trips. Nevertheless, I will observe Jesus’ actions and try to extract what practices would exemplify the kingdom of God. I feel that God’s only mission and purpose for us to go down to Mexico is so that we can share his love with the people. Thus, we should not be focused on how we will grow spiritually from this trip; rather, we should pay attention to the need we are going to fulfill. We will do this by submitting to their culture as much as possible, being flexible in our service, and remaining open to learning from them.
By nature, evangelicals are focused on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I find this to be true and a blessing, however, in supporting such a belief, we tend to have a harder time grasping the importance of community and complete sacrifice for others. Such traits lead us to focus on the benefits we will be receiving even when the project is selfless in nature. Our group must embrace the fact that even though the each person might not be grounded in faith or service, this project exists for enriching others so that God may be glorified. This selfless attitude will lead us to do such things as learning Spanish, being comfortable (not uneasy in the different culture), and partaking in various other activities/disciplines that exert a sense of egalitarian sentiment.
From my perspective, this trip is not about enriching the men, as my mentor alluded to; it is about teaching the men to embrace true sacrifice in service.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #7
Today's focus on the trinitarian movement was very productive. I was enlightened by the concept that said movement emphasizes the fact that the church does not have a mission; rather, it can chose to participate in the mission of God. A new concept to me was that said movement sees individual salvation as deemphasized. A focus on salvation through community involvement is interesting. I don't know if I agree with it in whole; however, I agree that the unification of the bride of Christ is a reality and a necessary component.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Book Review #6
Fitch, David E, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the church from Big Business, Para-church Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and other Modern Maladies, Baker Books, 2005.
Being raised in the evangelical church and living in the twenty first century. I have definitely run into many inconsistencies and shortcomings in the church. The doctrine is slightly too fundamental (leading to exclusion of other believers from the kingdom), people are not generally taught to participate in social change, individualism is over-embraced, and politics is wrongfully connected to many of the churches. In spite of the criticisms I have, and the critiques I am receptive to hearing, I do not care to listen to elitist, objective claims that, in effect, exclude evangelical churches from being categorized as “true” houses of God. David Fitch purports a thesis that seeks to show how evangelicalism has “given away” being the church of North America (13). Fitch shows this by commenting on their integration of the capitalist system, improper leadership structures, flawed worship and teaching, poor moral education and other things in accordance with society’s migration to post-modern understanding.
There are many areas of this book where the author and I are on the same page (such will be discussed later); however, I could not relate to his stern claims regarding worship and personal experience of the Holy Spirit. Fitch highlights this in the following passage:
“Contemporary evangelism worship works under the modernist assumption that personal self-expression, freedom in the spirit, and personal experience are the basis for authentic engagement with God…any illusion that we can trust our experience as innately given has been undermined by post-modernity…They can no longer count on self-expression alone to produce a truthful experience of God in worship” (103).
I do not understand how the author can objectively conclude that, just because we live in a post-modern world, our worship cannot be aimed at a non-corporate “intimacy with God” experience (104). I respect the questioning of emphasized individualism; however, I cannot relate to Fitch’s holding that it is no longer possible for individuals to, on their own, experience the Holy Spirit just because we are in a world that embraces post-modernity. I truly understand that our emotions do not automatically equal an encounter with God; however, I do not find it wise or biblical to say that such experiences will never happen under such circumstances.
Some of the points that Fitch makes, which apply to my case study as well as contribute to my understanding of God’s kingdom, are the concepts of evangelism exhibited through action and detrimental strategizing similar to the market-driven mentality. Fitch states that “Evangelists should avoid the temptation to make ‘servanthood’ the tool of effectiveness” (87). When we go down to Mexico, I must not have a servant’s heart and an interest in their culture merely for the strategic purpose of converting them. I have also learning that my words should not be my primary tool of evangelism.
“How do we make sense of the Christian claim that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ in a post-modern world where old ways to truth have broken down? The answer is we display what these words mean in the way we live and worship so that its reality, once displayed, cannot be denied, only rejected or entered into” (56).
Fitch does a good job of relating the post-modern culture’s effect on the operation of the evangelical church; but he presents his analysis too objectively. Ironic as it is, Fitch’s one-sided interpretation of the Holy Spirit leads him to be objective about a subjective platform, that is, non-scientific post modernity.
Being raised in the evangelical church and living in the twenty first century. I have definitely run into many inconsistencies and shortcomings in the church. The doctrine is slightly too fundamental (leading to exclusion of other believers from the kingdom), people are not generally taught to participate in social change, individualism is over-embraced, and politics is wrongfully connected to many of the churches. In spite of the criticisms I have, and the critiques I am receptive to hearing, I do not care to listen to elitist, objective claims that, in effect, exclude evangelical churches from being categorized as “true” houses of God. David Fitch purports a thesis that seeks to show how evangelicalism has “given away” being the church of North America (13). Fitch shows this by commenting on their integration of the capitalist system, improper leadership structures, flawed worship and teaching, poor moral education and other things in accordance with society’s migration to post-modern understanding.
There are many areas of this book where the author and I are on the same page (such will be discussed later); however, I could not relate to his stern claims regarding worship and personal experience of the Holy Spirit. Fitch highlights this in the following passage:
“Contemporary evangelism worship works under the modernist assumption that personal self-expression, freedom in the spirit, and personal experience are the basis for authentic engagement with God…any illusion that we can trust our experience as innately given has been undermined by post-modernity…They can no longer count on self-expression alone to produce a truthful experience of God in worship” (103).
I do not understand how the author can objectively conclude that, just because we live in a post-modern world, our worship cannot be aimed at a non-corporate “intimacy with God” experience (104). I respect the questioning of emphasized individualism; however, I cannot relate to Fitch’s holding that it is no longer possible for individuals to, on their own, experience the Holy Spirit just because we are in a world that embraces post-modernity. I truly understand that our emotions do not automatically equal an encounter with God; however, I do not find it wise or biblical to say that such experiences will never happen under such circumstances.
Some of the points that Fitch makes, which apply to my case study as well as contribute to my understanding of God’s kingdom, are the concepts of evangelism exhibited through action and detrimental strategizing similar to the market-driven mentality. Fitch states that “Evangelists should avoid the temptation to make ‘servanthood’ the tool of effectiveness” (87). When we go down to Mexico, I must not have a servant’s heart and an interest in their culture merely for the strategic purpose of converting them. I have also learning that my words should not be my primary tool of evangelism.
“How do we make sense of the Christian claim that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ in a post-modern world where old ways to truth have broken down? The answer is we display what these words mean in the way we live and worship so that its reality, once displayed, cannot be denied, only rejected or entered into” (56).
Fitch does a good job of relating the post-modern culture’s effect on the operation of the evangelical church; but he presents his analysis too objectively. Ironic as it is, Fitch’s one-sided interpretation of the Holy Spirit leads him to be objective about a subjective platform, that is, non-scientific post modernity.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #6
Today we did an overview of the emerging church which we had been discussing over the past couple of class periods. I thought that the encompassing presentation of the material helped me better understand the movement. I can see how it relates to the current mission of the church in a world that embraces post-modernity.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Monday reflection for wk #6
Today was definitely more lecture based than previous lectures. I guess that I was getting use to the collaborative small group lessons because I was not as engaged as I should have been. I did benefit from the continued discussion of the emerging church; nonetheless, I would have been happier with some more time for reflection. I love Dr. Bolger's lectures; however, I love the historic teaching style of it all the more.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Book Review #5
Boff, Leonardo, Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church, 1997, Orbis Books.
Leonardo Boff’s Ecclesiogenesis, or “the birth of a new church”, is a book that addresses a need for change in the Catholic Church that will lead to a united community. Boff begins his analysis by defining the characteristics that make up the basic church community. Like several of the other authors we have read, Boff condemns the belief that the church (namely, institutionalized church) is synonymous with the kingdom of God.
“If Jesus’ preaching concentrated on the idea of the kingdom of God, and if the kingdom of God had a universal, cosmic connotation then how do we get a church as a reduced, ambiguous realization of the kingdom of God?” (p.49).
Boff analyzes the basic church communities, which are emerging in Brazil and Latin America, with the intent of getting to the heart of what church ought to look like. The governing thesis of this work is that the contemporary church has embraced anti-communal traditions that are not biblically founded and said church would benefit spiritually from a reformation through observing the new forming churches in South and Latin America. The book’s very nature of learning from the Latin American church has made me re-evaluate the reasons for why I am going down to Mexico on my case study. I believed that we would be blessing them with resources, help, and advice and I did not realize that observing their culture and church community could be a great learning experience for the Western (my) church.
Boff describes the current state of the church and than he makes a critical suggestion for how the church can grow progressively. The laity of the Catholic Church has no voice regarding the direction, functionality, and teachings of the church. A central church (pope) has the ultimate authority and then the bishops and pastors have a voice and discretion; no interest is shown to the faithful laity. Boff states that:
“In terms of decision, the participation of the faithful is totally mutilated…A community in which the routes of participation are cut off in all directions cannot pretend to the name of community” (p.30).
Boff proposes that the church take on a triangular interactive structure (see figure 4.A p.32) in which the institutionalized church will represent the community-like structure of the basic churches.
On top of his liberating structural ideas, Boff continues by addressing some of the political issues in the church. The most interesting of these, and relevant to my life, was his analysis of women in the priesthood. I come from a conservative church that, in doctrine, supports that women are not to teach men in a ministry setting. I do not personally agree with this; however, I empathize with both sides since it is an issue dealing with social constructions. Boff’s major arguments for the full equality of women stem from (a) Christ’s actions and support of such equality and (b) claims that Paul’s statements were dictated by context. I agree with his analysis; however, I dissent on the conclusion drawn in the following passage:
If God loves women as much as men, why does the church reserve its ministries and higher responsibilities to men?” (p.78).
Earlier in the book, Boff’s language supports the fact that position in the body does not equate importance or the amount of love that God has for a particular believer. I agree with the position, but the above rhetorical question is a logical fallacy based on the theological context.
Leonardo Boff’s Ecclesiogenesis, or “the birth of a new church”, is a book that addresses a need for change in the Catholic Church that will lead to a united community. Boff begins his analysis by defining the characteristics that make up the basic church community. Like several of the other authors we have read, Boff condemns the belief that the church (namely, institutionalized church) is synonymous with the kingdom of God.
“If Jesus’ preaching concentrated on the idea of the kingdom of God, and if the kingdom of God had a universal, cosmic connotation then how do we get a church as a reduced, ambiguous realization of the kingdom of God?” (p.49).
Boff analyzes the basic church communities, which are emerging in Brazil and Latin America, with the intent of getting to the heart of what church ought to look like. The governing thesis of this work is that the contemporary church has embraced anti-communal traditions that are not biblically founded and said church would benefit spiritually from a reformation through observing the new forming churches in South and Latin America. The book’s very nature of learning from the Latin American church has made me re-evaluate the reasons for why I am going down to Mexico on my case study. I believed that we would be blessing them with resources, help, and advice and I did not realize that observing their culture and church community could be a great learning experience for the Western (my) church.
Boff describes the current state of the church and than he makes a critical suggestion for how the church can grow progressively. The laity of the Catholic Church has no voice regarding the direction, functionality, and teachings of the church. A central church (pope) has the ultimate authority and then the bishops and pastors have a voice and discretion; no interest is shown to the faithful laity. Boff states that:
“In terms of decision, the participation of the faithful is totally mutilated…A community in which the routes of participation are cut off in all directions cannot pretend to the name of community” (p.30).
Boff proposes that the church take on a triangular interactive structure (see figure 4.A p.32) in which the institutionalized church will represent the community-like structure of the basic churches.
On top of his liberating structural ideas, Boff continues by addressing some of the political issues in the church. The most interesting of these, and relevant to my life, was his analysis of women in the priesthood. I come from a conservative church that, in doctrine, supports that women are not to teach men in a ministry setting. I do not personally agree with this; however, I empathize with both sides since it is an issue dealing with social constructions. Boff’s major arguments for the full equality of women stem from (a) Christ’s actions and support of such equality and (b) claims that Paul’s statements were dictated by context. I agree with his analysis; however, I dissent on the conclusion drawn in the following passage:
If God loves women as much as men, why does the church reserve its ministries and higher responsibilities to men?” (p.78).
Earlier in the book, Boff’s language supports the fact that position in the body does not equate importance or the amount of love that God has for a particular believer. I agree with the position, but the above rhetorical question is a logical fallacy based on the theological context.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #5
Yesterday's class was very good. I liked the style of teaching before; however, I know that there was a good amount of people who wanted Dr. Bolger to lecture more. The lecture and discussion content was very fresh for me, as I did not have a large amount of foreknowledge regarding the "emerging church". I say the elements of Jesus within the emerging church discussion as well as similarities between said church and my own. I truly appreciate the ecclesiological broadening as well as the insightful lecture. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)