It was a very good article, many thanks for posting the link.
I think there are people and organisations who are exactly like the author describes and I have exactly the same concerns. I have particular problem with parts of the "church planting" movement, which does sometimes seem driven by numbers rather than quality.
In previous times it was the same; in my catchment area there are perhaps a thousand very small churches, encouraged by missionaries in the 19th Century. But the foundations were not strong enough and now these churches need a lot of help.
In the interest of balance I would add two points in the other direction. When the author writes:
Quote:
|
The alternative is to stay uncritically on the treadmill of the search for the next “key” method to unlock the world to the gospel. We try something that at least seems biblically permissible (to those who bother to check), and then we look for quick results. No immediate, visible fruit? Must be a dud.
|
I think this is a good example of him being too critical and too broadly. He is characterising and not charitably, in order to make a point. I think even his opponents should be treated with more respect than that. I see that the author feels strongly about this and has perhaps let himself be carried away, which is very easy to do, but my point is to make allowance when you read the article that there may be some unfair characterisation.
My second point would be that there
is a decision about what in a culture needs to be challenged and what doesn't. If you deny that decision, then you will be making the 19th Century mistake of Westernising instead of Evangelising. Once you allow that decision, the form it takes in each situation is not easy and I don't believe the bible speaks to every situation in that amount of detail. It is important to not put stumbling blocks in people's way of the gospel on a debatable interpretation of scripture, (perhaps just offering a warning that it is debatable and should be debated is enough depending on how debatable it is). I won't put examples of that in case we get diverted! It's also important to actually challenge those areas of a culture which are not compatible with scripture (e.g. sorcery).
Back to the positive side, I appreciate his lists of how to identify if your mission is on a scriptural and bible-honouring basis.
One further thought: I have a problem when criticism is presented like "ignore the context, just preach the Word". That is so wrong. I've been invited to Nairobi to see a project there in a similar context doing similar things as a chance to share ideas, challenges and solution to challenges. i.e. *see what is working*. There is absolutely a place for that. God can speak and inspire through that. I think it's all in the motivation - do I want something which will "work" and get results? Or am I taking pains to hear my Master's voice through the scriptures AND through practical experience and to do His will regardless of the results?
Linear Mode
