I’ll accept this definition readily and then reply by saying that the crossing of cultures is mandatory in the every day lives of almost everyone in the entire world.  We do it when we go to work or school.  We do it when we go to the store.  We do it when we visit our neighbors.

The people with which we deal in the course of our routine lives come from various places and they have different cultures.  They have divergent values and they speak in a dissimilar voice.

I admit that the differences are minute in many cases, but they are still there.  In other instances, we find dramatic disparity.

Which is why every Christian should carry the mindset of a missionary with him or her, wherever they go.  It is necessary that we seek to understand those around us:  how they communicate, what they think, what they value.  When we understand these things, we can more effectively share the Gospel with them.

The Missional Church is simply a church in which the members consider themselves missionaries in the context where they already live.  Rather than depending on the staff or a select group of “visitation” volunteers, all the members of the church take on the responsibility of living and communicating the Gospel to the various networks to which they belong.

If the church is made of people who don’t understand the separate cultures around them, the separate values systems… if it is made up of people who expect that the people around them already share their values… the spread of the Gospel is  diminished for two reasons.

1. The church member does not recognize the need around them, assuming that their friends and acquaintances already share their values – Christian values – and is not motivated to share the Gospel to meet that unseen need.
2. If the church member does attempt to communicate the Gospel, they will likely not attempt to communicate in a manner intended to be received easily by the hearer, but one that is easier for the teller.  It’s not unlike moving to Africa and then expecting the Kenyan to speak English so that you can communicate.  It might happen, but it’s not likely, and if they do they may not be very good at it.

If a church really expects to fulfill the mission of God to which it is assigned, the people must understand who they are:  Missionaries to their own world.

Comments

• November 9, 2010, Marty Duren writes: Well said.
• November 10, 2010, Bart Rhea writes: It is good to read again some passion. Keep it up. Your heart is in the right place.

Related posts:

• Mark Devine on Missional Churches in The Messenger Podcast
• Baptist Identity Pt. 9
• Baptist Identity Pt. 6
• Crossing the Street
• MISSIONAL 2

I watched a video yesterday in which John Piper described “missions” as taking the Gospel across cultural lines.

I’ll accept this definition readily and then reply by saying that the crossing of cultures is mandatory in the every day lives of almost everyone in the entire world.  We do it when we go to work or school.  We do it when we go to the store.  We do it when we visit our neighbors.

The people with which we deal in the course of our routine lives come from various places and they have different cultures.  They have divergent values and they speak in a dissimilar voice.

I admit that the differences are minute in many cases, but they are still there.  In other instances, we find dramatic disparity.

Which is why every Christian should carry the mindset of a missionary with him or her, wherever they go.  It is necessary that we seek to understand those around us:  how they communicate, what they think, what they value.  When we understand these things, we can more effectively share the Gospel with them.

The Missional Church is simply a church in which the members consider themselves missionaries in the context where they already live.  Rather than depending on the staff or a select group of “visitation” volunteers, all the members of the church take on the responsibility of living and communicating the Gospel to the various networks to which they belong.

If the church is made of people who don’t understand the separate cultures around them, the separate values systems… if it is made up of people who expect that the people around them already share their values… the spread of the Gospel is  diminished for two reasons.

1. The church member does not recognize the need around them, assuming that their friends and acquaintances already share their values – Christian values – and is not motivated to share the Gospel to meet that unseen need.
2. If the church member does attempt to communicate the Gospel, they will likely not attempt to communicate in a manner intended to be received easily by the hearer, but one that is easier for the teller.  It’s not unlike moving to Africa and then expecting the Kenyan to speak English so that you can communicate.  It might happen, but it’s not likely, and if they do they may not be very good at it.

If a church really expects to fulfill the mission of God to which it is assigned, the people must understand who they are:  Missionaries to their own world.

Comments

• November 9, 2010, Marty Duren writes: Well said.
• November 10, 2010, Bart Rhea writes: It is good to read again some passion. Keep it up. Your heart is in the right place.

Related posts:

• Mark Devine on Missional Churches in The Messenger Podcast
• Baptist Identity Pt. 9
• Baptist Identity Pt. 6
• Crossing the Street
• MISSIONAL 2

I mentioned that I would be blogging and twittering from there during the conference.  given that, you might want to check out my twitter feed: twitter.com/artrogers, or the missioscapes twitter feed: twitter.com/missioscapes, or even these guys, who will also be there: twitter.com/martyduren & twitter.com/micahfries.

My plan is to twitter live, either through my own feed or through the MissioScapes feed, or both.  Then I’ll recap thoughts in a blog post later.

Here is a schedule published by Union University that you might consider if you are looking to follow live tweets on particular issues:

*There is one caveat.  I am also dealing with a great many things personal and professional while on this trip.  I am not guaranteeing that I will be at every session to tweet/blog.  I fully intend to be at the ones I perceive as most relevant.  This is not to discount any of the speakers or their topics, but to simply let everyone know that other things may take precedence for me.

Comments

• October 6, 2009, Vicki writes: Wow, I'm excited for you. I wish Bart and I could hear some of the speakers and their topics, especially Ed's. Can't wait for your reports. Be safe.
• October 7, 2009, Marty Duren writes: I hear you have a studly room mate.
• October 7, 2009, art rogers writes: Who told you that? Sonya? She's partial.

Related posts:

• The future of denominations
• Baptist Identity Pt. 1
• Ed Stetzer and the Future of Denominations
• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• This weekend…

I mentioned Friday that I was traveling to Jackson, TN for this conference and as you read this, I am on the road.

I mentioned that I would be blogging and twittering from there during the conference.  given that, you might want to check out my twitter feed: twitter.com/artrogers, or the missioscapes twitter feed: twitter.com/missioscapes, or even these guys, who will also be there: twitter.com/martyduren & twitter.com/micahfries.

My plan is to twitter live, either through my own feed or through the MissioScapes feed, or both.  Then I’ll recap thoughts in a blog post later.

Here is a schedule published by Union University that you might consider if you are looking to follow live tweets on particular issues:

*There is one caveat.  I am also dealing with a great many things personal and professional while on this trip.  I am not guaranteeing that I will be at every session to tweet/blog.  I fully intend to be at the ones I perceive as most relevant.  This is not to discount any of the speakers or their topics, but to simply let everyone know that other things may take precedence for me.

Comments

• October 6, 2009, Vicki writes: Wow, I'm excited for you. I wish Bart and I could hear some of the speakers and their topics, especially Ed's. Can't wait for your reports. Be safe.
• October 7, 2009, Marty Duren writes: I hear you have a studly room mate.
• October 7, 2009, art rogers writes: Who told you that? Sonya? She's partial.

Related posts:

• The future of denominations
• Baptist Identity Pt. 1
• Ed Stetzer and the Future of Denominations
• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• This weekend…

Completely ripped off from: Joe Kennedy

Comments

• September 10, 2009, Joe Kennedy writes: Thanks, Art.

Related posts:

• Easter Is My Favorite

“The Kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared?” [from Martin Luther, as read in Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer]

Completely ripped off from: Joe Kennedy

Comments

• September 10, 2009, Joe Kennedy writes: Thanks, Art.

Related posts:

• Easter Is My Favorite

But there I sat, front and center, listening to them say some of the things I had been thinking for years.  Even taking some hits from some dude channelling the spirit of Roger Moran until interrupted and chastised by both Hunt and Floyd, being further corrected by Mohler.

How did I get here?  Am I dreaming?

Some will complain that these guys are just classic middle adopters, attempting to lead from the middle.  Others will say that they’ve offered nothing new.  I’ve heard others say they are simple politicians, finding the flow of the crowd and getting out in front.

Those things may be.  I can’t tell you, but you see, the thing about a middle adopter is, he’s adopted.

These guys seemed pretty genuine to me.  If not, time will tell.  The telling of their sincerity will be in Orlando and it is something for which they asked.  Judge us by Orlando.

Fair enough!

Before I quit blogging about the SBC, I said that if the statesmen of the SBC stood against the wall while I stood to the mic, then the SBC will fall away into decline and there would be no stopping it.

The big deal about the principles and ideas being put forth by the GCRTF is that those speaking are not on the fringe of power within the SBC, but they are the leaders and statesmen.

About time.  Well done.  Thank God.

Comments

• August 27, 2009, Michael writes: If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 May it be so in our convention leadership but may it be more so in the pews of our local churches.
• August 27, 2009, Gary writes: Michael: Amen!

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• So I’ve decided to be a blogger

If you had told me 3 years ago that I would be sitting, at Ronnie Floyd’s invitation, in his church listening to him, Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler talk about the SBC as being in decline and the need for us to deconstruct that which is complex and bulky to get to what is efficient in accomplishing God’s Mission – I would have thought you insane.

But there I sat, front and center, listening to them say some of the things I had been thinking for years.  Even taking some hits from some dude channelling the spirit of Roger Moran until interrupted and chastised by both Hunt and Floyd, being further corrected by Mohler.

How did I get here?  Am I dreaming?

Some will complain that these guys are just classic middle adopters, attempting to lead from the middle.  Others will say that they’ve offered nothing new.  I’ve heard others say they are simple politicians, finding the flow of the crowd and getting out in front.

Those things may be.  I can’t tell you, but you see, the thing about a middle adopter is, he’s adopted.

These guys seemed pretty genuine to me.  If not, time will tell.  The telling of their sincerity will be in Orlando and it is something for which they asked.  Judge us by Orlando.

Fair enough!

Before I quit blogging about the SBC, I said that if the statesmen of the SBC stood against the wall while I stood to the mic, then the SBC will fall away into decline and there would be no stopping it.

The big deal about the principles and ideas being put forth by the GCRTF is that those speaking are not on the fringe of power within the SBC, but they are the leaders and statesmen.

About time.  Well done.  Thank God.

Comments

• August 27, 2009, Michael writes: If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 May it be so in our convention leadership but may it be more so in the pews of our local churches.
• August 27, 2009, Gary writes: Michael: Amen!

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos
• The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• So I’ve decided to be a blogger

Related posts:

• IMB BOT off to a good start
• The Future of SBC Outpost
• Interesting Chapel Services
• The Time Is At Hand
• Tampa update

Related posts:

• IMB BOT off to a good start
• The Future of SBC Outpost
• Interesting Chapel Services
• The Time Is At Hand
• Tampa update

Oh, and please remember that the MissioScapes blog is ideological, not political, and not focused on the SBC.  Rather, since the SBC has made the move to further its ability to fulfill the Missio Dei, it seems that we are focused on the same things at the moment.  No, I don’t think we are always focused on the same things as the SBC, if that question crossed your mind.

Not to ignore my postings here at 12 Witnesses, I’ll be dropping an article this week about Christians intentionally partnering with the unholy.

I hope to pique your interest by saying that I think we should do it.  Alot.

Comments

• August 5, 2009, Marty Duren writes: You piqued my interest by having me guessing whether the GCR or MissioScapes fell into the category of "unholy."

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• A word to the wise concerning the SBC
• Ed Stetzer and the Future of Denominations
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos

Right now, over at MissioScapes, you can read an article from Marty Duren that is the beginning of a series entitled, “If we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force.” It’s Marty being Marty on the SBC and I know some of you have missed that stuff. My article will be there in a few weeks.  There are a few scheduled to drop between now and then, but all will be worth your while, I think.

Oh, and please remember that the MissioScapes blog is ideological, not political, and not focused on the SBC.  Rather, since the SBC has made the move to further its ability to fulfill the Missio Dei, it seems that we are focused on the same things at the moment.  No, I don’t think we are always focused on the same things as the SBC, if that question crossed your mind.

Not to ignore my postings here at 12 Witnesses, I’ll be dropping an article this week about Christians intentionally partnering with the unholy.

I hope to pique your interest by saying that I think we should do it.  Alot.

Comments

• August 5, 2009, Marty Duren writes: You piqued my interest by having me guessing whether the GCR or MissioScapes fell into the category of "unholy."

Related posts:

• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today
• A word to the wise concerning the SBC
• Ed Stetzer and the Future of Denominations
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Videos

Comments

• July 29, 2009, Mike Woodward writes: While there might be an inclination to throw out anything he says due to his open theism, I gotta say I think he hits the nail on the head with why Christianity is so weak in the West. Following Christ is, or should be, inherently counter cultural. We're ineffective when our idols do not look much different than those around us who are lost. I particularly liked his discussion of the title of his book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation". We are a home schooling family, so we tend to run into a lot of Christian nation restorationists. I've held a contrarian view for some time, but my wife was somewhat neutral. One day after a good unit study of American history, she saw the emptiness of the argument that we are a Christian nation. The shallow "history" that glorifies every move our country has made has done us a disservice. I've always wondered what makes a Christian nation. Shouldn't there be a covenant involved? When exactly did God meet our leaders and proclaim us to be His people? I liken it to someone just deciding one day that they are a Christian, without truly getting the input (read redemptive, life transforming power) of Christ.
• July 30, 2009, david writes: i have long struggled with the idea of america as a christian nation. i love the quesiton you pose - "shouldnt there be a covenant involved?". in our fluffy almost laughable approach to being Christ followers in america, we find more comfort in the power of the flag than in the saving power of Christ. we find more motivation in the sacrifice represented on the flag than the redeeming sacrifice offered on the cross. i love america. i love the "troops" and the sacrifice that friends of mine have given to our country. it is, in my heart, heralded as a great nation, but it will in the end pass away. shane claiborne puts it this way (in regards to a seeker sensitive church that didnt want the cross to offend someone) "It is a dangerous day when we can take the cross out of the church more easily than the flag." that has a special meaning for me. in many churches, i have seen the flags and americanism exalted high above the God i hold so dear. arent we aliens in this world any way...
• July 30, 2009, art rogers writes: Mike, Good catch on the Open Theism. I almost commented on that in the post, but decided to see if anyone else caught it. David and I discussed it for half an hour yesterday morning. Obviously, I think you're right. While I consider Open Theism to be heresy, it doesn't change the truth he proclaims here about our tying national politics to God. I know that during the WWII era, many Lutheran churches in Germany hung Nazi flags in their Sanctuaries. The difference between Nazi Germany and America is significant, and I'm not comparing them. However, the similarity between those church's approach and our own is sometimes frightening. I love America. I would die for my country. I love the Kingdom of God more. I would, and hopefully have already committed to, give everything for it.

Related posts:

• Read and Compare
• The Myth of the Majority
• Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit 5
• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• How do you pray for Barack Obama?

Interesting what this evangelical pastor has to say about the church’s involvement in the political process.  All three videos = just over 20 mins…

Comments

• July 29, 2009, Mike Woodward writes: While there might be an inclination to throw out anything he says due to his open theism, I gotta say I think he hits the nail on the head with why Christianity is so weak in the West. Following Christ is, or should be, inherently counter cultural. We're ineffective when our idols do not look much different than those around us who are lost. I particularly liked his discussion of the title of his book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation". We are a home schooling family, so we tend to run into a lot of Christian nation restorationists. I've held a contrarian view for some time, but my wife was somewhat neutral. One day after a good unit study of American history, she saw the emptiness of the argument that we are a Christian nation. The shallow "history" that glorifies every move our country has made has done us a disservice. I've always wondered what makes a Christian nation. Shouldn't there be a covenant involved? When exactly did God meet our leaders and proclaim us to be His people? I liken it to someone just deciding one day that they are a Christian, without truly getting the input (read redemptive, life transforming power) of Christ.
• July 30, 2009, david writes: i have long struggled with the idea of america as a christian nation. i love the quesiton you pose - "shouldnt there be a covenant involved?". in our fluffy almost laughable approach to being Christ followers in america, we find more comfort in the power of the flag than in the saving power of Christ. we find more motivation in the sacrifice represented on the flag than the redeeming sacrifice offered on the cross. i love america. i love the "troops" and the sacrifice that friends of mine have given to our country. it is, in my heart, heralded as a great nation, but it will in the end pass away. shane claiborne puts it this way (in regards to a seeker sensitive church that didnt want the cross to offend someone) "It is a dangerous day when we can take the cross out of the church more easily than the flag." that has a special meaning for me. in many churches, i have seen the flags and americanism exalted high above the God i hold so dear. arent we aliens in this world any way...
• July 30, 2009, art rogers writes: Mike, Good catch on the Open Theism. I almost commented on that in the post, but decided to see if anyone else caught it. David and I discussed it for half an hour yesterday morning. Obviously, I think you're right. While I consider Open Theism to be heresy, it doesn't change the truth he proclaims here about our tying national politics to God. I know that during the WWII era, many Lutheran churches in Germany hung Nazi flags in their Sanctuaries. The difference between Nazi Germany and America is significant, and I'm not comparing them. However, the similarity between those church's approach and our own is sometimes frightening. I love America. I would die for my country. I love the Kingdom of God more. I would, and hopefully have already committed to, give everything for it.

Related posts:

• Read and Compare
• The Myth of the Majority
• Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit 5
• The Myth of the Majority, revisited
• How do you pray for Barack Obama?

This was my answer:

The missional mindset within the individual will never come from an institution. It is caught like a virus from close contact with one who already has the “disease.” This is the biggest point of small groups.

Missional interaction as a small group and the group holding the individuals accountable to be missional is the key to allowing the Missional mindset to make its way down to the smallest level – the individual.

The great problem we have is the baggage we all bring by way of expectations of what the church is and how it should work.

We are so used to the centralized institution doing everything, organizing everything and allowing the few to do the work of the whole, that even good Godly men and women with a heart for service think that changing the church is “wrong” because it is not what they always have known.

What we have to understand in this process is that the only reason for the change is that it is more effective at getting individuals to grow as disciples and engage the world with the message.

Related posts:

• Reggie McNeal 2a
• Reggie McNeal 2c
• Great Missional Conversation between Stetzer and Fitch
• Simply Missional Article from Ed Stetzer and Eric Geiger
• Missional Minatrea: Definitions

The chair of our Missions Team sent me an email last night asking what we would have to do to get the individuals of our church starting their own engagement opportunities rather than the team creating centralized opportunities that most will not engage.

This was my answer:

The missional mindset within the individual will never come from an institution. It is caught like a virus from close contact with one who already has the “disease.” This is the biggest point of small groups.

Missional interaction as a small group and the group holding the individuals accountable to be missional is the key to allowing the Missional mindset to make its way down to the smallest level – the individual.

The great problem we have is the baggage we all bring by way of expectations of what the church is and how it should work.

We are so used to the centralized institution doing everything, organizing everything and allowing the few to do the work of the whole, that even good Godly men and women with a heart for service think that changing the church is “wrong” because it is not what they always have known.

What we have to understand in this process is that the only reason for the change is that it is more effective at getting individuals to grow as disciples and engage the world with the message.

Related posts:

• Reggie McNeal 2a
• Reggie McNeal 2c
• Great Missional Conversation between Stetzer and Fitch
• Simply Missional Article from Ed Stetzer and Eric Geiger
• Missional Minatrea: Definitions

1. Paul was sensitive to the spiritual surroundings (vv. 10-17). He did not go there of his own intention, but was directed there by circumstance at the direction of Providence. He could have viewed the situation from a self centered worldview that would have led him to consider himself stranded and in need of support, possibly leading to a timid response to his surroundings. Instead, he responded to the vast number of idols by immediately proclaiming the Gospel.

2. Paul sought to help them understand (vv. 17-31). He did not expect those not exposed to the culture of Early Christianity to understand the Gospel, so he used the connections he had available. He walked the common pathway of Jewish heritage with the Jews in the local synagogue and marketplace. When the Greeks brought him to the Areopagus, he pointed to their acknowledgment of a God they didn’t know and drew upon some of their commonly held beliefs, quoting several local poets/philosophers.

Not mincing words or being timid, he communicated the truth through values they already held in common. For the Jews, the OT Scripture. For the Greeks, the belief they were all children of God.

3. The results were not Paul’s to govern (vv. 32-34). Paul proclaimed, many rejected, some were still open and a handful believed. Whether you believe that faith begins in man’s move towards God or in God’s move toward man, Paul is responsible for neither – only to faithfully offer the opportunity and allow God and man forge the result. Too often we concern ourselves with whether or not someone will respond and allow that to govern how we share or if we dare to offer the message at all. This is not our concern, but is between God and our friends.

We must be faithful to share.

Related posts:

• More Missional from David Phillips
• Can Social Networks be Missional?
• Memphis Non-Attendee
• My Journey through the Resurgence to Memphis – Part 1
• Blogtown Football League

From Acts 17.

1. Paul was sensitive to the spiritual surroundings (vv. 10-17). He did not go there of his own intention, but was directed there by circumstance at the direction of Providence. He could have viewed the situation from a self centered worldview that would have led him to consider himself stranded and in need of support, possibly leading to a timid response to his surroundings. Instead, he responded to the vast number of idols by immediately proclaiming the Gospel.

2. Paul sought to help them understand (vv. 17-31). He did not expect those not exposed to the culture of Early Christianity to understand the Gospel, so he used the connections he had available. He walked the common pathway of Jewish heritage with the Jews in the local synagogue and marketplace. When the Greeks brought him to the Areopagus, he pointed to their acknowledgment of a God they didn’t know and drew upon some of their commonly held beliefs, quoting several local poets/philosophers.

Not mincing words or being timid, he communicated the truth through values they already held in common. For the Jews, the OT Scripture. For the Greeks, the belief they were all children of God.

3. The results were not Paul’s to govern (vv. 32-34). Paul proclaimed, many rejected, some were still open and a handful believed. Whether you believe that faith begins in man’s move towards God or in God’s move toward man, Paul is responsible for neither – only to faithfully offer the opportunity and allow God and man forge the result. Too often we concern ourselves with whether or not someone will respond and allow that to govern how we share or if we dare to offer the message at all. This is not our concern, but is between God and our friends.

We must be faithful to share.

Related posts:

• More Missional from David Phillips
• Can Social Networks be Missional?
• Memphis Non-Attendee
• My Journey through the Resurgence to Memphis – Part 1
• Blogtown Football League

Are we interested in sharing Christ for the sake of the other person or for ourselves?

Great question.

As reggie McNeal says, if we want to change the way we do church, we have to change the way we measure success.

Related posts:

• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• Programming Evangelism
• Here’s Missional
• Reshuffle at the KBC
• Discipleship as Evangelism

Reframing Success: Redefining Success in Evangelism

Are we interested in sharing Christ for the sake of the other person or for ourselves?

Great question.

As reggie McNeal says, if we want to change the way we do church, we have to change the way we measure success.

Related posts:

• Church Staffing: Mis-Matched by Malcolm Gladwell
• Programming Evangelism
• Here’s Missional
• Reshuffle at the KBC
• Discipleship as Evangelism