In a recent visit to South Africa I spent two weeks traveling in areas where Animism is the primary worldview, regardless of what religion is practiced.  Animism, at its most basic, is the belief that there is a spiritual world and a physical world, and one can control or affect the physical world via the spiritual world.  It is a mechanical system that believes if one says or does certain things (prayers, incantations, sacrifices, curses and charms), then the spirit world is impacted and this has direct effect on the physical world.  The Animistic Worldview does not promote a belief in a Creator, but recognizes there are good and evil spirits whose favor must be bought, earned or stolen through power and/or deceit; whose anger or evil must be appeased and/or used for self and against others; and that some people have the capacity or power to coerce the spirits to do their bidding (shamans, witch doctors, spiritualists, warlocks and witches).

One new revelation for me during my discussions about Animism with David Broodryk of South Africa was that in the Animistic Worldview there is a fixed amount of stuff and energy in the world.  This means that for one person to gain, another has to lose.  If one wants to be less poor or more rich, then one has to take from others or through the spiritual world cause the transfer of stuff from one person to another.  Most hexes and curses are for this purpose.

In recent years I have seen the Animistic Worldview gain de facto ground in modern Christianity in America.  There are books, sermons, and attitudes that reveal a strong tendency among Americans to think that if they say or do certain things, then God will respond in certain ways.  If we tithe, God will bless us.  If we pray, God will do what we ask.  If we wear or display certain medallions or symbols, God will protect us.

It seems we have forgotten that the life of a Christian is about conforming to God’s will, not God conforming to our wills.  Faith is being obedient to God regardless of the outcome for me personally.  Prayer is not about getting God to do things for me or us; it’s about changing our attitudes and actions to please God, getting to know Him better, and serving others more effectively.  Ministry is being used by God to answer the prayers of others through service.  And worship is not just about going to church to receive a blessing; it’s about being the church every day and presenting our lives as living sacrifices that are individually and collectively pleasing to God and a blessing to others.

Politically, I am seeing a significant worldview shift in America.  When I was growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, when one saw someone who was successful, the thought was not “How can I get what they have?” – the thought was “How can I learn what they know and create that for myself?”.  The basic worldview was based in a Creator who created us in His own image, which included knowledge and creativity, and the ability to create new stuff, wealth, energy, and a better life.

Today, we have Occupy Wall Street, which is grounded in an Animistic Worldview that believes, “In order for me to have the stuff I want or deserve, I must take it from others who have that stuff.” There is a fixed amount of stuff and energy, so for me to be happy and healthy I must take what I want or need from others by any means available.  As a matter of fact, those who have stuff have it because they took it from others, so it’s perfectly OK for me to get stuff by taking it from them.

At its root, any form of socialism or progressive-ism is an Animistic Governmental System that attenuates the flow of stuff and energy from those who have to those who don’t have in a way that promotes law and order in a worldview that says it’s OK to take what you want if you have the power to do so.  In effect, government becomes the shaman or witch doctor that causes the redistribution of wealth at a level that keeps both the rich and the poor happy.  This system causes a loss of creativity and accountability that is at the core of a worldview that acknowledges a Creator who endows His creation with the ability to create – not simply in the physical world, but in the world of ideas and service to others.  The Animistic Worldview fosters deceit, control, low accountability and hatred.  A Creative Worldview generates openness, cooperation, high accountability and care for others.  Idealistic?  I hope so!  How else can we set goals for ourselves and our society?

Those who subscribe to a Creative Worldview are engaged in society, making sure everyone has the opportunity to learn and be creative in knowledge as well as service to others.  This produces the stuff we need, and we are open to sharing it with those who don’t have because there is no end to resources when we are creative.

The shift from a Creative Worldview to an Animistic Worldview will destroy America.  This shift takes place as American Christians practice de facto Animism in our homes, businesses, churches, and political systems across our great nation.  Our political system grew out of a Creative Worldview.  As the Animistic Worldview replaces the Creative Worldview in America, America will go the way of many countries that are rooted in an Animistic Worldview – poverty, and class warfare brutally controlled or used by government or rebels to shift power and resources from one group of people to another in order to empower and enrich those who are in control or who gain control.

Dear God, help us to know you better and serve others more effectively!

Blessings!

I am adding this foreword to this article to clarify my stance on Insider Movements.  I am in opposition to Insider Movements that subjugate the Gospel to culture and/or redact culturally offensive material from the Bible.  (There are some other minor issues that I would not personally practice, but these two are primary and are deal-breakers for me.)  For the most part everything I do and teach is compatible with those who practice Insider Movements.  Unfortunately, the term “Insider Movement” has become identified by traditional Christians and leaders with those who subjugate the Gospel to culture and/or redact culturally offensive material from the Bible.  This means the term has become problematic and raises high passion on all sides of the yelling match (it is not a conversation).  I have dealt with the term “Insider Movement” from the negative side of the argument, including the reasons that cause me to reject the terminology.  It is up to those who embrace the “Insider Movement” terminology to clearly state what they do and do not believe and practice.  I certainly understand that traditional Christians and leaders often say one thing and do another.  But, when the accusations come, it is up to us to Biblically defend our beliefs and practices.  History and tradition have tremendous weight, and those of us who stand against that weight are forced to defend our beliefs and practices, even though the accusers are not held to the same standard.  

Blessings!

David Watson

——–

There is a disturbing trend in missions known as Insider Movements.  I am not going to address all the good things that have come out of Insider Movements. In fact, I have contributed to the body of knowledge related to Insider Movements, and I have incorporated into my work many of the things I have learned from Insider Movements.  I want to address two aspects of Insider Movements that cause me to be in opposition to Insider Movements as they are currently being expressed – The subjugation of the Gospel to culture; and the redaction of culturally offensive material from the Gospel in order to appease a culture.

Insider Movements start with culture and subjugate the message of the Gospel to a particular culture.  Truth starts with the Creator and His message via His Holy Spirit to mankind and through His expression of Himself as the Son of God, Jesus.  (This sentence in an inadequate expression of the nature and function of the Holy Trinity)   The primary authoritative source of God’s communication with mankind is the Bible.  If, because of culture, we choose not to present the entire Word of God to those from any given culture because parts of the message may be offensive, then what we are presenting is NOT the Gospel and it is potentially heretical.  Yeah, I get progressive revelation.  But this is not the same as letting God’s story unfold in all its beauty and ugliness as expressed by mankind, regardless of cultural bias.  It’s changing the story to make it acceptable.

By the way, much of the Western church is guilty of Insider Movement mentality.  We don’t talk about hell.  We avoid controversial issues like homosexuality, adultery, divorce, abusive relationships, the murder of unborn children, and much more.  We don’t demand obedience to the Word of God, love for God and our neighbors, and holiness as the normal expression of devotion to God for those who call themselves Christian.  You can add to the list the things we don’t address from the Bible with new and other Believers, as well as seekers.  Our doctrines have become watered-down, and in some cases heretical, to appease the sensibilities of our Western culture.  Is it a surprise that our mission efforts are following the same trend?

I know.  Insider Movements are trying to be culturally sensitive.  Culturally Sensitive Expressions remove or never incorporate Western or other-culture expressions of leadership, worship, governance, and etc.  Culturally Sensitive Expressions ask the question, “How do we obey the Word of God in our context, regardless of what it may cost us?”  It is not being culturally sensitive to change the message of the Bible, which was given to us by God.  It is being heretical.  This is true whether you are removing the “Son of God” language to appease Muslims, or if you are saying the commandments of Jesus were just for the 11 Apostles and we don’t need to worry ourselves about obeying them in our churches today, or if you are teaching that there is no hell.

Muslims will die for one letter of the Quran.  What message do we send when we are willing to change and/or ignore entire passages of the Bible in order to be culturally sensitive?  Why will we fight for “grace”, “mercy” and “forgiveness”, but ignore “repentance”, “obedience” and “good works”?  Has our desire to be culturally sensitive in order to reach people for Christ taken us away from Christ and made it impossible for us to lead people to Christ?

The most disturbing issue related to Insider Movement mentality is the willingness or demand to redact the printed Word of God in order to be sensitive to the culture.  Whether it’s the removal of the “Son of God” language, the changing of the “Father God” (gender) language, or the removal of anything that someone may consider offensive; any change to the Word of God begs the question, “Where does it stop!?”  There is a difference between scholarly interpretation/translation of the Bible with peer review and changing the thrust and meaning of the Bible to appease culture.  The Bible should address the sinful and/or misguided worldviews of mankind, not comply with them.  God is the standard, not our culture(s).

The moment we put any culture above the message of God, we become a hindrance to that culture knowing and obeying God within their context.  We become the source of heresy.  We must come back to the central doctrine of Scripture – it is given by God for us to obey.  God’s love language for mankind is certainly grace and mercy.  But mankind’s love language for God is obedience to all the commands of Christ.  Anything less or anything else takes us from God, not to God.  When we are moving from God, how can we show others how to find God?

Blessings!

A friend shared this quote with me.  Thought you would appreciate it.

“Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work. ‘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’ (Luther).” 

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community)

Paul said in Corinthians, “My message was not with persuasive words, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God.” (I Cor. 2:4-5) 
Our team recently conducted about 120 interviews in countries in West and Central Africa to certify what God was doing and to get first-hand accounts of what was making it happen.  To everyone’s amazement, they found that 70-80% of the time, some form of miracle (dreams, visions, healing, deliverance from demons, etc.) was used to launch the church planting process. The story below illustrates God’s amazing power!
From our director in West Africa:

I am Haji. I am 53 years old living with my family in Western Africa. Almost a year ago I had to drive away my second eldest son because he became a Christian. I threw him out of my family because I felt that denying the Muslim faith and becoming a Christian is the worst anyone can ever do, especially the son of a renowned Muslim in our community. People who even try to tell me about Christ become my archenemies and are targeted in the community.
One day I became deathly ill. I called my wives and elder sons and began to share my properties amongst them. While I remained helpless, after every medical treatment and all the sacrifices recommended through divinations, my son Mohamed heard about my illness and came with two people who were pastors. Though I earlier rejected them, when they prayed for me in the name of Jesus, I was raised from the illness within 3 days. Now I stand healthy and strong, Jesus has taken death away from me. Since then they told me the story of Jesus and I gave my life to Him. I am now supporting my son in his theological training to become a pastor.

Shame on me (us?) for being surprised that the God of the Bible is still writing His story with demonstrations of power!

Another Guest Post from David Broodryk.  I spent the last three weeks with David in South Africa.  We discussed many of the topics covered in this post.  David is working hard to develop Disciple-making approaches for a post modern culture.

Discovery and the Inductive Approach

There are two main approaches to Bible study.  One is inductive.  The other is deductive.  Discovery groups work with an inductive approach.  They fail when using a deductive approach.  The struggle we have in particularly Christian-background cultures is that most seminaries and churches teach a deductive approach to scripture.  When this Christian baggage is carried into our Discovery groups, it causes serious problems.

The Deductive approach

A deductive approach begins with generalizations, conclusions or doctrines and moves for support of these by using scripture.  In other words, it begins with a prior belief and then attempts to make scripture support this predetermined belief.  Deduction is subjective and often prejudicial.  It is narrow by nature and is concerned with testing or proving hypotheses.  It produces Christians who dictate to the Scriptures, rather than disciples who listen to the Scriptures.

When we talk about placing the Word of God in the hands of ordinary people, many church leaders express a fear that heresy will develop (A fascinating return to pre-reformation thinking!).  This fear arises from their deductive training.  A deductive Bible study or sermon begins from a point that the teacher is trying to make, and then uses a number of scripture verses and examples to support that conclusion. Most Western churches are built on this deductive approach to scripture.  So are most cults.  A cult begins when a powerful leader begins with a premise and then brews a concoction from scattered pieces of scripture to construct support for his premise.   Cults are formed when God’s people become too lazy to form their understanding of truth on Scripture itself, but rely on a strong teacher or denomination to interpret scripture for them.  Cults use the deductive approach in order to keep people ignorant of the scriptures and dependent on the leaders of the cult.  This “top down” approach is the root cause of most heresies.  The result of the church adopting this approach to scripture is that most churches are “heresy management centres.”  They are continually trying to counter heretical deductive reasoning with truth arrived at by using the same deductive approach.  The result is all kinds of arguments about often petty issues that ignore the simplicity of plain obedience to scripture.  The best defence against heresy in small groups is not a deductive process, but rather an inductive approach to scripture.

This is not to say that there is no place for the deductive approach.  Not all deductive study is dogmatic or heretical (making scripture say something it actually does not say).  At its most basic level, deductive Bible study is simply instruction in Biblical doctrine.  As long as doctrine is formed by correctly handling scripture, it is of some benefit.  Of course, in deductive Bible study the student places a lot of trust in his teacher to guide him through the doctrines.  This creates a problem in our “insight-based” culture.  Too often, leaders under pressure to reveal their “latest insight” fall into weaving a web of interpretations that appear to support their desired view.  They deceive themselves and their audience by impressing their own thinking into the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to impress it’s thinking on them.  They are less concerned with what the scriptures say than they are about protecting their own personal insight.  The result, regardless of the teacher’s intent, is that the listeners are misled (2 Peter 3:16).  It is therefore vital that we teach believers to be like the Bereans, who tested what they heard against the scriptures (Acts 17:11-12).  This is the strongest defence against heresy.  Scripture teaches this practice, continually warning us to guard against fables, babblings and contradictions that are falsely called knowledge (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 6:3-5; 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 2:17-18; 4:3-4).  The only way to truly test what Scripture says is to use an inductive approach.

The Inductive Approach

A better approach in a small group is an inductive approach to scripture (what we call a Discovery Group).  An inductive approach is objective and impartial. It demands that we first examine the particulars of the Scriptures and then make conclusions based on those particulars. It begins with the plain text of scripture, and encourages participants to read the passages and draw conclusions directly from what the text itself says.  Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory.  It uses questions asked by a facilitator in order to elicit thought and learning.  It is a highly effective learning method, especially in a self-correcting group process.  Facilitators of an inductive study group are trained to ask questions, not provide answers.  People are trained to study the scriptures.  They are taught to ask questions which help them understand what is going on, what is being said, and how that relates to the rest of the passage.   Inductive Bible study on the basic level is simply careful instruction in the meaning of the Biblical text.  It produces students of Scripture rather than students of doctrine.

A simple inductive study involves three steps:

1)      Observation of the scripture (what does it say?)

2)      Interpretation of the scripture (what does it mean?)

3)      Application of the scripture (what will I do in response?)

The purpose of inductive Bible Study is not to build doctrine (although over time people do begin to form doctrinal understandings based on the scriptures they have read).  Rather, it is textual in nature, demanding careful examination of the Biblical texts in order to know what they mean and how we should apply them to our lives.  The primary purpose of the inductive approach is to lead students into a knowledge and understanding of scripture that moves them towards practical application (2 Timothy 3:15-41).  The ultimate goal of a faithful Bible teacher should be to raise his students up to his level of understanding and obedience, so that they may eventually instruct and correct him (Ephesians 4:11-16).

A common objection to the simple inductive process is that people will become so focused on the details of the text, that they overlook the larger picture.  It is true that a person or group looking at one text or passage can interpret that passage incorrectly.  In our post-modern age of personal insight and personal application that is a valid concern.  However, the objection ignores the fact that over time, the group will self-correct if taught correctly.  Any imbalance is corrected over time through a balanced approach to the entire body of Scripture.  As new scriptures are introduced, the group learns a vital principle of interpretation – that scripture interprets scripture.  Without fail, they adjust and grow in their understanding of scripture at a deeper level than the deductive approach would ever have produced.

How Deductive reasoning destroys groups

The biggest failure of the deductive approach is that it does not lead naturally to obedience.  Rather, it most often leads to disagreements and arguments between group members.  This sometimes happens so subtly and suddenly, that an inexperienced facilitator is easily caught off guard.  Christians, especially, are so programmed to think deductively that some of them almost never “get it.”  For example, let’s look at an all-too-common interaction when Christians attempt the Discovery process:

Facilitator: What is this passage in Genesis 1 saying?

John (unbeliever): It says to me that God made everything (inductive conclusion).

James (new believer): This passage tells me that God made everything around me.  If that is true, then we have a responsibility to look after it.  This week, I will make a point of picking up litter and looking after the world that God created (inductive conclusion and obedience statement).

John (unbeliever): It seems to be saying that God made everything in six days and then rested on the seventh day.  I have been working a lot lately, but if God saw the need to take time to rest, then I also need rest.  I will take time this week to rest and spend time with my family (inductive conclusion and obedience statement).

Mary (believer): Well, I don’t believe God made the world in six literal days.  If you allow me, then I can show you that the days were not literal, but figurative.  Also, Jesus did away with the Sabbath.  In Hebrews it says . . . (approaching scripture with a doctrinal premise and using scriptures to try prove a point).

Facilitator: Mary, let’s try to stick with this passage and learn what God is saying to us through it – how we can obey Him.

Mary (gets offended): Well, if you don’t want to hear what I have to say then tell me so.  I think it is important for these new believers to understand what the Bible really says!  They can easily fall into error, you know!

What is taking place in this interaction?  The unbeliever and new believer easily follow the inductive approach.  They deal with the passage before them and instinctively follow the process of “simple truth simply obeyed.”  The believer enters the discussion loaded with deductive reasoning and defensive doctrine.  She believes that she is the defender of truth.  Unaware of the consequences of her actions, Mary continually interferes with the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the others present.  She uses her doctrines to avoid simple obedience.  Her statements muddy the waters, making it difficult to see the simple truth in the scriptures before the group.  The ideal is to never have unbelievers and believers together in the same group.  In reality, this is not always possible.  In this case, Mary will need to be confronted gently until she changes or leaves.  Left unchecked, her behaviour will destroy the group.

How deductive reasoning destroys replication

The inductive process keeps the Word of God as the central authority in the group.  This is easily replicated.  The group does not need a Bible expert to lead the group – they simply need a Bible.  Members of the group quickly understand this and develop a boldness to start groups of their own.

However, when the group falls into a deductive mode, members become passive.  Stronger leaders that dominate the conversation quickly emerge.  These leaders become the “experts and defenders” of Biblical truth.  Members of the group stop participating for fear of being shot down by the experts.  Replicating the group becomes impossible, or at best extremely slow, because each new group needs another expert in order to survive.  Groups based on deductive reasoning cannot effectively replicate.

 Inductive rules

A simple set of rules have helped us to keep the Discovery groups faithful to the inductive process.  These rules guide the group discussion. 

Rules for a Discovery Group:

1)      The passage preaches, not any person.  Stick with the passage of scripture in front of the group – no “hyperlinking” to other passages!

2)      No individual may impose his or her “insight” on others – stick with the plain and simplest meaning of the passage in front of the group.

3)      Any individual may challenge any other individual in the group with one simple question, “Where does it say what you are saying in this passage of scripture?”

The rules are not fool-proof.  We still have people resorting to deductive reasoning.  But the rules have helped us to stay reasonably faithful to the process – even in a churched context.  In order to work, every member of the group must “own” the rules.  Every member of the group becomes a policeman of the process.  And yes, people with a Western church background are by far the most difficult to manage in this process!

Curriculum Design

It is vital that those who design and determine curriculum, have a deep understanding of the inductive process.  Curriculum cannot be scripture-based – it must be scripture-only.  Curriculum designers cannot begin with a premise and then attempt to piece together passages that support that premise.  The meaning must flow from the simplest interpretation of the passages.  This becomes even more complex when working with various translations, cultures and languages.  The basic test for curriculum designers is, “Does the simplest interpretation of this text inside the target culture and language, using the translation that people will be reading, consistently lead to the desired truth discovered and obeyed?”  Application is often personal, but the interpretation should be consistent.  This kind of curriculum is something that is only arrived at through careful research, practical testing, intensive review and a dynamic process of continued self-correction.

Conclusion

The Discovery process is a powerful method for leading people to become obedient followers of Christ.  But in order to work, it needs to stay with an inductive approach to scripture.  Curriculum designers must stay engaged through a dynamic process of testing and self-correction. Outside leaders must carefully train the inductive method.  Facilitators must ensure that the approach to scripture remains inductive.  Any member of the group that enters into deductive reasoning can potentially destroy the process.  When every person in the process becomes a guardian of the inductive process, it never leads to heresy, but rather releases the life-transforming power of the gospel.

Following is a guest post by a team member, Paul Watson.  Paul’s article has included my treaching and his application and thought in a well written article.  I hope you enjoy it, and find it helpful in your ministry.

Blessings!

Small Groups that have the DNA of a Gospel Planting Movement by Paul Watson on February 18, 2010

The following quote was sent to me by a friend in the UK.  Thought you would appreciate it.

Blessings!

—-

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any word in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. ‘My God,’ you will say, ‘if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I every get on in the world?’ Here in lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.” 

                     - Soren Kierkegard, Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. Charles E. Moore (Farmington, PA: Plough, 2002), p.201.

Kingdom Metrics is measuring our work by God’s expectations as revealed in Scripture.  Kingdom Metrics is grounded in understanding how God measures what we do, resulting in our strategies and plans fulfilling God’s expectations for what we do and how we do it.  It is our responsibility to be obedient to God as revealed in His Word.  It is our responsibility as leaders to make sure our organizations and ministries are obedient to the whole counsel of Scripture, understanding that the Holy Spirit is involved in this process and that each ministry is part of a whole that we see dimly, but God sees clearly.  I recognize that each ministry can have a different focus that majors on part of Scripture.  For example, we may focus on feeding the poor, or healing, or education, or evangelism, or….  But even when we are fulfilling part of Scripture, we have to be mindful of the whole counsel of Scripture and endeavor to fit into the big picture, not just focus our piece of the picture without regard for the big picture.

If we are mindful of Kingdom Metrics, we recognize that:

• Kingdom Metrics are about Kingdom Purposes (Doing God’s will).
• Kingdom Metrics are about measuring our work by what God uses to measure us.
• Kingdom Metrics are about obeying God’s Word and teaching others to obey God’s Word regardless of theological, doctrinal, denominational, church, or cultural bias. 
• Kingdom Metrics are about putting the Great Command and the Great Commission ahead of personal, denominational, church or organizational objectives/goals.
• Kingdom Metrics are transformational, which can only be accomplished by God working through all his people.
• If we fail to include Kingdom Metrics in our planning, we will fail to fulfill Kingdom Purposes.

(I would be interested in what you think should be added to this list.)

Following are some filter questions I use to determine if I am involved in Kingdom work instead of organizational work.

• Is the work founded on Scripture-only or is it doctrine-based?
• Is the work obedience-based, insight-based, or knowledge-based?  (Obedience-based and knowledge-based are probably familiar terms.  Insight-based is about discovering all the nuances of Scripture, but may not lead to obedience if insight is the goal.  Most expositors and commentators are insight-based.)
• Does the work relate to the whole body of Christ?
• Does the work put the whole body of Christ ahead of our own personal or organizational interests?
• Does the work touch and benefit others not related to our organization?
• Does the work help others without expectation of return?
• Does the work take the Gospel to the masses (all demographics)?
• Does the work get to evangelism and church planting through disciple-making, and is disciple-making a primary focus?
• Can the work move to others from the beginning point of the work?
• Is the work founded on natural leaders?
• Do methodologies focus on multiplying new units – Disciples, Bible Studies, Churches?
• Do methodologies focus on expanding to new neighborhoods, cities, nations, people groups?
• Do we plan to reach our city/nation/people group for Christ (focus on lostness), or do we want to grow our church/denomination (focus on ourselves)?
• Does the work put a high priority on reaching the lost regardless of other activities?
• Does the work endeavor to transform communities?

 (I would be interested in any filter questions you use and/or would suggest.)

The Kingdom Parables give us some insight to Kingdom Metrics (How God measures what we do).

• Sower and Soils (Matthew 13:1-23): The Gospel is to be sowed on all soils, but only one of four soils will produce fruit.  Not everyone reacts the same way to the Word, but all are to be exposed to it.
• Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43): Satan will be doing his best to undermine the work of God.  God does not ultimately deal with this until the end of the age.
• Mustard Seed and Leaven (Matthew: 31-33): Kingdom work will produce incredible growth and development.
• Hidden Treasure and Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:44-46): The Kingdom of God is worth everything we own, and some accidentally discover the Kingdom, and others are searching for the Kingdom.
• Dragnet (Matthew 13: 47-50): There will be judgment for the wicked and the righteous.  The Good News and the Bad News both need to be a part of our message.  Our ministry must include both, not just be good works. We need to understand that evil will infiltrate what we do.
• Householder (Mt 13:51-52): Those in the Kingdom of God have a treasure of both the Old and the New Testaments, with the responsibility to preserve, multiply, and teach both (duty of scribes).
• Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35): An unforgiving heart has no place in the Kingdom of God.
• Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 18:1-16): All who respond to the Gospel gratefully, and work diligently during the time they have as a part of the Kingdom, will receive the same reward regardless of when they responded.
• Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32): The Kingdom of God is filled with “doers”, not “sayers”. Obedience is our love response to God’s mercy.  (See Mt 7:21-23; 28:20; Jn 14:15,21,23; 15:10,14; 1Co 7:19; 1Jn 2:3-4)
• Wicked Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-46): The Kingdom of God will be taken from wicked religious leaders who reject God’s Prophets, reject His Son, and do not bear fruit; and it will be given to those who accept the Son and bear fruit.  (See Luke 12:48 for the responsibility of those who have been privileged to be a part of the Kingdom)
• Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14): The Kingdom of God is for those who properly and thankfully receive the invitation of God (His grace) to join the feast.
• Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13): The Kingdom of God is for those who are prepared for and watchful for the Lord’s coming.
• Three Stewards (a.k.a. Parable of the Talents) (Matthew 25:14-30): The Kingdom of God is for those who are found to be productive to the limits of their capacity when the Lord returns.
• Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:13-46): The Kingdom of God is for those who unselfishly care for the poor and needy in society.
• Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29): The Kingdom of God is made up of God and those who labor with Him; the increase comes from God, but we have to work.

The other parables of Jesus also give us insight into Kingdom Metrics.  Luke 15 gives us three parables on lostness – The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and the Lost Son (a.k.a. The Prodigal Son).  In these parables we see that Gods loves all his sheep, but His love is more than just collective love for His creation, it is individual love that looks for the lost and celebrates their return.  Jesus died for the lost, and His love for the lost is our example.

Kingdom Metrics is understanding that God has plans and intentions for all we do, say, think, or fail to do in response to His Word.  When we go about our personal lives or organizational lives without considering the Kingdom of God, we fail to be in step with God and our work is hit or miss in regard to obeying God.  Kingdom Metrics assure we are trying to understand what our partnership with God looks like.  We put what He wants first and then plan for our personal or organizational activities within the context of what God wants.

When we fail to start with Kingdom Metrics we risk missing what God wants us to do.  We fail to be involved in what God has planned for His creation.  We need to be asking the questions:

• What does God expect from us?
• Does everything we are doing or planning fall within the context of God’s plan?
• What do we need to change in order to be more Kingdom minded?

Blessings!

There is an ongoing debate around the world regarding contextualization.  This is an extremely complex debate in which many very smart and dedicated people on all sides of the issue have taken interest.  I have mostly stayed out of the debate because I love everyone involved and did not want to alienate myself from the people or the debate.  My concern is that there is a rising tendency to categorize organizations and people by where they stand on contextualization.  This is a very disturbing trend that will cripple our global mission processes.

We have spent hundreds of years doing missions in an environment that stresses denominational/doctrinal adherence and/or differences.  This has led to rivalries, partitioning of countries along denominational lines, confusion, syncretism, and constant sniping at one another.  It is no wonder that those who are not Christian cannot understand us, especially if they are in areas where multiple denominational/doctrinal stances are present.  Now we are adding contextualization into the mix, and this is even more confusing and more detrimental to our Great Commission.

Where did denominationalism come from?  It came from good men who wanted to deal with certain parts of the Bible in their context in a way that would lessen confusion for their leaders and members in that context.  These arose out of conscience and a desire that practices would be uniform in their context.  The problem with this is that as the denominationalism expanded to new contexts it forced the old context solutions on the new Believers in a different context, instead of allowing the new Believers to develop their understanding and practices with the Bible as their guide rather than a doctrinal statement that was developed to address a different context.

What would Christianity look like today if loving, knowledgeable, experienced mentors had focused on making Disciples for Jesus who would obey His teachings in their clearest and simplest forms regardless of personal or corporate consequences?  We are so tied up in what Christianity looks like we have forgotten that it is only real in a deep abiding relationship with our Creator, Jesus Christ our Lord.  This relationship is personal and it is corporate!  Individuals and groups are held accountable to the Lord Jesus for our individual and corporate beliefs and practices.  The prophets and Jesus were harsh with religious leaders whose beliefs and practices did not agree.

I believe that Scripture has within it all we need to be obedient and pleasing to God in thought and practice.  I believe that each leader and each group has a responsibility to practice their faith in a way that best communicates their love and devotion for God through Jesus the Messiah in their own context, without the need for outsiders to tell them how to practice.

The role of the outsider is to introduce the Creator Christ and to demonstrate that our love response to God’s mercy is our consistent obedience to His Word in public and private, in all situations and circumstances, regardless of the personal consequences resulting from being obedient.  God demonstrates His love for us through His mercy (love/mercy).  We demonstrate our love for God through our obedience (love/obedience).

We cannot earn God’s love through obedience.  God’s love is absolute and one cannot have more of it or less of it at any given moment based on any legalistic adherence to a doctrine or the Bible.  God demonstrates His love for us through his mercy (love/mercy).  Those who love God demonstrate their love for God through obedience to His Word and the Holy Spirit speaking into their lives (love/obedience).  What the Holy Spirit reveals in our personal lives will be consistent with the revelation of His Word, the Bible.  We have a group responsibility to scripturally test the personal revelation of any individual before it is adopted as a personal or local group practice.

I appreciate what George Barna and Frank Viola were attempting with their book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices.  However, I disagree with their fundamental premise.  Returning to First Century practices will not cure the ails of the modern church.  Our context is so much more complicated that those of the First Century.  Practices should flow out of Obedience to God in our current context, not out of some context that could not possibly understand the needs of the modern world and formulate practices that would be adequate for all times and places, and all seasons.  The Pagan Practices identified by Barna and Viola were contextual attempts to redeem local culture in obedience to the Word.  The problem came when the results of the process were passed on from generation to generation and from place to place, instead of passing on the process of redeeming local culture in the light of God’s Word.  Redeeming local pagan practices is a good thing.  Making those redeemed local practices the norm for the church in all times and places is not a good thing.  Instead, we should be mentoring leadership to redeem their context, not adopt a foreign expression of a redeemed foreign context.  We should be teaching process from leader to leader and generation to generation, not blind adherence to limited doctrinal responses from Scripture to address local and temporal issues.

We must resist passing on our solutions to our contexts to others as if our solutions are normative for Christianity and will work in every time and context.  What we must pass on is Scripture and a mentoring relationship that will develop leaders who can find the expressions of obedience to the Word in their own contexts in their own season.  Learning from others is a sign of maturity.  Copying others without thinking is immaturity.  The first leads to growth.  The second leads to destruction.

Our current educational processes seem to promote copying practices from the ages instead of learning from the Word of God and applying the principles to each new problem in each new generation in every different place.  Form is not universal.  If you don’t believe this simply look at the different kinds of brooms all over the planet.  Many forms, one function – clean the mess.  A single kind of broom is not suitable to all situations, nor is it suitable to every way different cultures prefer to sweep.  None of us would dream of forcing every person to use one kind of broom for every cleaning environment and every cultural style of sweeping.

Yet, this is exactly what we do with church and missions.  We insist that one form will suffice for all time in every situation.  This is absurd.  This is absurd whether we approach it from a doctrinal position, historical position, or cultural position.  Different times and different places and different contexts require different expressions of obedience to the Word of God.  Notice!  Not a different Word of God, but different expressions of obedience to the infallible and unchanging Word.

It is as wrong for us to contextualize practices for another culture as it is for us to foist our personal practices on another culture.  Contextualization is a local obedience response to the Word of God.  It is a local expression of love/obedience for God in response to God’s love/mercy for them.

I can introduce someone outside my context to the Word of God, assist them in understanding the Word of God, and ask them how they will obey the Word of God in their context; but I must not tell them how to obey.  The moment I move to telling “how”, I am teaching them to sweep the floor my way with my broom instead of allowing them to build from Scripture to Principle to Practice in a way that is relevant to their context.

In my opinion, there is no greater expression of faith in God and His Holy Spirit than to allow new Believers to read the Word, apply the Word, and then build their principles and practices through love/obedience to the Word and the Holy Spirit.  We say we believe in the Holy Spirit, but we act as if He is incompetent to do His part in the lives of new Believers and new churches.  When we have done our part (Show our love for God by being obedient to His Word and teaching other to be obedient to His Word), God does His part in the presence of the Holy Spirit who counsels, inspires, directs, convicts, emboldens us to obedience in the face of opposition and persecution, and grows our faith.

Contextualization by outsiders is not the issue!  Obedience to the Word of God and His Holy Spirit within each context is the issue.  I cannot formulate this for another context or time or place.  I cannot contextualize the Gospel for another.  I can only love, train, and mentor them to formulate their love response to God for themselves and thereby see true contextualization of the Gospel and the development of relevant local practices that demonstrate to the community their love for God and their obedience response to God’s love/mercy.  If I give anything beyond process I endanger the contextualization of the Gospel to a given people, context and time; and I hinder the spread of the Gospel.

My job is to give the Gospel as simply and purely as possible.  Train people to read and learn the Word and apply it to their context in their own ways; to teach them to obey by being obedient and expecting obedience from them to the simple Word of God; and depend on the Holy Spirit to do in them what He is doing in me.  Their job is to receive the Word of God, listen and learn the Word, apply the Word to their own lives, and contextualize the practices that come from the principles revealed in the Word by the Holy Spirit so that others in the context can see and respond to their transformed lives and culture.

I must deculturalize my expressions of obedience to the Gospel so that foreign practices (my practices) will not make it harder for people to hear the Gospel.  Local believers must contextualize their obedience to the Gospel and formulate practices that communicate their love/obedience for God in response to His Word and His Spirit to their context.

The contextualization debate is the wrong debate.  We need to be discussing why we think our peculiar brand of Christianity that was formulated for a particular time and context is relevant to any other time or context.  It is not!  It has become the barrier that is the most difficult to overcome in sharing the Gospel and teaching obedience to the commands of Jesus to new generations in new times and in different contexts.  Our personal preferences for worship, prayer, outreach, governance, clothing, and etc. are meaningless to anyone else.   The only thing that transcends time, space, and context is the Gospel and our love/obedience responses to God’s love/mercy.  Give the Gospel, teach love/obedience, and allow every obedient people to develop their own practices, not adopt peculiar outsider practices that are more barrier than help to those who do not know God.

Related Articles:

• Opinion – Contextualization, Personal Evangelism and Disciple Making
• Church Planting Essentials – Exploring Contextualization and Deculturalization

Blessings!

This is another Guest Post by David Broodryk from South Africa.  He continues his Hunter and Hearder analogy in this look at the leadership needed to casue movments.

Hope you enjoy.

Blessings!

When God births a Movement

When God births a movement, He works through many different people.  In a previous article we looked at two roles in the church that often have little tolerance for one another – the hunter and the herder.  But when hunters and herders begin to appreciate one another and work together, we see healthy movements emerge.  However, as much as hunters and herders often misunderstand one another, they often both misunderstand and under-appreciate the roles of the strategist, catalyst and activist.

The reason we are so slow to recognize these roles, is because they are largely hidden.  But in true movements, you will always find them.  How do these people contribute to movements?  Strategists help us to do the right things.  We need them, but they cannot operate alone.  Strategists on their own make great plans that lead to nothing.  Catalysts help things to begin.  But catalysts on their own start lots of things that quickly collapse.  Activists get people involved.  But activists on their own rally people towards empty and meaningless causes.  The three need one another.  An individual may have a mix of these gifts, but seldom do we find all three at full capacity in one person.

The greatest movement we have on planet earth today, the church, was the result of a team effort.  The Father had a strategic plan to save mankind.  The plan needed a catalyst – someone who would come to earth and make the first disciples.  As the catalyst had completed his job and was leaving, He promised to send an activist from the Trinity to complete the mission.  The Holy Spirit provided the ongoing power and made true activists of the first disciples.  They were empowered to witness and enlist large numbers of people.  The first two roles can be outsiders to the target people group, but the activist is always an insider empowered by the Spirit.

Birthing movements takes hard work and passion.  Prayer and faith are non-negotiable.  No prayer, no power.  No work, no results.  These are obvious elements to launching movements.  Yet we often forget that battles are not only won on the battlefield, but also in the planning, strategy and subsequent execution.  Fiery passion without a good plan leads to defeat.  Hard work without smart work can lead to fruitless work.  The role of the strategist is to avoid fruitless work.  When the strategic work and planning have been done well with full attention to detail, the work of implementation is always much easier and more fruitful.

A strategist is sometimes a wise, old mentor.  At other times it may be a spouse, a sibling, a good friend or a co-worker who fills this role.  Jethro was a strategic counsellor to Moses.  His advice saved the well-meaning and hard-working Moses from total burnout.  Jethro did not lead Israel.  He quietly influenced Moses and gave him step-fatherly advice that greatly enhanced his leadership ability.  Behind every successful leader, you will find a skilled, wise and experienced strategist.  Strategists are vital to movements.  They are the architects and designers.  Their role is often undervalued.  But strategists on their own are unable to mobilize or launch movements.  The catalyst is the one who actually begins the movement. 

Catalysts are able to convert paper strategies into practical realities.  They have great faith.  They are able to “call those things that are not as though they are” (Heb 11:1-3).  But catalysts do not always have the ability to sustain the works they start.

If catalysts begin movements, activists help movements to gain momentum.  Every movement needs momentum to survive.  An activist is the person who manages to rally large groups of people towards the cause.  People often undervalue the activist.  They will latch onto the cause and then often forget the activist who enlisted them.  Every movement needs activists.  The biggest mistake the leaders of a movement can make is to undervalue the activists who rally people towards the goal.  Activists may not always become leaders in the movement, but their role is invaluable.

Paul was an amazing strategist and catalyst.  Through on-going revelation, he had amazing insight into God’s eternal plan for the church.  He wrote this down in letters to the new churches.  Through the ages, the church has gained enormous strength from understanding the big picture.  Paul was also a great catalyst.  He was able to start new work in places where no church existed.  But Paul does not seem to be much of an activist.  In fact, it seems that a real movement is only released on his third missionary journey.  Here we find him in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.  Again, he is not acting as an activist, but as a catalyst.  A movement is launched across all of Asia as Paul functions in the role of strategist and catalyst.

One reason that people undervalue the roles of the strategist, the catalyst and the activist is pride.  Some people are unable to acknowledge the input of others into their lives.  When they see success, they want the recognition rather than acknowledging that all success is a result of God working through a team of people.  As Paul said, “one person plants, one waters and another reaps.”  We easily forget the work that went into planting and watering.

Another reason people fail to acknowledge these roles is because they are stuck in a clergy/ laity paradigm.  Some people are simply blinded to the fact that they are building on their own charisma and personalities rather than on Christ.  They are so busy doing the work of the ministry that they fail to see Kingdom ministry as a movement of ordinary people not professionals.  The strategist/ catalyst/ activist team is able to mobilize thousands of ordinary people into ministry.  This makes those who are wearing themselves out in ministry – seeking recognition – envious and thus critical.  They fail to see that Kingdom movements are released through smart work as well as hard work.

A third reason that people fail to recognize these roles is that they refuse to work in team or they fail to recognize people with different strengths to their own.  Strong teams form when differently gifted people come together and find their roles in fulfilling the mission.  Independent people fail to understand that they need to be surrounded by people unlike themselves.  They attempt to project their own strengths and personalities onto others.  As a result, they end up with unbalanced teams that are unable to release movements.

Every strategist needs a catalyst

Every catalyst needs an activist

Every activist needs a cause

Every movement needs all three

Find your role.  Work in team.  The result is a movement.

Blessings!