The skeptic who in the face of missionary Christianity says, “Yes, but what about all those good Hindus who lead decent lives and don’t believe that Jesus is the only one?” is not really expecting to become a good Hindu or even to be friends with good Hindus. Certainly this skeptic does not plan to get involved at all in the problems of differentiating between good Hindus and bad Hindus but only to back away from the call of Jesus, who has always admitted that if we entrust our life to him and his cause, we will never be proven right until beyond the end of the story and cannot count on being positively reinforced along all of the way. What is thus stated in the form of a general rejection of all particularity in favor of a vision of universal validity is, when more deeply seen, more particular and more negative; namely, a specific pattern of avoidance of the particular claims of Christian loyalty in its continuing risk and uncertainty.

— John Howard Yoder, A Royal Priesthood: Essays Ecclesiological and Ecumenical (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 112-13. (via inhabitatio dei)

My short response got long, so I’m posting it here.

Our parish was founded about eleven years ago by a priest and a three families from California. We had inquirers’ meetings in homes for a few months, then set up a chapel and began having daily services. Because there was a core community who were already familiar with this kind of sacramental community and worship, there was something for us inquirers to come and be immersed in from the beginning; from day one we had a common ethos. I think trying to start a congregation from zero would be vastly more difficult.

Common worship: We pray Matins and Vespers pretty much every day. Our biggest service is Great Vespers on Saturday evening, together with Matins and the Liturgy on Sunday morning. Folks stay after Vespers to speak with the priests (confession) so after a 45-minute service you’ll have an hour or two of people chatting outside or downstairs while the children run around having fun. Sundays we finish up around 11:30ish, then we have a potluck meal and coffee, and again we spend a while enjoying each other’s company. The shared experience of worship and common spiritual struggle is one of the strongest centripetal factors in our parish community.

We don’t have children’s church. The littles stay in the service with us. Often a family will arrive, hand off their babies and toddlers to the various godparents, and pick up their own godchildren before finding a place to stand for the service. When babies get noisy, we take them outside for a few minutes, then right back in; they learn early that worship services are a natural part of life. And they learn to sing at the same time they’re learning to talk.

Community: Many of us choose to live within walking distance of the temple, so we’re apt to show up on each other’s doorsteps or see one another when we go for a walk. We have one another over for meals frequently, along with folks from outside our community. One of our “core values” is hospitality, so we often have friends-of-friends staying with us.

Mission: We don’t do “evangelism” as a discrete category of action or ministry. But at any given time you’ll find our members interacting in the local art scene, the skater community, the symphony, with moms at the YWCA, in job placement and roller derby and ESL, leading rafting expeditions… all the normal healthy things real people do. Every one of those relationships exposes people to Christians being off-guard — if we’re living up to our hype, that means folks are seeing how genuine Christians treat one another. And pretty much all of these kinds of interactions have resulted in people encountering our web of relationships, becoming interested in our uncommon tradition, and eventually committing to our God in baptism.

Those of us who are former Evangelicals, or have been “witnessed” to, don’t appreciate sales pitches for Jesus; if everyone were an evangelism-target, then we’d never have real relationships with anyone as persons.

Leadership: We have several presbyters and deacons, plus cantors who run the services. The clergy have day jobs, and in the church they provide spiritual direction, help with teaching, and work at the altar. A parish council worries about the money and pays the bills (or so I assume since the lights are still on.) There’s a Sunday choir who lead congregational singing at major services, a ladies benevolent group that looks for charitable projects to support, a small food bank, a primary school, and a number of craftsmen, farmers, teachers, winemakers, web workers, and others who come up with ideas and put them into action. (Leadership is having an idea and making it happen. Nobody needs permission to lead something :-)

I hear a lot of Christians talk about building leaders. From our perspective, that may be skipping a step. Since we practice making disciples, not converts, our goal is holiness and wholeness for each person in the parish community, or who is coming into it. We concentrate on teaching people practical skills for the spiritual warfare of owning their bodies and wills; being intentional and present in the moment; and restoration to balance and inner stillness. There isn’t a point where we graduate and now we’re a spiritual adult. If the process of restoring souls and renewing minds is working, then we ought to see individuals naturally finding their stride and discovering ways they can serve (i.e. lead).

Part 1

Part 2

More information at paradisekids4africa.org.au

Let’s consider the effect on missionality (I’m sounding weaslier by the sentence) of different conceptions of the missio dei. I contend that quite divergent practical outcomes arise depending on which of the following (simplified) examples of the missio dei informs our thinking.

1. The notion that God’s mission is to save individuals from his own retributive justice by means of a pardon in accord with justification theory
2. The notion that God’s mission is to both pardon and conform individuals to Christ my means of his sacramental body (The Church) centred on Rome
3. The notion that God’s mission is to liberate distorted and trapped people by conforming them to the cruciform Jesus and thus transforming their relation to others and the rest of the created order by means of eucharistic worship (Rome or no Rome) in anticipation of eschatological fulfilment.
4. The notion that God’s mission is to encourage us to live better lives with less guilt – modelled on the life of Jesus or someone like him.
5. The notion that God’s mission is identical with the evolution of a higher form of personal existence.

We could go on. But notice, the first three do not work without a central role for Jesus Christ (albeit a very different one for each). The 4^th has a marginal role for Jesus and the latter none at all. Imagine the divergent strategies which would inform the missional shape of these different ‘churches’. The first group would emphasise ensuring a clear and strong sense of guilt and the presupposition that justice can only be retributive. Their missionality would involve ways of leading to people to a certain point of intellectual clarity called a ‘decision’. There would be a strongly rational style to this ‘missional church’. The second group would talk a lot about ‘coming home’ to the mother church and would place a premium value on linking people to the institutional structures of ‘The Church’. The third group would place a heavy emphasis on the drama (and its liturgical re-enactment) of Jesus life, death and resurrection. For them sin is profound and pervasive. Communicating the transformative impact of that drama would be central along with participation in eucharistic worship (both Word and Sacrament). The fourth group would seek to encourage people to believe in themselves and to live in ways that are empowering of others, who like them, are able to ‘change the world’ in accord with the values of Jesus. Because Jesus is not needed to save or to reveal God, his role would be marginal to their practice of mission. Their mission will amount to a form of ‘social service’ and a moral drive. The fifth group will be able to sit by happily while the human race evolves to ever more divine forms… They could, of course be quite brutal, if it ultimately serves the ‘greater good’ of the evolutionary process.

These practices do not simply represent many aspects of one concept, they represent the practical consequences of quite divergent views of humanity, God, time, space… etc. To pretend this is not the case is integral to the dull art of using weasel words.

More…

Ben Sternke comments on this video:

The only thing I would add is that the church doesn’t simply send out individuals to embody and proclaim the good news, but that the church needs to be equipping individuals-in-community to do these things. I firmly believe what Steve Timmis and Tim Chester say in their book Total Church: “Mission must involve not only contact between unbelievers and individual Christians, but between unbelievers and the Christian community.”

The church must be a community of love, and also be seen as a community of love. You can’t show people a community by yourself. Other than that one thing, I think the video above does a great job delineating the difference between “attractional” church and “missional” church.

Add your thoughts over at his blog…

Father Daniel Syosyev, the recently murdered Moscow missionary priest, said something very interesting in an interview shortly before his death. He was explaining why Christians should go to Church on Sunday, and his explanation reveals something of what the Church is.

If you will, all we Christians are terrorists. We are the members of a rebellious army, which is revolting against the prince of this world (the devil)…

More…

This passage is often called the “prologue of John.” Some scholars once theorized that this section was a Hymn inserted based on the uniqueness of certain terms (logos and grace in the prologue that appear nowhere else in the Book). This idea doesn’t take into account much of the significance of this passage to the whole. The prologue in John sets the stage for the rest of the book. It shows the areas of focus John takes in Gospel: A) Jesus’ Divine role, and B) the authority of those who believe in God.

Alan Culpepper (“The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” New Testament Studies 27, 1980, 1-31) believes that the prologue is a chiasmus with 12b at the center. I think he might be on to something take a look at the structure:

A vv.1-2 The Word as God and with God
. B v. 3 Creation came through the Word
. . C vv. 4-5 We have received life through the Word
. . . D vv. 6-8 John the Baptist is sent to testify
. . . . E vv. 9-10 Incarnation and the response of the world
. . . . . F v. 11 The Word and his own (Israel)
. . . . . . G v. 12a Those who accepted the Word
. . . . . . . . H v. 12b Authority to become children of God
. . . . . . G’ v. 12c Those who believed the Word
. . . . . F’ v. 13 The Word and his own (believers)
. . . . E’ v. 14 Incarnation and the response of the community
. . . D’ v. 15 The testimony of John the Baptist
. .C’ v. 16 We have received grace through the Word
. B’ v. 17 Grace and truth came through the Word
A’ v. 18 The Word as God and with God

The theme’s of John’s Gospel are laid out right from the get go! But it gets better…

More…