I am writing this post at the conclusion of July 20, 2010. It is amazing that I have been able to go throughout my entire day, even watching the news this morning, and not hear of any mention of the fact that on July 20, 1969 man first walked on the moon.
As a kid, I was fascinated by astronautics. I would read library books on the topic. I can still remember the trip to the Space Museum in Huntsville, Alabama and the visit to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Florida. I memorized facts on the U.S. space program, collected as much information I could on the topic, and even wanted to be an astronaut…when I did not want to be a bug exterminator.
Over the past two weeks, I have been engaged in teaching two summer classes (hence the reason for no blog posts). One of my classroom illustrations came from the history of the U. S. space program. While I used the illustration differently in class, I want to provide you with a matter for your missiological consideration.
The path from the early days of rocket science to Armstrong’s “One small step…” was filled with numerous challenges and stages of development. In other words, Wernher von Braun did not simply step on stage, build the Saturn V rocket and put the Apollo XI astronauts on the moon. Following the use of rocket technology that had been applied to military science to destroy the enemy, its application was directed toward the final frontier.
First came the Mercury program. John Glenn circumscribed the earth by means of a rocket designed to put one man into orbit. Next came the Gemini program. Two men, this time, were placed into orbit. Finally, the Apollo program was developed with each launch taking men closer and closer to the lunar surface, until that historic day forty-one years ago.
Bit-by-bit and step-by-step, the United States advanced closer and closer to landing the Eagle on the Sea of Tranquility. A great, but brief rocket science and technological history had to precede Apollo XI. And a great scientific and technological history had to precede the development of rocket science.
NASA had to think and move beyond the earth’s orbit in order to put men on the moon.
And so, now we come to our matter of concern. The thinking and strategizing and missionary practices of today will not sustain healthy Kingdom advancement later today, let alone tomorrow. Whenever the gospel enters into a foreign context, the church begins as a foreign body. Over time, the structures, organizations, and methods that planted and sustained her in the early days become more and more complex. What usually began as something simple and foreign, becomes technical, commonplace and maintenance-oriented. And in order to move beyond maintenance to once again missional activity, the church must return to a mode of thought, similar-yet-different, to the paradigm of thinking that led to her birth and establishment in the first place.
Such is easier said (or blogged about) than done. When it comes to our structures, organizations, and methods, Christians are the ultimate conservatives. While there are exceptions, consider the last 2000 years.
As followers of Jesus we live within a necessary and healthy tension. On the one hand, the church (local) must be conservative in our contextualized structures and organizations, for such tenacity enables us to be and exist as a healthy local church. Structure and maintenance are not bad. In fact, they are necessary for the church to exist, even for the most simple of all churches. On the other hand, however, the church (local) must allow, encourage, and support the notion of the missionary bands that work to advance the Kingdom across new boundaries. Remember, the thinking and methods that brought us to where we are today are not the thinking and methods that will carry us beyond the challenges of today. Fresh, yet biblical, paradigms of missionary thought and practice must be encouraged, endorsed, and expected by the established Church. Problems for Kingdom advancement arise whenever the structures we develop become calcified and hinder–or even oppose–the development of fresh, biblically-grounded, paradigms for missionary activity.
Remember, it took Mercury to get one man into orbit, Gemini to get two men there, and Apollo to take three to the moon. If NASA had relied on Mercury-thinking, July 20, 1969 would have been an ordinary day on the calendar; we would have remained in orbit.
Today, the Church is faced with many barriers to the rapid dissemination of the gospel and multiplication of churches. Globalization, pluralism, urbanization, secularism, materialism, terrorism, war, migration, poverty, and disease are just a few of the challenges we encounter.
The gospel tears down barriers and transforms individuals, families, and societies. However, the gospel must arrive before barriers can be overcome. While Mercury-thinking advanced the gospel for many years, my question for us today is, “Where does the Church need to adjust in order to move into Gemini-thinking and eventually Apollo-thinking on our way toward the moon?”
For some of you reading this post, moving from Mercury-thinking to Gemini-thinking is only one small step. For others, such a paradigm shift is too giant of a leap. If you cannot make the step, please pray for, encourage, equip, empower, endorse, and partner with those who can. Hold them accountable to the Word of God, but please do not hold them in orbit and keep them from landing the Eagle.
Pingback: Apostolic Imagination: Re-Thinking Contemporary Missions | Missiologically Thinking