The missiology necessary to advance the gospel in a post-Christianized context is not the same as the missiology that brought us to a Christianized context. Certainly, this does not mean a complete overhaul, but rather a building upon that which has gone before.
Some things must change while we return to an apostolic paradigm. However, one challenge is that we lack the vision for such an approach in view of a mature Church in the United States and Canada. And lacking this vision, we often fail to change that which truly must shift. We end up failing to ask the right questions.
A post-Christianized context is unlike a context where there is little to no gospel presence. A well-established Church exists with well-developed structures, organizations, and traditions. Yet, the multiplication of disciples, churches, and leaders requires an apostolic model. As it stands (and this coming from a pastor), we are attempting to reach a context with pastoral approaches when missionary activity is required.
Even when we attempt such apostolic labors, we define them in pastoral terms and attempt to execute them through pastoral paradigms. This is not wise. For example, look at how we define church planting in North America, and compare that with the New Testament.
What got us here is not sufficient for where we need to go. The wise Kingdom steward recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.
But that adjustment is difficult. It’s easier to stick with the missiology of the moment.
JD, Thank you for this post. You are shedding light on a huge issue. If we are making disciples in an apostolic context, then we need to contextualize the gospel accordingly. We need a “global gospel”—one that includes a legal framework but also goes beyond it.
Thanks, Werner.
JD
Thanks for this post. I read it early and am replying to it late. I really agree with a lot of what you said. I think the challenge really comes in the inevitable comparison that goes on between apostolic models and current, existing pastoral models. We know the pastoral model works and is stable.
What we don’t know (mostly because we haven’t seen it done really well yet) is whether apostolic models work. They’re very much like start-ups in the secular world and getting people to not compare them to the Wal-Marts, Apples, and GE’s of the church world is difficult.
This of course has an effect on the level of investment and participation people want to have. Something untested rarely attracts mass investment or interest. And so it’s my opinion that men and women who want to participate in more apostolic models will have to die to the issues of funding and reputation in order to fully realize what God is wanting to show us in these areas.
Anyways, just a few thoughts. Thanks for writing about this. It’s encouraging to see some people thinking outside of the box a bit.
Thanks for sharing, Travis. You make some good points.
Excellent!So pastors in America will no lengor use altar calls and guilt manipulation in Sunday services!Oh wait you were talking about cross-cultural work On a just-as-serious-but-less-sarcastic note: how would we define psychological pressure ? Is what Peter is doing to the crowd in Acts 2 psychological pressure ? Is what Paul is doing in Acts 17 psychological pressure ? Food for thought