Out of Context

From Shaw & Van Engen, Communicating God's Word in a Complex World,

"Gospel presentation seeks to facilitate a process whereby people everywhere, belonging to every family, tribe, language and nation, may hear God speak in appropriate and relevant ways that impact the deep-level meaning of their worldview" (1).

The American Religious Landscape

MSNBC has just posted an interesting article on the "volatility" of the American religious landscape. I'm particularly interested in their choice of language, using words like "affiliation," "affiliation swapping," and "volatility."

Exercise Reading

I picked up my January 2008 issue of Christianity Today to take with me to work out (yes, I'm one day into my renewed commitment to physical fitness). This edition is a fascinating mix of articles, covering the gamut from an editorial on the Senate investigation into charismatic evangelists to persecution to social ministry. The highlights thus far are the article on "The Lima Bean Gospel" by Mark Labberton and a brief commentary entitled, "A Hole in our Holism," by Stan Guthrie.

Now, to begin, I must say that Labberton has never had lima beans out of my garden or fixed by my wife, or his analogy of bland American Christianity would fail miserably. Pity aside, the author presents a strong case for our the necessity of a renewed focus on justice and ministry in our churches. He writes,

Rather than seek the God who spoke from the burning bush, we have decided that the real drama is found in debating whether to podcast our services. Rather than encounter the God who sees idolatry as a pervasive, life-threatening temptation, we decorate Pottery Barn lives with out tasteful collections of favored godlings. Rather than follow the God who burns for justice for the needy, we are more likely to ask the Lord to give us our own fair share. A bland God for a bland church, with a mission that is at best innocuous and quaint -- in a tumultuous world.

and

It would be a new day for our testimony to the immensity and scope of the gospel if we lived out persevering, sacrificial love for people near and far, especially for those without power, without money, without education, without food, without sanitation, without safety, without faith. If this counterintuitive, servant love moved us out of our middle-class enclaves, drew the poor to be included in our family values, brought us to worry more about the need for consumption of those who have nothing than the consumptive fantasies of those who have too much, the gospel would be more nearly the life-enlarging gift it is.

Ouch. I think he's right. Guthrie adds a vital balance, though, by reminding us that the gospel is still the gospel -- it's about the reconciliation of man and God. He asks the vital question why we aren't evangelizing as we once did. "Does our heightened social consciousness," he queries, "-- from the Left and the Right -- actually drain our evangelistic zeal?"

Guthrie is absolutely right when he responds, "It shouldn't because we are called to do both."

One of the problems in our church world today is an "either/or" syndrome as opposed to a "both/and" attitude. I realize that this cannot apply everywhere. We cannot be both exclusivist and universalist with regard to the future of the lost. But, we can, as Guthrie points out so well, give both a cup of cold water in Jesus' name AND call sinful people to repent and follow Jesus.

LifeWay Alcohol Study

Check out the new study released by LifeWay Research on Perceptions of Alcohol among Protestant pastors and laity. Fewer surprises than I expected, but some interesting results. Apparently, "we" are less sure than we thought.

What I'll Miss, Part 1

During all these changes in the Walters family life, I want to write a few posts about what I'll miss in France, what I'm taking with me, and what I will not miss. I'm going to save the not miss part for later so I can try to avoid sounding like I'm complaining, mad, culture-shocked, or some combination of all.

First, a couple of things I'll miss. Those who know me know that there will usually be food involved, so I'll get that out of the way by saying I'll miss fromage au lait cru. That's cheese made from raw (not pasteurized) milk. We don't have that in the U.S. because of goofy laws, to use technical language. I could also say that I will really miss foie gras, but that might raise the ire of too many animal rights activists and former James Bonds.

Food issues behind me now, I've got to say that one thing I'll miss here in France is the bisou -- the kiss on each cheek that is the standard greeting among friends. Whether it's in our Bible study, at church, or with people in town, I love the way our friends stop what they're doing to greet one another with this wonderfully intimate gesture.

Sure -- it's not easy for this American guy to get the hang of the bisou. Even after four years, I often find myself coming perilously close to a nose collision because I forget which side to start on. Some of my friends swear that in one part of France you start with the left cheek, but in other parts it's the right. Some regions kiss three times, some four. That may be true in their black-and-white culture worlds, but in mine it seems that it's never that simple. It's also hard to know when to go from hand-shaking to cheek-kissing. My greetings sometimes turn into a Michael Jackson-esque dance, with hands going back and forth and heads bobbing like strutting roosters. Now, I just go for the kiss.

For most of our time here, I've said that I would take the French bisou back to the U.S. with me. I think it's a wonderful greeting, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ. At least five letters from the New Testament admonish us to "greet one another with a holy kiss." And it's not just the act of kissing each cheek, there is also the fact that my French friends will stop everything to greet one another. Relationships are important.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how well the bisou will make the trip back across the Atlantic. Kissing each other just doesn't translate. But who knows, I may try it anyway.

Night

As you can see in my "current reading" list, I've just started Night by Elie Wiesel. This short book (only 109 pages in my copy) is Wiesel's memoir of his experiences as a boy in Nazi ghettoes and then concentration camps. It is a powerful read. The Shoah still has a profound effect in Europe.

In April, 1945, the last of the camps were liberated by Allied forces. After visiting the Deportation Memorial in Paris and then hearing from survivors during the 60th anniversary commemorations two years ago, I decided that I should read this little book every April for the rest of my life. Today, I'm starting my fourth time. I look forward to sharing with you as I go.

The CHURCH in Church Planting

Church planters must take the time to search the Scriptures to answer the question, "What is the church?" Since the scriptures do not bow to the gods of this age, for some church planters this process will be painful, requiring them to surrender their visions, dreams, passions, desires, finances, and prestige that have developed over the years from Western cultural definitions and expectations for what constitutes a "healthy" church.

This brief excerpt from Dr. J.D. Payne's paper, "Ecclesiology: The Most Critical Issue in Church Planting Today," (available here) expresses well some of my concerns over our efforts to plant churches. I'll comment more on Dr. Payne's article later, but I have often written that our time in Western Europe has done much to strip away our "visions, dreams, passions, desires, finances [oh, yeah], and prestige" and give us a fresh, clean, simple, and, I believe, biblical idea that answers the question, "What is the church?"

Contextualized Strategy

In his latest post over at Crushed Leviathan, Pêcheur comments on the "visible church." Though it's not the overall intent of his writing, he raises an interesting issue concerning our "strategy" for planting churches in Western Europe. Pêcheur writes,

In the Western world (Europe and America), to ask some to stop going to church (building) on Sunday is asking too much from them and they can turn you off. What you have is not "church" to them, no matter how innovative you believe yourself to be. On the other hand, there are some who are wanting some freedom from, what they perceive as restrictions (or even negative experiences) that come from a church structure (i.e. building, clergy, etc), that they will embrace a non-traditional understanding of "church."

I agree completely with his thoughts that we cannot forsake the "traditional church" in the name of innovation or creativity. Neither can we condemn the "contemporary" (or whatever you might call that which is not "traditional") for its leaders' efforts to engage culture. It takes both. Determining what "type" of church to plant is part of the hard work of missions, whether in the US or overseas.

Ten years ago, our organization adopted a worldwide strategy called "New Directions." You can read about it in Jerry Rankin's book, To the Ends of the Earth, so I won't go into great detail about it here. Part of that strategy is the concept of "church planting movements." We as workers in our agency, are to be about facilitating CPMs. I'm fine with that. I think it's a great general strategy for our organization. But it's just that: a general, worldwide strategy. It is our guide, our goal, and it provides some parameters for our work.

Here's the issue: its application in the context of Western Europe. The number one task of what we do is contextualization. We work hard to understand the culture where we live and to contextualize our communication of the gospel. We try every day to shed our own cultural baggage and biases in order to be a light to the world. New Directions, with its emphasis on church planting movements, is great. But it has been poorly applied in our context. We have neglected the first rule of missions and applied techniques and practices from another culture to another without considering how it fits.

In the far east, where CPMs were first identified, they were based on house churches. Men and women much smarter than me analyzed and determined some of the characteristics of these movements, and those characteristics were embodied perfectly in the house church movement. Someone decided that we ought to plant house churches in France and Western Europe just like they plant them in China. We were told to read books about house churches (even some books by Europeans and Westerners), we were taught about house churches in our orientation, and we practiced house church meetings. We were told not to go to an established church because it would confuse those who were watching.

The problem (for me, at least) is not house church. I agree with many of the fundamental principles and consider them biblical (simplicity, community, lay leadership, relationship, etc.). The problem is applying the form in this context. Small groups meeting in homes work here because people are committed to relationships and are perfectly willing to have people into their homes. As Pêcheur points out, however, it is a tremendous cultural hurdle when you call your house a church. The small home groups work alongside the larger corporate worship. They provide the community and the relationship. So, what do we do? We apply the principles in the culture and that's contextualization. That's what we ought to be doing, but infatuation with the latest fads of church planting or evangelism or whatever have distracted us. I'll be the first to admit that the difficulty of living and working here, the lack of visible fruit, can easily cause one to grasp anything that might "work," but we often pay by making our task even more difficult.

When I was in Tennessee, I saw churches split because preachers applied the model of Saddleback or Willow Creek indiscriminately and uncritically to their location. They did not take just the principles of purpose-driven, they tried to be a little Rick and do California music and wear Hawaiian shirts (that's an exaggeration to make the point). In Western Europe, we can start reproducing "traditional churches" that reach people, and we can start reproducing "simple" or "organic" or "contemporary" churches that reach people. Whatever we do, we've got to contextualize strategy and do something.

To my knowledge, there has not been a church started in France by our organization since New Directions (though I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong on that). Other organizations have started churches, in some cases many churches. Could it be that we have cared more about implementing strategy than about fulfilling our commission?

Church and Culture

Two of my seminars this semester relate to topics that, at first glance, seem different: emerging churches and cultural anthropology. The key word there is "seem." I am amazed (and thankful) how much these two seminars fit together and are impacting my work. Cultural anthropology is about studying why people live, think, and act like they do. How does that culture impact the way that we share the gospel? It's a subject traditionally saved for missionaries. On the other hand, the emerging church "movement" in the US and Western Europe (especially Britain) is very much about impacting culture by living in it, which means studying why people live, think, and act like they do.

One great example of how this study is impacting my work is through a book called To Every Tribe with Jesus: Understanding and Reaching Tribal Peoples for Christ by David Sitton. As the title suggests, it's a book about unreached tribal peoples and, more specifically, about animistic cultures. I must admit that I first thought the book would be the first of the semester that didn't relate to my life in France (or the US). I was wrong. Ralph Winter suggests in the foreword that the book has much to say for those working in postmodern cultures, and he's right. Our world is very much affected by animism. Here in France, there are more fortune tellers and astrologists than there are ministers or priests.

It is a valuable exercise for us as missionaries, pastors, or church members to step back and consider our own world as another culture. When we come to our community as learners of culture, we might very well discover that all our reaching out is, in fact, cross-cultural missions.

Another thought on culture...

I was on my way back to Memphis today (so I can go back to Paris tomorrow!) and saw something that made me think: what does a $50,000 car with a little fish emblem say to the world?

Thinking about culture

I arrived in Memphis Saturday without a problem at all. When you get off of the airplane there, the first thing that hits you is the smell of barbecue coming from inside the airport. It's a wonderful thing. We went straight from the airport to my favorite hometown rib place, which was a nice welcome. Then, I knew I was in Tennessee when I passed three different trucks driven by smiling men, each towing a four-wheeler with a deer strapped across the handlebars. It started me thinking about culture. We talk alot about that in my line of work, you know. We have to understand culture to share the good news. We have to love culture in order to reach people. But what is my culture now? I come from a place where I know what you mean when you say "full slab plate with slaw" and "eight point buck." I live in a place where you know the difference between a "Brie de Meaux" and "Brie de Melun" (two different kinds of regional cheese) and how to change trains in the middle of a crowd of several thousand people. I work in an organization where you have to understand acronyms like CPM, RLT, SC, FST, and ER. All those things are part of culture. And all of those things have shaped and are shaping who I am today.

Culture is where we live and who we are. It's the pond we swim in and it's the glasses we look at the world across. It's the filter through which we hear and understand. It's what we love and hate and sometimes wish were different. And it's all part of the world God has given us. Somebody recently said that we ought to be thankful for the culture where we live instead of just being thankful for where we came from. I say that I'm thankful for all of it -- ribs, cheese, trains, and all.

Letting the scales fall off

OK, so I'm not much of a blogger. I think the idea is that you do this more than once every other month. Sorry.

I did actually wake up this morning with a thought. We spent the day yesterday with some co-workers. One couple, B & R, are extra sharp. They've got a tremendous heart for one of the least evangelical people groups in France, and I can't wait to see what God does through them. After lunch, we went riding and talking. As we talked about everything from the joys of language learning to the intricacies of driving in France, I mentioned that if I ever got fired or otherwise, I at least had figured out how I would plant a church in the US. B sounded a little surprised. I have to confess that we were in the middle of a Parisian traffic jam (literally called a "cork") and I don't remember exactly what he said, but it got me thinking nonetheless.

At first, I felt a little guilty, though I'm sure it wasn't his intention. What was I doing thinking about planting a church in the USA when God has called me to do that in France? After I thought about it a little while, something struck me: my thoughts on planting a church in France are not that different from my thoughts on planting a church in the States.

I came to France full of grand ideas about planting churches. I had books on house churches, indigenous churches, incarnational ministry churches, missional churches, and cell churches. The more I got to know my new culture, though, the less sure I was about how to plant a church. As I looked around me, it didn't really seem like many other people had it figured out either. It was a little frustrating.

Now, almost three years later, God has done something in me. He's taken me and forced me to really (I mean really) think about what "church" is. As He has pared away much of the cultural baggage from my "ideas," He has replaced that by a more biblical (though still far from complete) idea of what church is. Many of the things I wanted church to be were only the latest, coolest, most "strategic" thing. I thought they were my interpretations of this culture, but were really a reflection of, or reaction to, my own.

Over my next few posts, which I hope will come more frequently than this one, I want to expand a little on this. I want to think "out loud" about planting a church.

But back to my original "issue." How can I think about planting a church in the US and in France? Because I want to plant a biblical church that is light in darkness. A church that goes beyond culture because the Gospel goes beyond culture. Contextualization of our message is vital. We have to communicate the truth to a world that doesn't think like we do. But the heart of church is the same in first century Jerusalem and in postmodern France.

Let's start church.

The DaVinci Code

I have a confession to make. And it's not just that it's been too long since I wrote on this blog last.

I went to see The Da Vinci Code today. I had some mixed reasons. First, I thought it was pretty cool that I would see a movie before anybody in America did. Very rarely do I get to see an American film before it's been out in the US. More importantly, though, I wanted to see the movie "everyone" has been talking about. Just this week, we worked alongside a team of students from Colorado who passed out invitations to learn the truth behind the story of Jesus. I wanted to see the movie so I'd know what to talk about.

Here are my reactions:

First, the cinema world doesn't have much to fear. It wasn't that good a movie. I don't usually agree with the movie snobs at the Cannes film festival, who generally panned the movie at its debut this week. This time I do. It's not that is was a bad movie, it just wasn't that good. The big stars were a little disappointing and some of the scenes went beyond cheesy. So, don't worry Oscar competition, this one's not a threat.

More importantly, though, the Kingdom of God has nothing to fear. This has nothing to do with the quality of the movie or the subject matter of the novel. Yes, the movie version makes the number one supporter of the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (Teabing) look like a raving lunatic. It's just that God is much bigger than Dan Brown, Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and all these folks put together. The Da Vinci Code is not the end of the world. It's just another pothole in a long road of attacks on Jesus.

The greater "threat" today is the movement to prove this movie wrong by using the same logic Robert Langdon (the main character) uses. Logical proofs don't change lives. Jesus changes lives. My friends and neighbors who see this movie might just believe some of it. I guess to someone who doesn't have a new heart, it's pretty persuasive. But sermons on the historical truths behind the Council of Nicea aren't going to change lives.

Jesus will.

That's why I'll be telling my story of how Jesus made a difference for me. How he redeemed me from a life of darkness. How I'm different now because of Him. I may never convince someone that the "gospels" of Philip, Judas, and Mary Magdalene are false (they already believe it's the Catholic church who has convinced me of that). What I can tell them is that neither Philip, Judas, nor Mary Magdalene has ever turned anyone's heart of stone into a new living heart.

So, let's don't spend the next few months debunking all the pieces of the Da Vinci myth. Let's see this for what it is: another attempt by God's enemy to discredit the community of God's people. And let's see it for what God can make it: an opportunity to share our story of who Jesus really is: the Word who became flesh and walked among us -- teaching, healing, loving, and finally dying for us, then defeating everything we fear so that we can spend forever worshiping Him. Now that's a story worth hearing.

Some thoughts on leading

Ever since our big regional meeting, I've been thinking a lot about leadership. I guess it's something I should know a little bit about: I used to be a pastor and am now a church planter and team leader. It makes sense, I guess, that the subject should be getting familiar. But the more I think about it, the less I think I know.

A few weeks ago, I started asking God for wisdom: wisdom to make good decisions, wisdom on how to deal with people, wisdom on what to do today and tomorrow and the day after that. I've always turned to James 1 where he says "if you lack wisdom, ask God for it." So I asked. I asked Him to show me how to live and to lead.

A day or two later (this was all part of one of those read-the-Bible-in-a-year plans), I got to James 3, where God decided to answer my prayer. He showed me that thing number one to learn about leading is to watch my mouth. The verse (11) where James talks about bitter and sweet water coming out of the same fountain got to me.

Then, I read verses 13-18. James 1 says "ask God for wisdom" then in chapter 3 he says "you want wisdom? Here it is." In The Message, it says to "live humbly and get along with others." In the NASB, it says someone wanting to be seen wise should "show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom."

Wise leadership means humility, gentleness, and "sweet water." What a change from the model of the world and many churches. God, help me to be like that.

More on this later...

Going to church...

This week, I read an article about a recent survey by George Barna on American attitudes toward the church and spiritual growth. Apparently, on one-third of evangelical believers in the US think that “a person’s faith is meant to be developed mainly by involvement in a local church.” Aside from my usual skepticism about the way survey questions are framed, I found Barna's comments a little confusing.

Barna seems to connect lack of involvement in church to lack of commitment to God. He says that the survey results are evidence of a "soft commitment to God." Now, I'll be the first to affirm that involvement in a community of believers is absolutely necessary for our faith lives. That's why I'm trying to plant churches in France. It seems to me, though, that the problem lies not with believers but with churches. We in the US have not often shown how bodylife is important, but instead have emphasized commitment to the institution.

As far as implications for work here in WE, I'd guess that a survey here would reveal that even fewer people believe that church is important. Bringing the US model here certainly won't help. Being disciples (which means walking in community) will.