on March 29 2010

Woman and Men in Ministry Together: Affirming Women and Transforming – The Missional Way

A couple weeks ago I began a series of posts on the post-evangelical landscape regarding two controversial issues – women inimages ministry and the normativity of gay/lesbian relations. To reiterate, I contended that how a church/movement comes down on these two issues together reveals much about the assumptions that drive their theology. The manner in which the Neo-Reformed missionals reject women in ministry and/or GLBT relations together reveals much about the way they do theology re: Scripture, authority, sanctification etc. Likewise, the way the post Emergent/emerging coalesence here in the U.S. (heretofore referred to as pEC) affirms both reveals the underlying assumptions that drive the way they do theology. As I see it, getting at these assumptions improves the conversation in the post-evangelical landscape moving us further together into the Kingdom of God.

The Missional Way I have been proposing is a third way of doing theology. It is an incarnational logic that drives much of Missional practice. It has some similarities to the pEC’s in that it is non-foundationalist, post Christendom, driven by cultural engagement and community life, wholistic in salvation. Yet there are differences as well which I tried to make clearer previously over at this post. This incarnatiuonal, post Christendom driven understanding of life and truth in the gospel leads, so I argue, to certain directions on the two issues of “Women in Ministry” and “GLBT sexual relations” – what I’d like to call Position No. 3 “Yes to Women in Minstry/ and Transforming of All Relationships” (this phrase was tipped off and influenced by Brad/futurist guy in the comments on this post).  FYI for the theologically driven reader- the transforming logic here comes from Yoder’s Authentic Transformation idea as opposed to Niebuhr’s transforming logic here which is where I see both Neo-Reformed and pEC coming from. This view a.) affirms women alongside men as equal participants in the ministry of Christ’s church in the world, and b.) calls for a redemptive community by which we explore together and witness to the sexual redemption God is working in the world in relation gay/lesbian sexuality and sexuality in toto.

In terms of the way this works out on the women in ministry issue first, according to the Missional Way, women are full participants in the ministerial authority of the church, including ordination, because:

1.) Authority by its very definition is flattened and thereby includes All! The Missional church understands authority in the church as manifested in a flattened leadership within the community – the priesthood of all believers. The Kingdom has begun. The Holy Spirit has been poured out on all – men and women alike, your sons AND DAUGHTERS shall prophesy (Acts 2:17). Men and women therefore partake together in the gifts and the authority of the Lord in the community. In so doing however, the very nature of this authority has been transformed. It is not exercised as the power of the world (Mark 10:42-45) – top down hierarchically. (This was part of what Christendom did to the church’s power). This power is exercised via the humility and vulnerability of the Incarnate Christ. In distinction from Reformed ways of thinking about authority, there is no senior pastor! Women and men participate equally. In that certain forms of church power has taken on hierarchical structure, we should not fight for women to enter authority on those terms. It is an outmoded Christendom way of authority in the church. Neither should we see authority as derived from democratic legitimation.  Communal authority emerges out of the gifts within communal discernment. There is difference and roles. Equality is based on the mutual participation in one Body (1 Cor 12). It is not an equality that obliterates our differences. This way of authority and power spreads out into the world instead of centralizing authority in a professionalized top down hierarchy. Under these terms, how can women be excluded from full participation in ministry? (The Anabaptist, as well as holiness and pentecostal influences here are obvious.

2.) Ordination recognizes those gifted and entrusted with the gift of teaching preaching. From this vantage point, ordination is still important for the gifts recognized for maintaining the theological integrity of the community (preachers, teachers, apostles and others as well). There’s a succession going on here. And yet it is not an ordination of hierarchy but of service. On these terms, there is no reason to exclude women from ordination? Of course there is the issue of Scripture’s pronouncements which leads to my next point.

3.) The Kingdom Has Begun and This Helps Us Understand the Tension in Scripture Between Roles in the Church and Roles in Marriage: The Missional Way is driven by Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom – that it has begun in Himself – His life death and resurrection and Rule as Lord. It has begun, yet it is not yet consummated.  For this reason gender and bodies have not disappeared yet (as the Gnostic Corinthians suggested). Marriage continues until Jesus returns and the new age  consummated (Mark 12:25). Gender difference and the roles within marriage continues to exist ALTHOUGH THE KINGDOM TRANSFORMS THESE ROLES OUT OF THE PATRIARCHAL ABUSES OF THE PAST! The main point I want to make here therefore is, given this dynamic at work in the NT, we can now understand many of the texts which chasten women from teaching over men in the NT to be the chastening of women who did not honor their marriages in the exercise of their new found authority in the church- e.g. women who did not cover their hair while teaching (1 Cor 11) or who took out their newfound authority against their husbands (1 Cor 14:34) etc. So whereas the Neo-Reformed tend to take Scripture as plainly outlawing women in ministry over men, and pEC’s tend to dismiss these Scriptures as culturally obsolete, the Missional appreciation of the dynamic of the inbreaking Kingdom allows for a fuller appreciation for the eschatological tension of the Kingdom that must be upheld in these dynamics. This inevitably extols the full participation of women alongside men in the ministries of the church while guarding the maintaining of the community’s marriages in “the in between” time.  Women are welcomed alongside men in the full authority of the Kingdom as long as they each maintain their God ordained marriage callings (1 Tim 3:4-5 if they are married that is, if not then this does not matter for women or men which is why Paul is always urging people to remain single and unentangled). This is all I can say on this here (I have a long unpublished paper on this). This all illustrates how the three ways often approach Scripture.

4.) The principle of revolutionary subordination. In Christ a new authority has begun and all are invited into it. Yoder called this the principle “Revolutionary Subordination.” The idea here is that just as Jesus our Lord incarnated himself, humbling himself, giving up the right to power, God exalted Him, the Truth was vindicated and empowered (Phil 2). We operate in all ways under this principle subordinating ourselves to powers, false authorities, ways of exercising power with the peaceful witness of character, truth and Scripture. God will manifest the truth.  This extends into the practice of mutual submission one to another in the community (Eph 5:20, Matt 18:15-20) Jesus himself inhabits this submitting of ourselves and works in each conflict, each leader to further His Kingdom via the way of peace. We therefore reject past ways of abusive power, and do not ask women to become part of the them. For many of us, the ways we have exercised power in the church is not incarnational and must be rejected period, not just for the ways it has excluded women.

So women are of course invited as full particpants in this new way of power. Yet there is an incredible transformation here that not only affirms women’s full participation in ministry but transforms the very power structures that have hardened the church and sucked the life out of its witness. Instead, all who come into the Kingdom as a community are empowered to participate in a way of revolution that spreads the power and leadership of the church into the world for Mission.

In the past I have complained how the bland politics of Western democracy obliterates difference. I have also complained that the NeoReformed evangelicals have excluded women from authority in the church thereby foreclosing the incoming Kingdom of God. To me the Incarnational logic of the incoming Kingdom -that drives the Missional church – is a way forward out of both of these malaises.

My next post on this subject will address how the Missional Approach of Welcoming/Transforming plays out in the GLBT Sexual Relationships Issues in the church today.

Filed under Ecclesiology,Incarnational,Neo-Anabaptist,Neo-Reformed,Post-Christendom,Women in MInistry,Women/GLBTQ 23 Comments

on November 4 2009

IMAGES THAT HELP US THINK ABOUT THE NEW SITUATION WE ARE IN #1: The Image of “THE OTHER” and Post Christendom Evangelism

imagesThe church in the West is straddling through some mammoth culture changes. In some parts of N America, it feels as if “we” have become extinct – no longer viable in the society we’re ministering in. Some of us label this situation “post Christendom.” In the following weeks, I offer a series of posts on six images that I believe help us think through what these culture changes mean for the practices of the church. I find the terms “post-attractional, post-positional, and post universal (language)” helpful descriptors of these new cultural conditions we (at least some of us) are ministering in. I call them “the three posts” (not to be confused with blog posts) and will expand on these “conditions” in the posts to follow. Today I want to discuss the image of “the Other,” that empty faceless shapeless figure that we encounter when we engage someone who is not a Christian out of a Christendom mindset. I think it helps us think about evangelism and mission in the America’s new cultures of post Christendom

The Other

The image of “The Other” – as described famously by the Continental philosopher Emmanuel Levinas – describes the one we encounter outside ourselves. It (he/she) is that which is otherwise than my self. Levinas complains that the modus operandi of the West has been to reduce the Other to the Same. It is what our individualist autonomous universalizing modes of reason do as we encounter someone. We all know that feeling, when getting to know someone new, of being categorized by him/her as this or that – of being shoved into someone else’s categories before we have been truly heard. This is what Levinas means by “reducing the Other to the Same.” In the process, the Other – is objectified – “deprived of its alterity” (Totality and Infinity p.42).

It is the habit of Western knowledge (epistemology) to interject a middle – supposedly neutral – term that ensures we comprehend the object. You are a “republican,” a “democrat,” a “liberal,” a “conservative,” you have “guilt” because you have sinned against God (although you don’t know it yet), you are always trying to achieve righteousness on your own, aren’t you? We conceptualize reality – the way we think things are – and then expect the Other to conform into it, submit to it. It is unconscious. Perhaps unintentional. In the process however, the concept becomes the means of stripping the person of his or her alterity (Totality and Infinity, 33-34). We reduce the Other to the Same. It is this denial of alterity in what Levinas calls “the concept” which produces domination, tyranny and violence.

This is the image of The Other, that faceless stick figure that we import all our pre-conceptions into. This faceless stick figure always fits nicely into our existing categories so that we can feel comfortable and in control of it (not a him or a her). Levinas pleads – we must always call into question the habit of reducing the Other to the Same. A space must be opened for the presence of the Other. We must call into question (what Levinas calls “ the egoistic spontaneity of the Same:”) that instinctual Western habit of always putting the Other into our own conceptualization, without questioning, as if it were self evident, the way it is. Over against this habit, Levinas calls for a disposition that seeks “the face to face encounter” with the Other, the strangeness of the Other, his/her irreducibility to the I, to my thoughts and my possessions (Totality and Infinity, p.  33). We must recognize, that the Other, in order to remain the Other, must always come into our awareness, our consciousness by first obliterating all our categories.

Levinas’ “the Other” is very intuitive. Obviously I am over-simplifying Levinas bypassing much of his profundity (including his theological work on how we might know the ultimate Other, the Infinite – or the “Otherwise than being”). But I think this small description of the Other gives us the image we need to understand how we must reorient the entire practice of mission and evangelism for the new cultures of post Christendom.

Up until recently (WW1/WW2 in Europe and post WW2 here in N America) the church a.) has been in this unusual homogenous world where the language of Christianity has been somewhat universal (in the West), b.) has been in a posture of respect/authority in culture, where c.) people gravitated towards it, especially on Sunday for issues having to do with God. And so in communicating the gospel, in preparing people to evangelize others with the gospel, in attempting to engage surrounding culture – we have been able to do it LARGELY ON OUR OWN TERMS. Today, in post Christendom, these Christendom habits persist – and now – in a post universal (language), post positional and post- attractional culture, we Christians appear hideously commercial, abusive of power, and grotesquely presumptuous. In the words of Levinas, our methods of evangelism smack of “Reducing the Other to the Same.” Here are three examples:

1.)    We Reduce the Other to the Same WHEN WE ATTRACT PEOPLE TO COME TO US: By asking people to come to us into our churches to hear “the gospel message,” we assume a position of power, we assume that they will know our language, that our language is THE LANGUAGE, and that we do evangelism largely on our own terms. One of the things Levinas’ “The Other” helps us see is that when we produce large attractional events to get non-believers into the mega building, we in essence deprive them of their alterity, agreeing to overwhelm them by the excellence of the production, a one-message-fits-all presentation of the gospel that denies the alterity of each person. The attractional events have certainly worked well in Christendom, where we could assume a mono-cultural initiation into basic-things-Christian. There also was a common formation of most people into the same set of cultural problems. This is why Billy Graham was a proper (and successful) response to Christendom America in the 50’s-thru 80’s. Today however, the lost person is coming with a vast array of lostness and brokenness that must be met in a relational “face to face” encounter. This is where the gospel can be received in post Christendom. In these contexts, we must give up squeezing each person into one grand attractional scheme, as individuals through a pipeline to proceed through 4 bases (or pillars, or steps) in order to become a contributing member to an organization.
2.)    We Reduce the Other to the Same WHEN WE APPROACH INDIVIDUALS FROM A POSITION OF POWER: As people trained for evangelism in the habits of Christendom we come with a script, with a pre determined outcome – with a method how to lead everyone to the same sinner’s prayer. It comes off as a reduction of “the Other” to the same – going for results, presenting a message and expecting a response, adding up numbers, making people part of our church growth agenda. As the new post Christendom cultures have swept over us, we have not adjusted. We still seek to sell a message, just make it more relevant, appealing, drawing people into the aura … so that they will hear a message. These are still signs of the assumptions of power – just come to us on our terms.

3.)    We Reduce the Other to the Same WHEN WE ASSUME THEY KNOW OUR LANGUAGE: Our Christendom tools assume words, sentences and of course a knowledge of the Story that are no longer the currency of our places of ministry. So now, in post Christendom, when we talk about sin, they ask “what is sin?” When we talk about God, they say “which one?” and we in essence talk right past them. We have in essence, reduced the Other to the Same expecting them to already know and live in the cultural world of Christianity

All of the above are signs that we still are working under the Western habits of reducing the Other to the Same – the Other who we must now assume is different than us, who will not come into our orbit unless we do something sneaky to attract him/her in, who will not understand what we are talking about, who will consider it an act of violence to assume we are right and they are wrong. In short, WE FACE THE CHILLING CHALLENGE OF THE OTHER, and of OVERCOMING OUR HABITS OF EVER REDUCING THE OTHER TO THE SAME.

Elsewhere on this blog, and in my speaking, I have proposed that we seek to do evangelism in the rhythms of everyday life, not through attractional means, that we become onramps for the gospel as opposed to transaction salesman, that we look for ways to inhabit our neighborhoods as Christ, incarnating the gospel in our ways of life within the contexts we serve (not asking them to come to us). The image of “the Other” helps us understand why this kind of reorientation of our evangelism is so important. Thank-you Levinas.

OK, having said all this, I am open for your push-back. Are there ways the attractional churches engage non-Christians apart from the violence of “the Other”? Peace in Christ everybody.

Filed under Evangelism,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom 12 Comments

on June 23 2009

The Christendom Nostalgia – Leading us out of it by using the words of Billy Graham

bg1I heard Billy Graham on the car radio last week and I got nostalgic. It was nostalgia for Christendom. The words by Billy Graham were verbatim as follows: (they were part of a radio spot by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association).

Too many think that you can go out and live the way you like. Go to church on Sunday, or perhaps go to some religious ritual that your church demands and everything will be all right, but it won’t. It’s wonderful to be a member of the church, it’s great to be baptized, it’s great to be confirmed, but that alone is not enough. Jesus said, “You must be born of the Spirit,” “you must be born again.”

The recording of these words can be found by clicking here and then scrolling down to the clip entitled “Church on Sunday.” I urge you to listen to these words. Feel the ethos. Wallow a little in the nostalgia for a time gone by. For these words reveal the by-gone age of protestant Christendom in North America, the golden years of evangelism (I realize some may not consider these years golden). These were the words as preached by Billy Graham in one of his many crusades (the very word ‘crusade’ bespeaks Christendom). I have no idea when the sermon was preached but, again, it played last week on the radio (it is ironic that the BGEA is playing this spot in Chicago in 2009). These words help us imagine the mindset of so many churches from the small Bible churches of the post WW1 generations all the way (I contend) to the current-day huge mega churches of evangelicalism. In virtually all evangelical people over the age of 60 there is this nostalgia for these feelings, this ethos, this world that was sure, so certain and grounded in the foundation of Christianity.

Of course, dramatic changes have taken place in our society. In just a short period of time we have gone from a Christendom North America during the Billy Graham crusade years of 1950′s to 1980′s to a post-Christendom where most of these words make little sense. Today, in many post-Christendom places in N America, THESE WORDS MAKE NO SENSE. Here, people in these post-Christendom contexts have not been baptized or confirmed. They receive no social benefits from going to church. They are not even looking for that. They do not believe going to church will save them.  They are oblivious to the notion of “being saved.” Unless the hearers of this message by Billy Graham live in Dallas Texas or Atlanta Georgia, these words fall on deaf ears.

There is a line of continuity between the Billy Graham crusades of that day and much of current day evangelicalism. Whether it is in the local Bible church congregation or the large mega church, they both rely on a cultural ethos that lies behind these words by Billy Graham. It is a world that respects the Bible, believes in one God, and sees church as viable cultural institution. Here converts are described as people (usually coming out of some former initiation to Christianity) who make a personal commitment to Christ and have a personal relationship. Church is organized so as to attract people into its doors. The mega churches merely seek to do the Billy Graham thing with more relevancy/production value (it is ironic to see how a Billy Graham crusade basically put on a typical evangelical worship service in an outdoor service – complete with congregational singing, choir, special music, a testimony and a sermon by Billy Graham- and thousands came time after time). Even though the Graham ministry had a much broader ministry than this brief sound clip would indicate, by and large the majority of Crusade converts were Christendom converts, born and initiated by the European heritage churches, and seeking a vital faith. This in itself was a worthy ministry.

The times however changed.  The last vestiges of Christendom lie in decay in large parts of the N American world. There are fewer and fewer people already initiated into Christianity needing to be “revived.” There are less and less Christendom pre-converts who need to be challenged to take their pre-disposed intellectual assent to a higher level of personal commitment. THE TIME OF CHRISTENDOM EVANGELISM HAS LARGELY PASSED. We must lead out of this nostalgia. It is the task of Missional leaders, authors, and seminary students to help lead what remains of the evangelical church (in the post Christendom contexts of N. America) out of the Christendom nostalgia.

Over the last two years, I have visited hundreds of pastors at gatherings of all kinds in the new territories of post Christendom. They are watching their churches dwindle, getting older and having less and less of a cultural relevance. They are watching the mega churches with bloated budget producing hyped-up programs steal any Christians that under the age of 40. Their single number one question is “how can I get young people to come to my church?” (obviously the wrong question for the context we are in). Many are just plain in shock. It is a post Christendom, post-attractional world.

I got to admit; I still get “goose bumps” listening to the dulcet tones of Billy Graham’s voice. The fruits of his many years of ministry are to be honored. I’m convinced however that this same nostalgia must somehow be addressed. Denominations that are closing churches faster than they can start them should read the writing on the wall. We should respect the Billy Graham generation. We should honor the dwindling churches for all their labors for Christ (and I am dead serious here). Then we should also transition our Christendom churches somehow (I have a few ideas for such a transition) into a missional disposition in the world. We need to lead past and out of the Christendom nostalgia. Perhaps playing this 60-second sound Billy Graham sound bite and talking about it in our congregations might be a beginning towards such ends.

P.S. I still hope to have my final post on Post Christendom evangelism up in the next few weeks.

Filed under Evangelism,Missional,Missional Leadership,Post-Christendom 11 Comments

« Newer Entries

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here