Apr 2007
Seminary Stride
04/23/07 11:06
This past Saturday,
Jessica and I ran the 5K (3.1 miles) run at our
Seminary called the "Seminary Stride." My goal was to
shave a few minutes off of my last 5K race time and
finish at around 25 minutes. Jess and I ran hard
though (I think I ran the first mile in 6 minutes, 40
seconds--wore me out) and ended up tying one another,
crossing the finish line at 24 minutes and 10
seconds, averaging about 7 minutes and 48 seconds a
mile. I'll take it.
It felt good to run hard and it was also alot of fun. I won the first place trophy for my division, and Jess not only won her division as well, but she finished 2nd overall among the girls and, therefore, got a bigger trophy than me. She's awesome! The only girl that beat her barely edged her out by 14 seconds. I'm so proud of my wife!
It felt good to run hard and it was also alot of fun. I won the first place trophy for my division, and Jess not only won her division as well, but she finished 2nd overall among the girls and, therefore, got a bigger trophy than me. She's awesome! The only girl that beat her barely edged her out by 14 seconds. I'm so proud of my wife!
|
A Position Paper
04/18/07 15:15
Every Wednesday,
usually over lunch at Chili's, I mentor one of my
best friends, Wes Butler. It is a joy to watch the
Lord grow this gifted and joyful young man into who
he was created to be. As part of this discipleship
relationship, we are currently reading through,
studying, and memorizing the book of Titus. Also, we
write and discuss "Position Papers." Basically, the
idea is that when we're thinking or wondering about
something, we challenge one another to reflect on and
explore the matter deeply, to the point that we form
a firm position on the subject. From time-to-time
then, I plan to post one of my position papers
(really just a few pages in my journal) for you to
either read or ignore. If you do read it, I'd love to
hear your comments. Feel free to disagree as these
are working thoughts--not creeds chiseled in stone.
"On the Relationship Between Sending Churches and Host Cultures:"
This missiological issue, as far as the insight my perspective may yield, is, in its present form, undeveloped. I set it forth now in its initial state to merely initiate the conversation.
For more than two centuries now, the American Church has faithfully sent missionaries to the nations for the sake of making disciples. We have learned much about missions during this time, aiming more and more to proclaim nothing more than Christ crucified in an effort to plant indigenous churches. Even still, a question, and perhaps needed change, remains.
Are the foreign host cultures affecting the American sending churches? Or in other words, are the old churches learning from the new churches? I observe that overall, they are not. And I hold that there is a great need for them to start.
Before venturing any further, I find it prudent to examine whether or not a Biblical mandate for this type of relationship exists. I believe the New Testament depicts several examples. When Peter went to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10, the Lord revealed His plan to redeem all nations. In Acts 11, Peter takes this learned truth from the new church in Cornelius' house back to his home church in Jerusalem and guides the Jewish Believers there to go from condemning Peter's missionary journey in verse 3 to glorifying God in verse 18 for the salvation of the Gentiles.
Likewise, Barnabas returned to his home church in Jerusalem to teach them the things he had learned from the Gentile churches he and Paul had planted. Barnabas and Paul, in Acts 15, related the signs and wonders God performed among the Gentiles, leading James and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church to conclude that circumcision was not a requirement for salvation. Furthermore, Paul was clearly affected and blessed by the faith and love of the Ephesian church he founded (Ephesians 1:14-15).
We return now to the question at hand: Do these patterns continue today? I don't think so. The common trend, rather, is an American church going to a foreign people to teach them methods and programs and formulas that don't even bear fruit here in the States. Then, when the Spirit accomplishes miracles and the Lord reaps a harvest despite our missiological shortcomings, we, long from learning from that example, write it off as "Things that only happen overseas." I am sick of hearing American Christians, in response to what God is doing around the world, say, "Oh, that is something unique to international missions; that would never work here."
Why not? Have you tried being open to it? No. Is what you currently do "working?" No. Then what are you so afraid of? What is it about young, bold faith, Spirit-led churches, House Church movements, healings, miracles, and entire nations getting saved that scares us so much?
Oh that we, as the largest sending church in the world, would learn to become a receiving church as well!
"On the Relationship Between Sending Churches and Host Cultures:"
This missiological issue, as far as the insight my perspective may yield, is, in its present form, undeveloped. I set it forth now in its initial state to merely initiate the conversation.
For more than two centuries now, the American Church has faithfully sent missionaries to the nations for the sake of making disciples. We have learned much about missions during this time, aiming more and more to proclaim nothing more than Christ crucified in an effort to plant indigenous churches. Even still, a question, and perhaps needed change, remains.
Are the foreign host cultures affecting the American sending churches? Or in other words, are the old churches learning from the new churches? I observe that overall, they are not. And I hold that there is a great need for them to start.
Before venturing any further, I find it prudent to examine whether or not a Biblical mandate for this type of relationship exists. I believe the New Testament depicts several examples. When Peter went to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10, the Lord revealed His plan to redeem all nations. In Acts 11, Peter takes this learned truth from the new church in Cornelius' house back to his home church in Jerusalem and guides the Jewish Believers there to go from condemning Peter's missionary journey in verse 3 to glorifying God in verse 18 for the salvation of the Gentiles.
Likewise, Barnabas returned to his home church in Jerusalem to teach them the things he had learned from the Gentile churches he and Paul had planted. Barnabas and Paul, in Acts 15, related the signs and wonders God performed among the Gentiles, leading James and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church to conclude that circumcision was not a requirement for salvation. Furthermore, Paul was clearly affected and blessed by the faith and love of the Ephesian church he founded (Ephesians 1:14-15).
We return now to the question at hand: Do these patterns continue today? I don't think so. The common trend, rather, is an American church going to a foreign people to teach them methods and programs and formulas that don't even bear fruit here in the States. Then, when the Spirit accomplishes miracles and the Lord reaps a harvest despite our missiological shortcomings, we, long from learning from that example, write it off as "Things that only happen overseas." I am sick of hearing American Christians, in response to what God is doing around the world, say, "Oh, that is something unique to international missions; that would never work here."
Why not? Have you tried being open to it? No. Is what you currently do "working?" No. Then what are you so afraid of? What is it about young, bold faith, Spirit-led churches, House Church movements, healings, miracles, and entire nations getting saved that scares us so much?
Oh that we, as the largest sending church in the world, would learn to become a receiving church as well!