Post 1 - Thoughts on Mission 2020 Vision - Mission in times of uncertainty
Eddie Arthur - Exile to Exile
Thanks Eddie for provoking the grey cells ... I commend the message to you all! It raised two interesting questions for me ... on which I have the following thoughts.
1/ The place of the Church in UK Society.
I have long held the opinion that whenever the Church (or any individual therein) holds, uppermost, the desire to be viewed as a popular and respected part of society there will eventually be a conflict of interest. viz. when that desire conflicts with the truth as presented in Scripture. Thus what we should hold as uppermost is faithfulness to the Jesus whatever the cost. There will be seasons where that will be viewed by society around as good and other times when it will be viewed as antagonistic, fanatical or even evil. We are indeed in a season where Christianity is not viewed positively, and our only response should be to continue to be faithful to Christ in all that we do ... rather than changing the model to try and make ourselves appear relevant and positive.
I do long for a renewed Church in the UK. By renewed I mean a Church that is made up of individuals who are stripped of everything and anything that hinders us from having Godly passions, priorities and principles - but that I see as a work of the Holy Spirt and I pray to that end.
2/ The role of Missions Agencies in the UK and their relationship with the Church.
Eddie raises a number of issues here;
a/ He says that the relationship between Mission agencies and the UK Church is changing, which I wholeheartedly agree with. It is encouraging to see the way in which missions have been reflecting for some time on how they can work together with local Church more effectively. Not only in terms of the nature of the Church/Mission sending partnership but also to see growth in the Kingdom here in the UK. What does it look like for Church and Mission groups to work together effectively? This is a dialogue that is ongoing and to which I am personally committed to pursuing. There are already some very good examples of this out there for those who wish to look it out.
However, the dialogue is hindered by two things. Firstly, the continued reinforcement, by mission agencies, of the stereotype of Missions wanting relationship with the Church because of the resources of money and people contained therein. If we were to call a halt to all fund raising and recruitment efforts for, say 6 months, perhaps the real message that agencies are trying to communicate would come through all the clearer ... would we be willing to do that? Do we as Mission Agencies genuinely trust that God's desire to seek and save the lost is greater than ours ... it is His mission, He will call and equip people for what needs doing. Secondly, we have a huge hurdle to overcome in encouraging Churches to view us differently, which I suspect will only happen over time and by Mission Agencies demonstrating in a sustained way, that we want to function differently and that there is no ulterior motive to our efforts to work together with the UK Church.
b/ I still believe that the UK Church has a significant role to play in global missions today and in the future. According to Operation World (2011) there are 5.5 million evangelical believers ... there is huge potential here if we, as the Church, would make God's priorities our piorities ... re-focussing on where the need is greatest and be prepared to go or send and support, sacrificially, those whom the Lord is raising up. Yes, the number of routes into mission are multiplying and the appearance of mission work is changing but the fundamentals remain the same - reaching people, communicating/incarnating the gospel, discipling believers and building Churches that multiply ... technology helps greatly, but people are on God's hearts and He saves us to serve Him, in order to save others to serve Him, in order to save others to serve Him, in order to save others to serve Him ... you get the picture.
Who are you? I have never been a great fan of labels when it comes to describing members of the body of Christ. eg. he is anglican, she is Baptist, they are Charismatic, etc. etc. I remember once causing a man to become increasingly hot under the collar when he asked me who I was? To which I replied I was a disciple (follower) of Jesus. He was meaning which Church did I attend (presumably so he could classify me and decide whether I was bona fide or not) and my answer did not bring him peace, but I refused to go any further. Why? Because, as I said, I am not a great fan of labels, but also because for me there is a very important distinction between primarily identifying myself with Jesus and identifying myself with Church. Of course, I recognise that by becoming a follower of Jesus I become part of the body of Christ, but that can be very distinct from being a member of a Church. To me this is the crucial difference between vibrant faith and dusty religion. ...
Comments
Post a Comment
Feel free to add comments or ask questions: