SPRTE wrap
Hi! I’m back from temporary blog-silence… It’s been a busy lately! First reason: SPRTE (usually known as NTE – national training event)
It’s for uni students and is a national gathering of student groups in Canberra from across the south pacific for training. Following the conference the campus groups disperse to many different places to engage in mission. It’s always a great time and this year was no exception!!
Of course Jodie and I are no longer uni students (bible college doesn’t count)…we were there as strand leaders for ‘strand 2′. It was a privilege to serve some young enthusiastic uni students by teaching some of the stuff that we’d learned in OT and Bib. Theology this year. We hope/think/pray that they got something out of it!
The conference topic was ‘cross and culture’. Lindsay Brown (previous IFES gen. sec.) gave a liberal smattering of stories from across the globe of how the gospel of the cross of christ is being taken throughout the world by students. It was heartening and shocking at times given the extreme persecution and persevering under trials that some have endured.
Philip Jensen gave talks on the cross. They were good, but came a little too soon after our doctrine 1 exam it think 
Jodie and I were pre-empting his points based on the justification by faith essays we had written. He basically refused to talk about culture insisting that the cross is about saving humanity, not cultures, bringing unification as one new man under Jesus. what do you think? fair?
All in all a good time.
I’m intrigued — what do you mean that he refused to talk about culture? How did he define culture? Was there something on culture you were expecting him to say?
Reply to ArthurHe was asked a question about why he was only talking about the cross at a conference titled “cross AND CULTURE”. his reply was (as I understood it) that cultures, defined as people groups, are basically expressions of sinfulness. The cross by his estimation is necessary to unite sinful humanity as one new man (I’m sure he was picking up on Eph 1/2).
He didn’t go so far as to say that redeeming culture (so defined) is an impossibility but i think that is logically where he would end up. Which may be fair enough…’redeeming’ is the wrong word anyway if it devalues the redemption won at the cross.
Reply to reubenSounds like I would have been disappointed that he didn’t help people to think more clearly about culture!
Reply to ArthurYeah, agreed. There he did make some throw away comments about “high” and “low” culture. Perhaps if some other readers were there you could give your take!? I felt a bit disappointed.
Reply to reubenNot a fan, haha. I don’t think I took anything away from when Philip Jensen spoke at my first NTE, but saying that, that’s me and I knew plenty of people that did. It kind of makes you think that the reason they named the conference “cross+culture” because it was going across several cultures, and the clever Christian pun on the term ‘cross-culture’. On a side point, the conference in 06 was called “last things first”, being about eschatology, and Philip Jensen barely mentioned it (to tell you truth, I can’t remember what he spoke on, I know he spoke behind a lectern for about 2 hours every night though). The other speaker, Richard Chin, came in at last minute because someone pulled out, I think possibly Lindsay Brown, and so we didn’t hear anything about eschatology.
Even if I did agree with the idea that culture is a expression of sinfulness, surely that’s important to talk about? It’s this idea of homogeneous Christianity which a lot of people have attacked over the past 10 years, probably longer, but it’s so easy to find books on it now, which is the problem. The cross is fundamental for Christians, which is nice, but for non-Christians it’s often below foolishness, it’s seen as ludicrous – and that’s the first gap to cross. If the cross is “necessary to unite sinful humanity as one new man” then how is that expressed sinfully, while we’re still here on earth? I think leaving that up in the air is what has left me pondering more about culture than the bible.
I’d also make a prediction that teaching that refusing “to talk about culture insisting that the cross is about saving humanity, not cultures” aligns itself (and opposes, mind you) with Modernism, a movement that ended 50 years ago, will fade away. Considering Christians are pretty up with it all, this kind of teaching surely will not exist in 20 years. Just my thoughts.
Although I did knock studying the bible before, my favourite bit of NTE is doing exactly that in strand groups. Did you get anyone else, apart from Fi, from outside NSW? Were you the young arrogant one and Jodie the sensible fountain of knowledge with missional experience in Argentina? Is that guy on the very left wearing a skullcap? So many questions!
Reply to martyHey Marty,
Was I there in 06 too? I think so but cant find the booklet… I remember last year better – particularly late night trips to the Annandale to see Liam Finn during mission. good times.
They put Philip on in the morning this time (which forced him to speak more briefly is my guess). good move if that was it. I think he tried his best to serve us well…
The thing about your modernism comment is interesting given that that’s about how long he’s been doing f.t. ministry! It might be right…although i suspect it was more of a preacherly tactic having thought some more about it. By refusing to go where every other famous preacher with the internet and a microphone does he captured attention and managed to highlight the foolish message of the cross.
but i too think that how to express this foolish message to (even sinful) cultures (defined as people groups or sub-cultures) is a vital way to join the dots on this topic…after all we gave a seminar on this didn’t we!?!
I dont think he was arguing for a homogeneous Christianity more like a homogeneous human condition of sin and separation caused by the fall (Tower of Babel, Gen 11 etc).
Fi was the only south aussie, Victoria was represented (guy with the head gear) too…did my best to be both young and arrogant but possibly failed on both counts.
Study your bible young man! see culture through the lens of the cross and in light of the resurrection.
Reply to reubenI checked my photos from 06 and you didn’t make an appearance. Kim Wight just put up some photos from the one just gone, it’s kind of funny how similar it is – although she went to some kind of aquarium.
Anyway, I don’t think he’s arguing for homogeneous Christianity either, but I don’t think he’s really opposing it either? That’s the thing that frustrates me, he can talk for hours on the cross but the cross shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand. Culture is complex and layered, takes years to understand but the cross is easily understood. What gets in the way of understanding the cross is our own sin, and yes by studying it and sitting through talks on it we reveal the sin in our own lives.
So, by teaching only of the homogeneous condition of sin I think it ends up leading to this idea of homogeneous Christianity, which is fine that every church should have the same connection to the body of Christ. But there’s a huge gap because culture is given as an after thought, and that’s sad. It’s hard to teach, because there’s no book to teach by, but it’s so important because of the post-Christian and dare I say it, post-Modern environment (I’m starting to cringe whenever a Christian uses the term post-modern). There’s no book, only experience!
Reply to martyHey Marty,
I think i get what you’re saying and broadly agree – preaching which stops short of drawing out the implications or going beyond the trivial for those hearing (and the one speaking) misses the mark.
Every culture has had to work out what to do with the outrageous (but essentially easily comprehended) message of the cross.
Ours is no different! and the amazing thing is that this process does not end up with a homogenous christianity – this is one of the great things about this gospel i think! It comes to people, transforms them, rebirths them yet does not obliterate their distinctives as humans in community.
so if you consider the differences between biblical Christianity expressed in North America v. Africa v. Asia they are quite different! yet all worship Jesus as saviour and lord.
for the sake of continuing the discussion…whose responsibility do you think it is to do the hard work of considering what the gospel means for people of a particular culture? the preacher/leader or the people? what form do you think it would/should take?
Reply to reubenHey marty,
Having thought a bit more I think you’ve put your finger on a bigger issue. Have a read of this:
Tim keller explains the gospel
And let me know what you think. I may turn this discussion into a post of its own – others weigh in if you’d like!
Reply to reubenI think I did put my finger on a bigger issue without quite realising it! That article is quite interesting, I’ve read it a couple of times now.
Firstly, in terms of culture diversity, presenting the gospel to a Muslim culture in central Africa is going to be different to than presenting it to Manhattenites, well quite obviously.
In the former, we have a missionary couple from church who work with the Yawo in Malawi as part of Global Interaction, which used to be Australian Baptist Missionary Society. I tell you the name change, because I think that’s an important of who GIA have tried to present themselves in the last decade or so. This couple have worked in Africa for the past 10 years and they’ve basically written the only books ever in Yawo, including a translation of the bible (with a team of people, I think), a book of Yawo proverbs and I think they’re working on a dictionary. He’s also about to start writing a PhD on the Yawo worldview. This culture isn’t pre-Christian either, they definitely know of Christians, and Christians are seen as a negative thing. The way they teach the gospel is recognising the Muslim prophet Isa (Jesus), and teach the gospels of Isa (the bible) as superior to the teachings of Muhammad. So when a Yawo person recognises Isa as God, they become a follower of Isa, not a Christian. I found that kind of interesting, a well thought out and long-term solution created by missionaries. The stuff they have done could in the long-run turn a nominal Muslim culture into a Christian one, its created a new chapter in their culture.
But in our culture, post-culture, post-sin, I think Tim Keller put it quite well. Also point to Mark Sayers’ call for the need of cultural prophecy, or just prophecy in general. People who understand culture to the next level, like visionaries of the future and, critics of the present. Not preachers or teachers, more like “filmmakers, authors, musicians, journalists, politicians, humanitarians, even business leaders who you can tell posses a prophetic heart” as Sayers’ says. These people barely exist in congregations because the church has made no room for them. It’s a teacher-centric church that if a film maker, author, musician was to use their gifts, it would be under the authority of the teacher (or themselves be the teacher). What’s a congregation lead by a film maker? The church says that is DANGEROUS, but think of the world of possibilities that opens up! We need balance and we possibly need the church to lose a grip on “how much we’ve progressed” and more of a grip on how much more we’ve got to go.
Reply to martyI like where Mark sees a gap, but I don’t like calling it prophecy. I think it’s the wrong term if it obscures the biblical idea of prophecy (which admittedly changes as the bible progresses).
‘visionaries’ is better both as a description and a title i reckon. or even missiologists if you want to go more technical.
I dont think shortsightedness or a false sense of attainment are the problem though. It more likely comes out of clericalism (rather than church as body). When ‘gospel work’ is the only work which has value then it is hard to fit filmmakers, politicians etc into the system.
I’m anti clericalism but all for teachers leading churches. I think that is the primary means God provides for the care, nourishment and protection of his flock (1 peter 5, 1 tim 3, Eph 4 and so on). This is how teachers serve as part of the body. And god has given them for this purpose (Eph 4:11-13).
The shift that many churches have to make is toward finding a way for the others in your list, the visionaries to serve and contribute to the building up of the body also.
Sounds like the missos at your church are doing the hard yards and making a good go at it! encouraging stuff…
Reply to reubenA few corrections in hindsight, I think Mark Sayers is calling on for more prophets rather than prophecy. Prophecy was the wrong word. His blog details four functions a prophet fulfills, none of which is prophecy as such:
http://marksayers.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/prophets-during-the-reign-of-queen-lindsey-lohan/
I didn’t really want this to be a discussion about prophecy and prophets, but it’s interesting to talk about it for a bit. Also, why did the formatting in my post stuff up, it wasn’t bold and it had paragraphs!! Anyway, like MS, I too am interested in what a prophet looks like today. Are they concerned with revelation and prophecy or do they play a role of “God’s mouthpiece” like the OT prophets? If prophecy is concerned with revelation, how much else is needed to be revealed? A teacher teaches what has already been revealed, but a prophet is in the business of revelation… with or without the spiritual gift of prophecy?? I was reading a summary about the gift and the person writing the article came to the conclusion that it’s no longer needed. I don’t know if I agree with that, I know people in YWAM use prophecy a lot on mission, but other than that, no one I know really. Even the stuff they prophecy about, it seems to show the person or the team the power of God rather than fruitful revelation, because sometimes they prophecy innocuous stuff. To me, these people aren’t prophets necessarily, they’re just using the gift of prophecy to hopefully glorify God and encourage one another.
When I use the term “cultural prophecy” I don’t mean it in a spiritual gift sense, but in a post-revelation sense. I would agree visionaries is probably a safer and more accurate term, but being a prophet is such a powerful parallel to the way God used ordinary people in the OT to speak as His mouthpiece. These aren’t just people who are well meaning, but rather actually are gifted in understanding, as Mark Sayers sayers, the pathos and pain of God. That’s why these OT people are prophets, they are confident to speak and reveal such vivid imagery to who God is, because they are filled with the Spirit. What is Paul is referring to in Ephesians 4? Is he being a prophet in Acts 17, or an evangelist? Or an Apostle? Or many?
The problem with the teacher-centric church is that we are stuck with the whole “Jesus will only let me do what has been done before” problem. By that, I mean people don’t know how to counter their own culture that isn’t Christian-branded, but rather is after God’s own heart and visionary (prophetic?). The teacher only reveals what has be already been revealed. I’m not advocating a filmmaker running a church over person trained in teaching, but I like thinking of the idea. The reason I go to watch a movie isn’t to be entertained, as such, but rather to see humanity from a different light and to seek truth from it. The best movies are the ones that are truthful to the fallen human condition, just like the best sermons are the ones that reveal our sin and show God’s “humanity”.
Reply to marty