对话 发表评论

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 TrinityIntBapt (1)
美国

We applaud the LTWG Paper and encourage all to read it.

02.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

Finally on the Church section, I just want to stand and applaud for the entire second paragraph on page 21 (full version).  “History shows us that haste breeds shallowness.”  This is so true and so critical.  And yet, my heart just sort of groans within me.  How do we get fully behind such a statement?  This is very much related to what I said before about my concern that we might in Cape Town get excited and feel supportive of such ideas but then not have the follow through to really bring about change.  The reality is these 4,000+ delegates at Cape Town actually represent the whole Church and every segment thereof.  The potential to bring about real change is undeniable.  But is the will there?  Is there the level of commitment necessary to faithfully and perseveringly speak these things back to the global Church? Or will we come back to another Lausanne gathering years from now and simply repeat, “haste breeds shallowness” and confess that nothing has changed?  Am I just a naïve little boy?  Let me share an experience I had recently.

I sit on a council that provides some level of administrative governance for a large group of local churches.  I’m one of the youngest at the table so I try to simply serve, to do what I’m told, to be a help.  But in this past year, I was asked to lead a subgroup focused on helping to elevate the local-global value of the entire body of churches.  The idea (at least as I saw it) was, “How can we become collectively more valuable to the global Church and more connected to the wealth of the global Church?”  Well, as our subgroup began the process of brainstorming ideas about how to accomplish this, I heard the news that the Lausanne Global Conversation was soon to be launched.  I knew that this was the answer for our organization. 

I began spending hours studying the site and considering different ways in which we could use it in our organization.  After some time, I brought a full report and recommendation to the council.  All seemed convinced.  There was a unanimous vote of affirmation to pursue or organization’s full engagement with the LGC.  I drove home feeling excited.  All members of the council were to create profiles, add content, create profiles for their churches, and together plan to introduce it to the full body of churches in our organization.  I waited, waited . . . nothing happened.  Not one individual from that council followed through with creating a profile after that meeting.  It was extremely disheartening.

Now this story serves to illustrate two issues.  First, will our Cape Town experience be just like that?  Will there be great swells of affirmation and a massive “getting-behind” certain ideas and calls and priorities and then no follow through?  Will our commitments have any teeth?  And secondly, if we do have the passion and commitment to actually go home and call our organizations, churches, etc. to these commitments, will we be able to persevere when they look at us as say, “Ummm . . . well, not sure if we really want to do that.” For myself, I simply wanted to write off that council – a verse about pearls and swine came to mind.  But I know I don’t actually have the liberty to do that.  I cannot simply drop these things when they are met with opposition or (worse) apathy.

Here is the feeling that fills my heart right now.  As a worker in God’s global mission, I feel in myself a great dependency on my 4,000+ brothers and sisters to not only verbally affirm those things that we agree on at Cape Town, but to use every opportunity and platform God has given them to announce, explain, and defend these things to the larger Church.  I am absolutely counting on my brothers and sisters from the U.S., Europe, Latin America, India, and elsewhere.  I’m counting on the 30-40 from Nepal, the hundreds from Africa, the one from Bhutan. I’m counting on them to go home and proclaim and teach with perseverance to the church where they are that “haste breeds shallowness” and all the other things that God lays on our hearts.

Question #5 – Am I ridiculously naïve to think that God could actually give us (the Church) a lasting and significant common ground at Cape Town that we will be so deeply compelled by that we then univocally, unswervingly, and perseveringly take back to the whole Church?

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 TrinityIntBapt (1)
美国
@ Cody_Lorance:

We earnestly pray for this common ground to be found -- it requires a work of God’s Spirit.

02.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

Regarding the "Whole Gospel"

For me, this first section was the most helpful (out of three extremely helpful sections), because it did the difficult work of providing a broad Biblical answer to the question, "What is the Gospel?"  The insight that the term "gospel" (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) often means at least slightly different things at different times in Scripture is invaluable. If we are to give a full answer to the question, "What is the Gospel?", we must pay attention to and adequately represent all of these nuances. When the Bible as a whole is enabled to answer this question, we find the following (which I’ve reworded from the LTWG paper):

• The Gospel is the story of Jesus Christ in whole Biblical context.
• The Gospel is the reality of the new, reconciled humanity manifest in the existence of the Church.
• The Gospel is the saving message of Christ’s death and resurrection and all God accomplished in that.
• The Gospel is the fact that we can be changed, transformed by the power of God.
• The Gospel is the proclamation of truth and the exposure of evil.
• The Gospel is that God is as He is.

While it is true that these six answers are quite overlapping, they nevertheless each highlight an important dimension of the gospel which much not be neglected.  Oh that God would permit that this broader and more Biblical definition of the Gospel overwhelm the Church and overtake the all-too-popular and dangerously narrow simplifications of the good news!
Question #1- How do we effectively challenge deficient definitions/explanations of the Gospel which are often so deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of individual Christians and even built into the infrastructures of denominations and mission agencies? (for example - "word of faith" or "prosperity" gospels, or the overemphasis on making converts at the expense of true discipleship)

 Read more here . . .

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 TPMNepali (3)
美国
@ Cody_Lorance:

Perhaps a key is to persevere in our message.  Our situation is one in which many Christians challenge our rather fuller approach to sharing the gospel.  As a matter of fact, when it comes to working with Hindus, the emphasis on conversionism is often antithetical to the goal of making disciples. Surely it will take a long time to bring this fuller gospel understanding to the whole church, but it is a challenge we must take up.  We hope we will take it up.

02.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

And last (but not least), I want to share a  word of appreciation for what is said in this paper regarding world religions and the issue of contextualization.  In particular, may the whole Church latch on strongly to this statement:

“We need to repent of approaches to people of other faiths that reject or denounce their existing religion as wholly evil or satanic, with no effort to understand, critique and learn, and to discern through genuine encounter, friendship and patient dialogue where there may be bridges for the gospel” (p. 28, full version).

Let me say directly that I am personally counting very much upon the Nepalese, Indian and Bhutanese delegations to take this statement back to their contexts.  As one who has endured much grief as a direct result of just such a prejudice while working in the Hindu context, I need my South Asian brothers to sound this call to the South Asian Church.

Related to that though is my continued concern that while the LTWG paper affirms those who are pursuing contextualization, it still does so in a way that lends credence to the myth that there is some kind of an inherent link between contextualization and syncretism.  I reject the notion that such a link exists and would suggest that no evidence can be shown to demonstrate that those theologically orthodox Christians who intentionally pursue contextualization are in any greater danger of syncretism than Christians who do not.  On the contrary, I believe that honest and balance analysis will find even more syncretism (if we are defining this term as a sinful conformity to “pattern of this world”) in local churches that haven’t made any intentional effort to contextualize the Christ-life in their context.  The reality is not as the C1-5 scale suggests, that continued pursuit of contextualization inevitably leads to syncretism.  Rather, I would contend that, providing the contextualizer begins on theologically solid ground (an unwavering commitment to uphold the Bible), that the pursuit of contextualization actually serves to produce a much more thoughtful and theologically rich expression of Christian faith and practice than otherwise.   But alas, I cannot go any further into this right now.

Question #7 – Up

on what evidential basis does the LTWG feel it necessary to warn about syncretism in the same sentence as it mentions contextualization?  Doesn’t this sentence only serve to affirm an unfair prejudice against contextualization by repeating the unproven notion that contextualization and syncretism are especially and intrinsically linked? 

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

The final section of the LTWG paper seeks to answer the question, “What is the World?”  This is also capably accomplished in calling our attention to the world of physical creation, the whole human race, and the world as “an interlocking web of systems and structures that perpetuate the effects of our falleness and sin” (p. 30, full version).  I have here two items to highlight. Let me take only the first today.

First, I was profoundly impacted by the section on “The World of God’s Creation.” Christian environmentalism has tended to make me very nervous.  Still now, I have great concerns about the environmentalist movement that seems to be very often driven by political agendas and ideologies that do not arise out of or even appear compatible with a Biblical worldview.  I think we have to be very careful in this regard.  But the biblical theology on this issue that is encapsulated in the LTWG’s paper is compelling.  In particular, I’d like to draw your attention to a paragraph on p. 25:

“Many Christians’ understanding of the gospel seems to start in Genesis 3 (“We’ve got a sin problem”), to end in Revelation 20 (“There is a day of judgment coming”), and then presents Jesus as a means to solve the first and escape the second . . . . But it is not the whole of the gospel, for it does not tell the whole biblical story.  The Bible begins with creation (Gen. 1-2), ends with a new creation (Rev. 21-22), and presents Jesus as the one through whom God has reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to himself through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:15-23).  The gospel is good news for creation, for the reason that the gospel is the good news of what God as done in Christ to undo all the effects of human sin and satanic evil and to redeem his whole creation."

Well, that has just fundamentally moved me in my thinking on this issue. I’m not at the finish line yet, and I look forward to reading other papers on this topic in the future.But, this has me thinking quite a lot. In particular I have found that it has been good for me to consider what I anticipate redeemed creation (new heavens and new earth) to be like. That is, in the same way that mission has become for me about “presenting everyone complete in Christ” (Col. 1:28)--just as they will be in heaven, so perhaps I should be thinking of stewarding non-human creation in the same vein. This is something of an “already / not yet” way of thinking about the earth. Could there be a legitimate component of mission that is focused on moving the fullness of the earth towards God’s ideal which will only be fully realized in eternity? Hmm. . . perhaps. If so, what kind of practical goals should flow out of such a mission?

·         Certainly eternity will feature clean air, land, and water.

·         The new creation must be a place that is safe and habitable.

·         The new creation will be free from disease.

·         The new creation will be bountiful in resources.

·         The new creation will reflect the creativity of God through biodiversity.

Question #6 – How can the Church reframe the issue of environmentalism and take the lead in cause of “creation care” so as to ensure that we are working towards a truly Biblical vision of creation, the world, and reality?

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

Another concern and question that I have regarding the LTWG’s paper arises out of the “Whole Church” section under the sub-section pertaining to catholicity.

“We affirm that ministry gifting and calling are not defined by gender, or by ethnicity, wealth, or social status.  Since the whole church is called to mission, the whole church is gifted for mission.”

My question here is on the issue of gender role separation. I’m wondering if this sentence is meant to represent the LTWG officially “taking a stand” on the ongoing debate between egalitarians and complementarians on gender and ministry roles. I would venture to say that there will be a fair number of complementarians (like myself) in attendance at Cape Town and I would be surprised if there wasn’t a significant number of them on the LTWG itself. So it seems to be a strange statement to make or at least an unclear wording?  Let me be clear, I’m not wanting to open up that particular debate here, but rather I’m seeking clarity on this statement.

Question #4 – Is this affirmation by the LTWG meant to be an affirmation of the egalitarian view over against the complementarian? If not, can this be clarified?

As a complementarian, I eagerly affirm that all the gifts of the Spirit are distributed according to his will to both women and men. I also affirm that both genders have a duty to exercise these gifts in the context of God’s Church. However, I disagree with the notion that gender irrelevant to the question of how and in which particular context these gifts are exercised. That is both a biblical and anthropological conviction for me. And, from that perspective, this statement causes a good deal of hesitation for me.

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

Also in the section devoted to defining the Church, I found an interesting warning.  

"Of course every church ought to understand and live out its essentially missional identity as God’s holy people in the world.  But we want to stress that the church exists for God, and should not be used as a convenient local franchise for the delivery of external strategies, objectives and targets." (p. 17, full version)

As I said, a very interesting paragraph.  But, I’m left scratching my head a bit.  What exactly is meant here?  I’m sure I could speculate, but I wonder if there are some specific examples of this that members of the LTWG has in mind.  If so, I think it would be very helpful to know what they are.  I don’t mean that we need very specific details (names,

addresses, etc.).  No, but what does this look like?

Question #3 – What does it look like when churches, denominations, or other Christian entities use the local church as a “franchise for the delivery of external strategies, objectives and targets”?  What specific dangers along these lines are most commonly manifest around the world?  What does this tend to look line in the context of large and also small local churches?

01.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Cody_Lorance (12)   
美国

The second section of the paper sets out answer "What is the Church?" Again, not a very easy thing to do, and yet, the answers provided are quite solid and helpful. I would like to highlight the subpoint on page 13-14 (full version) regarding the importance of recognizing several popular dichotomies as "false and damaging". I like this section and think it carries an important message for the Church.  However, I do want to point out that this desire to "move back behind" these dichotomies appears to be forgotten later in the paper.  In the epilogue of section three the paper is again setting up a dichotomy of "word and deed" which it specifically warned against previously (p. 33, item 1 in the long version).  That is admittedly frustrating for me to see because it gives me the feeling that the paper is not being presented in a fully univocal way -- which is particularly ironic given its emphasis on the wholeness of the Church.

Question #2 -- How do we really go about accomplishing something at Cape Town? How can we ensure that specific calls and charges and challenges that are made by speakers, presenters and others at the Congress translate into genuine and deep-seated  commitments that are held by most if not all the delegates?  I am very concerned that God will speak and issue many significant calls to His Church.  That we will agree to the truth and profundity of such calls. And that we will fly back into our respective fields of service only to be overwhelmed by the day-to-day concerns and local priorities of our ministries.  How do we truly get on the same page and commit ourselves to a shared vision, strategy, theological understanding, priorities, etc?  Or is this simply too much to ask?

01.10.2010

你必须登录后才能发表评论。如果你还没有用户名，请在此注册（免费、易用！）。