People reflect about their context of living and working from their local point of view where family, jobs, education, ministry and social life make the components of life.
They take a natural interest into what is happening upstream in society from their specific situations, because of changes and trends affects life spiritually, morally, socially, economically, and culturally. The more these higher levels have an effective impact on life, the more relevant they become. The more they are consulted, ideas get sought after and role models are followed.

Example:
Concepts and theories related to ecology are turning into regulations imposed by local authorities, national governments and supranational institutions (such as the EU).
They affect life in various ways: from the taxations on garbage, to the subsidies for innovative technology for “Eco-cars”. From government subsidized solar power systems, to a traffic tax calculated per kilometer driven by car.

While responses to different regulations will vary between individuals and groups, the vey fact that they respond testifies of an exercise of interpretation: “How does this new development affect me and my family, and what options do I have to respond effectively?  What is my responsibility and how do I assume it properly?”
That is the point where matters of society become personal and that moral value systems prove to supply a helpful frame work for life – or where it shows to be inadequate and failing. Both situations can be found today throughout the continent.

To the few examples listed above many more can be added to illustrate the drastic changes in fields such as spirituality, morality, medicine, economy, social life and culture.
In each of them are Christians and non-Christians alike looking for solid answers – something that helps them to understand (values and principles) and apply (moral conduct) so that they can properly deal with the changes and survive in any aspect of life.

This leads to a few general observations:
1.  The changes in moral values, the spiritual decline and the humanistic arrogance that has become dominant throughout most of the European continent testifies of what is NOT readily available in the hearts and minds of people. Therefore it cannot provide answers.
Where this phenomenon occurs, people lack a coherent system of values that is translated into conduct of life for all domains of life and society.
Institutions that claim to carry an authority in this matter need to evaluate whether their work of pouring foundations in people’s lives helps them to deal effectively with the realities of that life.

2. Individuals and families are looking for coherent answers. These need to have stood the tests of life and have proven to be genuine and authentic. They want to have the assurance of a trusted way. They seek assistance and hope. Christians and non-Christians are alike in this aspect. This is one major field of Christian ministry and it offers many opportunities to share the hope of the Gospel..

3. Churches find it difficult to make effectively a stand when many parallel changes seem to turn societies around. It carries a great struggle to relate to this greater picture. So, in quite a number of occasions it maintains a safe distance and restricts itself to the “spiritual domain of life”. Though seeking to be “biblical”, it abstains from applying what the church in other seasons of its history has consequently sought to do: enabling Christians to live and apply the values of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Consequently it loses its relevancy and experiences all sorts of difficulties to deliver the message of the Gospel effectively – to Christians as well as to the culture in which it is present.

4. Many para-church Christian organizations have developed a presence in their societies. They take up a vital role – mostly in specific social aspects in the society of their city, region or country. They seem to deal better with the changing new society. They are more flexible than churches to adapt to new circumstances.
In many countries they have grown to a level where they have become fair representations of  the evangelical movement. They weigh on decision taking in their work field and in their city or country – but they function parallel to the church.
And this produces several questions:

1. Has this parallel functioning of church and organization become systemic?
Why? How? Is this good or not?

2. If it has become systemic: what are the positive and negative effects of that parallelism?

3. What perspectives for effective outreach and ministry have churches and organizations when carrying out their God given mandate under these circumstances?

4 If there is one thing that YOU would be able to do and that would improve the response of churches and organizations to God’s calling:  what would that be?

Looking forward to read some thoughts!
Herman Heyman