Moving Beyond "Supply Side" Missions

This last month SIM used an article I wrote as blog post for the SIM community worldwide.  I have received good feedback regarding these concepts so I thought it useful to share it on my personal blog.  (I have adapted it appropriately...)

Moving Beyond “Supply-Side” Missions

by Ken Baker

It is our privilege four times a year at SIM USA to welcome a new group of soon-to-be SIM missionaries as they gather for a two-week SIMGo orientation. As they circulate around the office we eagerly introduce ourselves and invariably ask two standard questions: Where are you going?  & What are you going to do?  Their varied answers demonstrate the breadth of ministry opportunities in the SIM world, but these questions also highlight what appears so significant to us about mission, going and doing.  For budding missionaries these are huge issues which, once settled, focus and inspire toward preparation and execution. 

We don’t seem to grasp, however, the level of presumption which accompanies such decisions.  With the going and doing settled, it seems the die is already cast well before one ever enters the eventual context of ministry.  Such confidence rests on the assumption that the SIM placement system has thoroughly affirmed the essential need to which the corresponding candidate is the hoped-for answer.  This is what I call “supply-side missions,” which operates on a continuum of identifying needs and providing solutions. 

For those of us who are accustomed to perceiving mission from a position of power and capacity, we seem to receive the Great Commission and the Great Commandment as a blank check mandate on which we can write any mission activity which seems appropriate.  Supply-side missions conceptualizes global engagement in terms of unilateral agenda and contribution, viewing the world through the lens of what-it-lacks and what-we-have-to-offer—what we have, what we know, what we can do, what we can say, etc.  Our capability often causes us to presume we (and what we have) are the supply to meet this need, reach these people, develop this ministry, etc. 

When we shape mission in terms of what we have to dispense to the nations, agenda and strategy control the conversation and determine what we bring to the ministry context.  This perspective flows from a self-perception of the complete (we are ‘saved’, knowledgeable, capable, etc. and no longer needy) to the incomplete (the lost and needy in ‘third world’, deprived places). 

This lack/need orientation flows from a tendency to categorize the world, its peoples and their conditions, and view them through a classification/problem-solving grid, leading us to formulate a strategic agenda in answer to the question: “What (and who) does it take for us to meet this need?”  There are four assumptions which populate this question…that we have accurately perceived and understood the need…that we can measure it…that we are the ones to meet it…and that we can actually satisfy the need through our activities.  I believe this is merely a management question masquerading as a missional question.

Ultimately, the main issue is not the nature of our mission engagement (i.e. word or deed) as much as it is who we perceive ourselves to be in relation to Others in the global community…whether those of the Majority World church or the billions of image bearers of God who do not (yet) follow their Creator, Savior and King.

When the Law expert in Luke 10 asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” He meant it in the sense of “how am I to view others in relation to me?”  His response demonstrates that he completely misunderstood the import of divine love, manifested in Christ Jesus, who exemplified “servant of all” (Mk 9:35).  Instead, a biblical perspective generates “who am I in relation to others?” and, personified by the Samaritan, considers others [and their context] as significant, contributory and incumbent upon me.  This is a chronically missing dimension in mission engagement because we are so consumed with our presumed, unilateral mandate and the vast capacity we have to offer. 

At its core, mission is about the in-breaking of God’s kingdom, which is already…and not yet.  He is establishing his authority and restoring all things as he intended them to be.  Thus, I propose that, as children of the King, a better missional question is: “How does God intend that his kingdom flourish in this place and time?”  Do you see how this completely rearranges what matters most?  The focus is upon what God is doing and the impact of his reign.  What is the story he is writing in this (or that) place?  What is the plot?  Who are the actors?  What is already happening? This line of questioning does not presume to insert ourselves and our solutions into the context, but rather seeks to listen (through the guidance of God’s Spirit) to the narrative the context is living and places us in our Lord’s agenda.   [Actually, this question applies for anyone in any context…neighborhood, school, workplace, field, etc.] 

As a SIM family we are a multicultural community living in a diverse, global context.  This reality means, no requires, that we display massive doses of mutual consideration in relationship with our diverse colleagues and the contexts in which we minister.  Such respect and consideration will only flow when we identify latent assumptions about our (and others’) identity and capacity.  May our Lord, by prayer, give us new eyes to see what we have not known.

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 7

As expected, my list of questions in this series continues to grow.  So, I've added two more as Part 7 of this series.

Here are the prior questions with their links:  

Part 1 - "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  

Part 2 - "Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?" 

Part 3 - "How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood?"

Part 4 - "If mission among our Neighbors is biblical (and not just recently biblical with the sudden interest in ‘missional’ ministry), why are we not already in relationship with Others in our midst?"
Part 5 - "What in our church life and practice has prevented us from living in relationship with Others in our community?" and  "What would such scrutiny entail for a congregation contemplating a move toward multicultural ministry?"

Part 6 - Can we presume to be ready for a multicultural ministry when we have only had homogeneous church experiences?  and  What is the outcome we envision for ministry among diverse peoples in our community?

>Are we prepared for lifelong relationship with Others in our community?

God sovereignly determines the times and the exact places where people live (Act2 17:26).  The demographic realities in America today are God’s will for this place at this time.  He knows what we need; he is showing it to us.  How will we respond?  Instead of leading the way in intercultural competency, our churches are primarily temples of homogeneity, testifying before the watching world that God has nothing better than “I like being with those like me.”  We are called as the people of God to be a preview of the kingdom, the progeny of Jesus, who is the perfect human, and display what God intended perfect human community to be.   In this day and time, for Christ-followers, this means a multicultural existence through intercultural proficiency.

God’s kingdom mission is about New Creation.  He is about restoring all things as he intended them to be.  This is God’s Story, his good news.  Thus, our embrace of mission must be just as comprehensive as the whole good news of God...   The people of God have no other existence, no other mission, than to be the representation and witness of God’s good news in the world.  We were created for relationship, designed for community and destined to bless the nations!   

>How well do we know those who are already engaged in multicultural ministry?

 Far too often we latch onto a ministry direction, start crafting plans, and arranging our launch without ever spending time with those who have already spent years  in that same realm of ministry.  Such a scenario is often repeated when suburban churches embrace a vision to undertake an urban outreach ministry.  They presume they possess the capacity to repeat in an urban context the success they have known in their own.  In this sort of narrative leaders assume they understand the needs and designate their strategy as the solution.  I call this the the presumption of the privileged.  

For example…

Not too long ago I came across a brochure from a local megachurch promoting their missions programs: “The love of Christ compels us to serve the poor in ______’s inner city (our ‘Samaria’) and globally (‘to the ends of the earth’).  We’ve created local and global service opportunities that will challenge you, stretch your faith, and allow you to experience the joy of obedience.”  At first glance this blurb seems missionally-motivated, but look more closely.  The statement reveals much about the vantage point of the congregation.  It shows that “the poor” are ‘them, not us’ and ‘not where we are’.  Likewise, ministry opportunities are programmed, managed, self-contained and ultimately for the benefit of the those ‘acting upon the needy’ so they can feel good about their goodness. 

This type of ministry is ‘mission-from-above’ without true connection and interaction with those who are living the experience every day.   

What do you think about these questions?  this series?

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 6

It's time to wrap up this series on key questions involved when contemplating multicultural ministry, so the next two postings will finish the most critical questions...though, I'm certain I'll continue to grow my list.  Do you out there have any suggestions?

Here are the prior questions with their links:  

Part 1 - "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  

Part 2 - "Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?" 

Part 3 - "How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood?"

Part 4 - "If mission among our Neighbors is biblical (and not just recently biblical with the sudden interest in ‘missional’ ministry), why are we not already in relationship with Others in our midst?"
Part 5 - "What in our church life and practice has prevented us from living in relationship with Others in our community?" and  "What would such scrutiny entail for a congregation contemplating a move toward multicultural ministry?"

Here are the questions for Part 6:

>Can we presume to be ready for a multicultural ministry when we have only had homogeneous church experiences?

Imagining a multicultural trajectory, or harboring dissatisfaction with monocultural churches, does not mean that we are prepared for the challenges and skills necessary for multicultural ministry.  Where we are determines what we see.  This is consistent literally, for where we actually live shapes our conception and opinion of where and how others live.  Likewise, our ethnicity, upbringing, traditions, education, politics, experiences and exposures all contribute to what we see (and don’t see).  We are a product of what we have known…even if we are in contention with that paradigm.  Therefore, we cannot presume to be ready to lead in multicultural ministry just because we desire it. 

>What is the outcome we envision for ministry among diverse peoples in our community?

Any effective endeavor must begin with a clear vision of the outcome.  If one’s understanding of the outcome is incomplete, the processes one employs to reach the outcome will be equally incomplete.  Therefore, the question, “What will it take for us to reach ­­­­so-n-so people in our community?” usually means an outcome vision based upon a pre-determined, homogeneous church planting model.  However, our communities in the USA are exponentially multicultural, as well as socially and spiritually complex.  Thus, a mature missional vision asks, “How does God desire that his kingdom flourish here, right now?”  Instead of us presuming that it is our calling to ‘reach’ ______ people, we are recognizing that God’s kingdom narrative for a particular time and context involves a multitude of considerations, actors, and roles, many of which we are unaware (and which may not even include us!).  If we are truly seeking to be who God calls us to be in space and time, then we will be seeking to understand the story he is writing in a given context.

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 5

I'm continuing this blog series, but I need to pick up the pace.  Rather than one question each post I will group them until I exhaust my questions.  In any case, these are the prior questions (and you can find the posts below):  

Part 1 - "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  

Part 2 - "Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?" 

Part 3 - "How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood?"

Part 4 - "If mission among our Neighbors is biblical (and not just recently biblical with the sudden interest in ‘missional’ ministry), why are we not already in relationship with Others in our midst?"

Part 5: 

>What in our church life and practice has prevented us from living in relationship with Others in our community?

Frankly, we don’t care about ‘them’, we care only for ‘us’.  The bottom line is that we don’t really believe Others can contribute any value to my life.  We don’t believe we need those who are unlike me.  While we may be curious about exotic ways, enjoy ‘ethnic’ music and appreciate interesting differences, we still assume that all we need for life can be found through ‘our own kind’.  This is the subtle danger of the ‘heart language and culture’ motif, for it undermines the biblical reality of The Body.  We gut the meaning when we only teach that differing spiritual gifts are in view.  No, we need each other...because each gift is embodied in a person and a culture.  If we need the gift, then we need the person, her culture, her history, her story, her life!  This brings the kingdom unity for which our Lord prayed in John 17...for unity has no meaning apart from diversity.

>What would such scrutiny entail for a congregation contemplating a move toward multicultural ministry? 

We first recognize that we are called to be someone new, not merely to do something new.  We then confess our sin of indifference, which is ‘hate’ by another word, because it is less that the love we are commanded to give our Neighbor.  Scripture does not allow us to justify a ‘not love/not hate’ reality; let’s call it for what it is, the sin of indifference.  Secondly, we recognize that each one is my Neighbor to love, a gift for my life, for our community, because each one is uniquely loved by our Lord. 

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 4

This blog series presents a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  My initial intent was to post a new question each week...well, extensive travel in October/November blew that program out of the water.  So much for good intentions.  In any case, these are the prior questions:  

Part 1 "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  

Part 2  "Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?" 

Part 3  "How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood?"

Question 4: If mission among our Neighbors is biblical (and not just recently biblical with the sudden interest in ‘missional’ ministry), why are we not already in relationship with Others in our midst?  

 

If we have come to conclude that multicultural body life is an accurate representation of biblical character, we must acknowledge as well that it has always been biblical!  This begs the question, if a multicultural congregational character is biblical, then why is our church not already diverse?  In other words, what are the pathologies in our church which have kept us from this vision and perspective up until now? 

There are three realms of abiding denial—racialization, cascading demographic change, and Christian segregation—realities which American churches rarely acknowledge...except in conversations of economic and political alarm.  And we wonder why there is such missional paralysis in our churches!  These “elephants” trample around us daily while our indifference cloisters us from social realities.  John Perkins aptly challenged, “Can a gospel that reconciles people to God, and not people to people, be the gospel of Jesus Christ?”  Absolutely not!  But, our friendship networks tell a different story...  Much more can be said, but not now.  However, I will leave you with an thought provoking series on racialization from Paul Louis Metzger.

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 3

This blog series presents a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  In Part 1 I explained the background to these questions and a presented the first question, "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  Part 2 addressed this question: Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?   Which leads us to the third question: 

Question #3: How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood? 

As people to people!  Relating to Others in your neighborhood/community means pursuing relationship, which means spending time together, pursuing friendship.  Are we willing to take the time necessary to get to know our Neighbors?  We are called to reciprocate in hospitality, serve one another, care about each other’s lives...in other words, living as humans together in relationship—incarnating the love of the One who ‘Neighbored’ us.  Usually, we are more concerned about our agenda—‘helping’ them, evangelizing them, organizing them—than actually befriending and loving as Neighbors to Neighbors.  Often, the most we want is occasional participation in some compassion delivery system.  But, our mandate is to love fully and completely with Christ as our standard.    How are we doing in this area…especially as it relates to other Christians?   Our Neighbors...are they scenery? (to ‘color’ my world) are they machinery? (those who do the things I need) or are they people? (like me, created in God’s image)  

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 2

Last week I began a blog series reflecting on a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  In Part 1 I explained the background to these questions and a presented the first question, "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  Which leads us to the second question:

Question #2: Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?   

Let’s face it many Americans (i.e. those whose immigrant past has faded from present consciousness) have a basic discomfort about the validity of distinct cultures to exist in America without rapid assimilation.   Often there is disconnect between political/economic reservations and outreach motivations which often lead congregations to employ an ‘Evangelism Plus’ mentality.  In other words, not only do they need ‘the gospel’, but they also need to become more like us so that we can all live together.  (The subtext is 'if you become more like me then that makes me more comfortable'.)  Such expectations not only violate the meaning of “love your neighbor,” but they also reveal ethnocentric possessiveness which forgets there is nothing we have that we haven’t been given.  The way of Christ is to love and accept people, any person, as they are, and for who they are.   Recognize and repudiate our tendency to lump people in categories—whether it be economic, political, religious, ethnic, generational, lifestyle—and treat them accordingly, with pre-determined attitudes and arguments.  We are to not sin when it comes to people and identity; such as, realizing that actions may be ‘illegal’, but people are not...therefore, to call a person illegal is to dehumanize someone who an image bearer of God.  

Stay tuned for question #3 next week...

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 1

A couple weeks ago I met with a couple guys who are seeking to plant a daughter church in a significantly diverse neighborhood.  Their sending church is completely homogeneous (all Euro-American), but they are desiring and expecting that their new church plant will be multi-ethnic/multicultural.  This is commendable, but is it naive? Perhaps.  Because presumption kills. 

These fellows came asking for any advice I could give them, but, before extending advice, there were critical questions they needed to ask of themselves.  Key, critical questions which determine how ready and prepared one is for intercultural ministry in a multicultural context.  So, this blog series will introduce the questions I asked of these two church planters and why I asked them.

“Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic/Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions...”

In recent years scores of pastors have shared their excitement about launching into multi-ethnic/multicultural ministry.  As one who coaches churches in this direction of ministry, I find these conversations usually begin with a series of questions...How do we reach them, or this neighborhood?  What do we do to get started?  How much time does it take?  What resources do we need?  All good questions, but are they the right questions?  When a new ministry vision takes root we naturally gravitate toward organization and implementation; besides, how else would anything get done?  On the other hand, if implementation strategies dominate our planning, then we are presuming that we are ready to pursue this vision.

Any business owner considering a new sector of business opportunity wouldn't dream of diving into a new arena without the due diligence necessary to have a clear picture of what the initiative will mean for every angle of the company.  While I am reluctant to compare church with business (I think there is already far too much of the latter in the former...) However, this ‘due diligence’ concept is a great analogy.

The motivator behind due diligence is the need for caution in the face of an unknown arena, and the list of questions above indicates a significant bloc of inexperience in this sphere of church life and ministry.  While the above questions are not wrong, they are misplaced, premature.  What they reveal is that any church asking such ‘implementation first’ questions likely doesn't have much experience with Otherness.  Appropriate due diligence begins with the right questions, and, they begin with us.

Question #1: What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?

Multi-ethnic/multicultural ministry involves engaging the Other, those who are alien to my life experience and networks—it is my ‘them’.  First, there is the neighbor Other, those who occupies my same community spaces, and who may be a recent newcomer, or not.  What makes ‘them’ Other to me is the gulf of life and culture between us.  Far too often, these ‘neighbor Others’ are also the ‘invisible Others’…the ‘unconsidered ones’ who populate the fringes of my awareness. 

In biblical terms, we should read Otherness as “my Neighbor;” the object of the second of two commands which summarize God’s heart for people—love God, love Neighbor.  Far too often we read only incidental immediacy in ‘my neighbor’, as in, ‘my near neighbor who is in need’.  However, Jesus’ reference in Luke 10 draws from Leviticus 19 which teaches God’s people to love “strangers among you,” and “your neighbor as yourself” because they are just like you were, aliens in a strange land.  Why?  because strangers—Others—are the hardest Neighbors’ to love!  Besides, since anyone can be your neighbor, everyone is your neighbor.  Jesus is saying, ‘love the one you are least likely to love’…with all the alacrity and sacrifice we expect for ourselves.  Attitudes and behaviors toward Others flow from beliefs and assumptions we hold about the Other.   Are ‘us’ and ‘them’ clearly understood, if not spoken? 

Lastly, what about the kingdom Others, those who worship and serve our Lord?  We seem oblivious to the reality that—‘if we belong to Jesus, then we belong to those who belong to Jesus’!   What are the implications of this ‘belonging’?   

I'll post question #2 next week...

The Zimmerman verdict and racialization in America

The current blog climate leaves one with the distinct impression that I would be supremely negligent to not weigh in on the topic de jour, the acquittal of George Zimmerman.  My comments, though, address the commentators...pundits and analysts and bloggers.

The bottom line is that the polarization of commentary clearly exhibits the continued and pervasive racialization of American society.  By "racialization" I am not saying that American society is a 'racist' society.   Rather, I mean that race is a constant companion in our society...a factor which has a continually reverberating role.  Not sure you agree? Here are some examples: religion-look at the racial segregation at most places of worship: neighborhoods-segregation is stubbornly present in real estate; economic wealth-as of 2007 median wealth of White families was 20 times greater than Black families; marriage; health; media preferences; life expectancy; politics; loan rates; advertising & marketing; music; and the list goes on and on.  

Racialization is a constant presence in America, and commentary about the Zimmerman verdict reflects this reality.  More specifically, it points to a foundational difference in the way the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy is viewed.  In general, White-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the altercation and aftermath as the narrative of an individual actor.  Whereas African-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the situation and the aftermath as a narrative of societal systems.  The lenses are different, therefore, what is seen highlights a different hue.

While the consequences of these different perspectives are numerous, I will highlight two.  The first is the assumption that we all see the situation purely objectively without any sort of filtering.  The truth is, we all filter reality.  Secondly, there is the problem of the relative strength of the narratives.  The systemic narrative is at a disadvantage because the individual actor narrative is the dominant voice.

It is for this reason that I appreciate the thoughts of another blogger, Eugene Cho, who reminds those of us of the dominant voice to stop and listen http://eugenecho.com/2013/07/16/if-our-black-brothers-and-sisters-are-hurting-why-cant-we-just-shut-up-listen-and-mourn-with-them/

When death is close and personal...

My best friend is dying of pancreatic cancer.  He may just have a few more days in this life.  When I spoke with him last week, I didn't know it was likely my last conversation with him; for his condition rapidly nose-dived four days ago.  It took all of us by surprise, especially his dear wife of 37 years, but she is inspiring in the midst of her grief.

Of course, we have prayed that God would have mercy on him, that he would be granted many more years. I have known him for over 40 years, I know his life, and such a request seems so reasonable, so clearly beneficial.  You see, my friend is an exceptional example of faith, scholarship, humility and leadership.  His continued life and contribution would be a wide blessing for so many.  He has taught hundreds, even thousands, around the world...and there is so much more he could do for many years to come...and many would glorify God as a result.  Such aspirations seem so reasonable.

Herein is the quandary.  If God takes him now in these next days, this means that God has determined that such a narrative brings him greater glory than the scenario I envision above, the one that seems so reasonable.  Why then do I remain dismayed?  My feelings of confusion are not unlike those of the disciples who scattered in dismay during our Lord's crucifixion...  They were so convinced of another, more glorious, more normal, more expected narrative.

If the death of God's saints brings him great glory, then we do not really understand very much about the glory that godly service in this life supposedly brings.  And so, to take this thought further, doesn't this mean  that our missional service in the world is not as impressive as we might assume?

We don't know so much...

The Bible is too long . . . and too short!

As I read through the Bible yet again, I'm reminded how loooooong it is.  Serious editing needed to cut it down to a manageable read.  Tangents, rabbit trails, and those lists...enough already.  What we need is a concise collection of what is really important, right?  Then again, as I read, I'm often left with questions...what happened next?  why does the story end there?  what is missing from the description which would help me understand?  why can't there be more explanation?    So, clearly, the Bible is too short, because there is so much missing, right?

Could it be that I'm not such a good judge of what is too much and too little?  Someone with more experience in these matters ought to decide . . . I know, the Author.

Label conundrums for diverse churches

Well, I would never be accused of being an avid blogger.  I'm always blogging avidly in my head, but rarely does it move further...  Besides, spewing forth words without direction and organization contributes nothing noteworthy.  Don't we wish more agreed?  Now for the post...

I came across this article in recent days from Michael Emerson and I celebrate the progress where diverse churches are more prevalent than ever.  http://reflections.yale.edu/new-day-multiracial-congregations  I so appreciate Emerson's research and analysis.

The professional sociologists seem peer-bound to use "multiracial" instead of the more common "multiethnic" or "multicultural" or "intercultural."   This is understandable, but it is interesting to note how the rest of us settle on one term as opposed to another.  Some choose the term their favorite author uses.  Others prefer the term their congregation has adopted.  Some see these terms as interchangeable, others strongly disagree.
I'm not bothered if one is preferred over another...I hold them loosely.

Yet, it seems to me that there are some key considerations.  "Multiracial" seems to accentuate the reified  nature of "race," the affirmation of something which doesn't actually exist. Race is presented as something biological, when it is really just an arbitrary social construction.  "Multiethnic" seems to focus too heavily on the genetic aspect, following quite directly from the Jew/Gentile dynamic, but leaving out dimensions which divide us, such as lifestyle interests, economic levels, generations, etc.  Such concerns would seem to push us toward "multicultural" which has a broad net...too broad for some folks.

In the end, though, it is not the 'multiplicity' which matters most, that is, the multiple compounding of ethnicities or cultures.  Rather, it is the relational character of a diverse congregation which most completely reflects the "one new man" reality of the body of Christ.  In this regard, "intercultural" gains traction because it  draws attention to the relational nature, the "inter" aspect...as in "interdependent" or "interactive" or "inter-whatever."

Personally, I prefer to describe the organizational nature of a congregation made up of diverse peoples and cultures as "multicultural."  But, when referring to the character of such an congregation, I believe "intercultural" is preferred.  In other words, a multicultural church, made up of intercultural people.  It's a mouthful, and not so useful as a label, but it tells the story more completely.

So, that's what I think...what about you?

No doubt you have noticed; we in the USA are in the homestretch of a presidential election year.  So let me see if I understand the current reality...er, dilemma for many evangelicals:

On one side we have a sitting president and candidate who openly professes his love and commitment to Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior...but, who is persistently painted by some, many of them Christians themselves, to be a closet Muslim, an insinuation he repeatedly denies.

Why do they overlook his claims?

On the other side, we have a candidate who openly and proudly displays his devotion, service and leadership in the Mormon faith, a cult with its own scripture, the Book of Mormon, which is in direct opposition to biblical Christianity.

Why do they overlook his claims?

Hmmm...awkward.

Minority Milestone in the US birthrate...

In the last couple days I've been following a reading trail which presents a milestone in US demographic history.  From now on, there will always be more minorities born in this country than Euro-Americans.  Several publications document this threshold, here is one from the Washington Post.

How many majority-culture churches are aware of this trend?  How many care?  Sadly, for those paying attention, many will see this development as more of a threat than an opportunity...  The youth of this country is the future, and it will be a very diverse story.  Yet, the suspicious boundaries between ethnicities and cultures persist.  Christian self-segregation mutes God's intention for the church to be a contrast community visibly demonstrating the reconciliation power of the gospel.  Unity has no meaning apart from diversity.  Likewise, unity means nothing without participation.

The Prodigal Sons

I just read Carolyn Arends' piece on Luke 15 and the unfortunate title given to this story, "The Prodigal Son." I agree with her assessment that the main point of this parable addresses "the other prodigal son," the 'older brother', in that it is a group of 'older brothers' to whom Jesus is addressing...his usual foil, the infamous Pharisees, et. al. (see 15:2). They play the 'older brother' role perfectly...and we, the evangelical establishment, follow well in their wake.

There are three points I would like to add. The first relates to my reference above "this parable." Often the parable known as "the prodigal son" is presented as a story that stands alone. However, note that in verse 3 Jesus says, "Then Jesus told them this parable...". Was it just the one about the lost sheep? No, the whole chapter is the parable. There are three vignettes within one parable, each building on the other. In my Bible, each vignette is titled as a separate parable, but this was not Jesus' intention.

Secondly, having noted that each vignette contributes to the flow of this parable, we see there is a pattern in these three segments--something lost (sheep-coin-son), something found, then great rejoicing. Right? Yes, but, I left out a critical piece...in the first two scenes there is another key element...one which is missing in the third scene, an extensive search. Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son?

Note that how the older brother learns of the celebration party, the other servants tell him in verse 27, "your brother has come." When disrespecting his father by complaining about his treatment, the older brother says, "this son of yours," (verse 30) we see that the older brother is so incensed that he cannot bring himself to acknowledge he has a brother. But, his father says in verse 32, "this brother of yours was dead and is alive again...". Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son? His older brother! (In my years in Africa I learned how the eldest brother was the leader of the siblings, the one responsible for them before their father...an Eastern cultural characteristic which is still widely common.)

Thirdly, note how the parable ends without resolution. One lost son has been found, the other is still outside the celebration. This is a clear reference to us older brothers who suppose ourselves to be so tight with our God...when, in reality, we are mostly far from celebrating that which our Father celebrates. Instead, like the older brother, we want to dictate what honors us and pick the friends with whom we want to celebrate...instead of looking for our lost brothers.

So, the older brother is outside the celebration...but, what will it take for him to join the celebration? Clearly, it would mean repentance and reconciliation with his father...but, that is not all. The older brother cannot join the celebration without acknowledging his younger brother, humbling himself and reconciling with him as well. Not only do we not recognize that we are largely estranged from the party...thinking, like the Pharisees, that we are insiders when we are actually outsiders, but, do we also recognize the degree to which we are estranged from those who are actually celebrating with our Father?

Not only are we not looking for our lost brothers...we don't care that they are lost, let alone desiring to be in intimate kingdom fellowship with them. As our Lord said, "The first will be last, and the last will be first."

Today I listened to the full length as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered "I Have a Dream." It is unquestionably one of the most stirring speeches of all time, given August 28, 1963 on the Washington Mall.

At the time, most evangelical churches were, sadly, indifferent; many, tragically, were vehemently militant. A great opportunity to give glory to Christ & Gospel was lost. What of today? Have we learned? It seems that we evangelicals are once again populating the sidelines of indifference while immigration reform languishes...

Recently, I had the opportunity to engage in a progressive dialogue about whether or not multicultural churches are a biblical mandate or recommendation. Here is a summary of my perspective:

I believe the best starting point is to focus upon shaping our understanding of ‘kingdom character’ and its implications. The foundation of ‘kingdom character’ is “love one another.” This is a restoration narrative as the body of Christ lives into the character which God intended for humanity from the outset…joining a restoration of all things which culminates in God’s stated goal to “bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph 1:10) In Christ, we are not only new creatures, but also a new type of humanity. (Eph 2:15) We are not the same as we once were. We have a new identity, a new role. Just as Christ is the 2nd/last Adam, the realization of what a human was to be, we, in and through Christ’s body, collectively, represent true human community as it was intended to be.

What does it mean, then, to “love one another?” Are there any limitations to this mandate? Any who are not included? What is the rationale for not pursuing relationship with each other in Christ? (too hard, impractical, wastes time, too idealistic, we prefer not to, etc.—deep down, we know these are not sufficient responses) The bottom line is that our Lord prayed that we would be one, that we would be together (John 17). Thus, unless we are continually moving toward each other, then we are falling short of that which God intended for us. But, why?

The whole point of the metaphor of the body is to emphasize how much we need each other…not just our functions as edifying contributions, but our personness as well. All that we each embody (personality, ethnicity, culture, age, gifting, history, joys, sufferings, etc.) is part of this contribution; and each culture has the contributive role as well, for the edification of the entire body. In my observation and experience, this is the fundamental disconnect—realizing and embracing the biblical reality that we need each other, that we are incomplete without each other.

This disconnect is driven by human nature. We don’t naturally believe that we need those who are unlike us (however we would define this). The progressive among us can be curious, appreciating the mosaic of diversity, kind, welcoming, polite and accommodating of difference…but still not believe that we need what people from other cultures (ethnicities, generations, gender, economic status, etc.) can contribute. It is why ‘inclusion’ is not enough… the new humanity in Christ is about kenosis, emptying ourselves, submitting one to another, confessing our sins one to another… that is, living in full mutuality—the image of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Given this reality, what are the implications? How is this new type of humanity in Christ supposed to live in this diverse, fractured, antagonistic, selfishly sinful, lost-without-Christ world? In such a way that “all men will know” that we are his disciples, that “the world will know” that Jesus is from God… that’s all.  We are to be living out a divine, restoration narrative to the glory of God. What do this look like? Perhaps it is better to ask, what does it feel like? I would propose this… when there is no longer a “them,” just an “us.” …when we can gaze upon our co-followers of Christ, and all our humankind ‘neighbors’, as our Lord does, gushing with compassion, love and humility, saying, “what do you want me to do for you?”

We are on a journey to understand and apply that which God has revealed and entrusted to us. We are sinful and imperfect, thus, our models are flawed and compromised, but we press on.

I fully realize that much of what I have shared is rather ethereal. But, I defend it as a way of clarifying biblical outcomes. If our understanding of outcome is incomplete, by default, the process will also be incomplete. We tend to be limited by what we believe to be possible. Since most of us, if not all, have issued from Christian churches and contexts that were (are?) primarily homogenous, we often do not have a track record of experience which provides an alternative perspective of what is possible. An example: when we first went to Niger as church planters we had already had twelve years of church planting on two other fields in W. Africa. In our experience, we had enjoyed good, edifying relationships between mission and church. However, upon arrival in Niger, we discovered that relations between church and mission were chronically strained and tense. Hence, discussions among the missionaries were negative and generally hopeless as far as the church was concerned. The vast majority of these colleagues had never lived and worked on any other field, so their experience was shading their conception of what was possible…

What if intercultural mutuality was the normative experience of every believer? How would the Christian landscape be different? Such has been my experience… of the five churches that I have had the privilege to see born, in five different cultural contexts, each one has been a diverse community of multiple tribal identities coming together in Christ. For me, this became normal. I didn’t start out that way… I had to learn it. They taught me. They lived it. Were they perfect pictures of grace and harmony? No, but they were trying to navigate this new humanity in a hostile environment. (Three of these churches were in Islamic contexts.) I am trying to communicate in the North American context what I have seen and experienced here, in Europe and in Africa…

Where did we get the idea that church is about what we like?

We didn't get it from the Bible. Our Lord commands us to "love one another." This is infinitely more than 'juice and coffee' at church and trading pulpits once a year... Christ told us the standard, "As the Father has loved me, I have loved you" . . . then, "as I have loved you, so you must love one another." This is incarnational, kenotic (emptying ourselves and becoming that which we are not) love which comes from above. The discussion about integration in the body of Christ begins with LOVE, not demographics; we are called to submission, one to another, in mutual, interdependent RELATIONSHIP. Unless we are in relationship with one another, integration is dead in the water. Of course, the demographics play a part, but we must proceed from a biblical framework. If we follow through with the process, to 'love one another', the outcome will then be unity (John 17), a visible unity which will be supernaturally remarkable to the watching world.

The Intent of Intercultural Unity in the Body of Christ

By definition, unity itself has no meaning apart from diversity. Likewise, biblical oneness has no meaning without visibility. How are all people to know that we are his disciples if they do not see us in loving relationship? (John 13) We are one in Christ, but it has no visible meaning apart from real, diverse relationship. The foundation of discipleship involves incorporating—living out—the life and example of Christ which began with kenotic incarnation, emptying oneself to become that which is ‘other’. This is the expected path of kingdom discipleship for all Christian believers everywhere. Engaging, accepting, embracing and loving other peoples and cultures is a mark of Christian maturity. Ethnic exclusiveness works cross current to biblical oneness. While there is necessarily a time and place for ethnic-specific mission and fellowship we must never forget that such situations are a waypoint on the kingdom journey, not a destination.

Mono-cultural assumptions, attitudes and actions hinder intercultural unity in the kingdom of God. Insisting upon ethnic exclusiveness without an evolutionary expectation toward intercultural unity reflects an incomplete conception of kingdom outcomes. Intercultural unity is not an option; it is the high calling of Christ and a testimony of his identity (John 17).

Okay, I've finally started a blog. I wanted to call it "Mind the Gap" because I was thinking about this ubiquitous warning so popularized by the London Underground to guard against unwary passengers slipping into the gap between platform and train. Sadly, that name wasn't available.

Why "With Other Eyes"? Because it is my desire to cast a gaze upon American culture, and American Christianity in particular, 'with other eyes'. While I grew up in the USA, I had the great privilege to spend most of my adult life in West Africa where, with the passage of a couple decades, I began to see my life, and culture in general, 'with other eyes'.

Most specifically, I will attempt to paint a different perspective on the nature and life of the church in the USA in hopes of encouraging and stimulating a hunger and passion for intercultural relationships.

More later...