Silk Road Wanderer

I have moved!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:03:00 +0000

To anybody, if there is such a person, who has been checking this blog. I have moved!!!!

http://missionsforum.wordpress.com

Come and See! I think you will like the improvements!

Wes

Indigenous Worship

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:28:00 +0000

Once a Hokie, Always a Hokie

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:47:00 +0000

The End of Customer Service

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:36:00 +0000

You’ve just checked-in and find that the maid shorted your room two towels and a bar of soap. Calling the front desk, in a calm and respectful manner, you report the shortage to the Front Desk and within 5 minutes a tall, lanky young man with coat and tie delivers two still slightly warm towels and a fresh bar of soap. “That’s service”, you think to yourself. The next morning, after a peaceful, quiet rest, you go to check-out and discover that the maids were equally as negligent for another guest. Only this guest didn’t call the front desk that night, but is giving the quiet, now growingly embarrassed, young lady at the check-out counter an earful, demanding to speak to the manager, pointing at the 100% satisfaction guarantee placard behind the desk, unsatisfied with anything less than a 100% refund—all over two towels and a bar of soap. Then, sheepishly, the clerk refunds the agitated guest.

Some hotel chains, such as Intercontinental, Hilton, Marriott, to name a few, offer full refunds to complaining guests without question. Moreover, other hotel chains have some form of satisfaction guarantee. Hotels are not alone in dealing with insatiable consumer demands; the whole service industry is called to appease the cantankerous complainer from time to time. There are a growing number of unsatisfied and demanding people in American culture. Part of this growth results from satisfaction guarantees. Ultimately, these guarantees have transformed the term satisfaction from meaning “something with which one may be happy or content” to “something that fulfills my every desire (or demand).” Thus customer service is robbed of compassion and sympathy, being replaced by flattery and appeasement.

By catering to the demanding nature of humanity, what is being accomplished? Though service guarantees may serve to protect consumers from negligent, passionless service, giving in to the demands of every complaint feeds the side of human nature that cannot be satisfied with anything less than the full service of self. This selfishness is bad enough in itself, but over time it negatively affects the entire service industry. As guests have their egos stroked and fed, they are less satisfied with normal service. Thus, the service provider is forced into an arms race of customer satisfaction. As the level of services increase, ultimately, the price to the consumer must commensurately increase as the cost of providing these services increase. As prices increase, consumers are more agitated (the greater the expense, the greater service expected in return). As consumers grow more agitated, more service is required and thus the cycle spirals on.

How can service providers halt this proliferation? I am not calling for the end of service guarantees altogether. On one level, they serve to give accountability to the service industry that protects the consumer from the exploitative side of human business practice. I am asking businesses to become personal again. Traditional business transactions are considered impersonal, professional agreements through two or more a-passionate parties. Customer service should not be handled this way. As such, the consumer does not see the service provider as human, but an agent of personal gratification. The service agent, though trained to be polite and understanding, does not view the guest with altruistic compassion. The refund is just a business transaction. When it comes to customer service, consumer requests are to be taken personally.

In a Christian worldview, people (including consumers and service providers) are viewed as equally created in the image of God. Thus, every person has intrinsic worth. A complaining consumer is equally a person as the service agent. Management is not an abstract category but a group of persons. Otherwise, customer service agents could be replaced by bobble-head dolls holding a sign that reads “Sorry!” Contrary to popular practice, the customer service enterprise is characterized by interpersonal interaction. Following this understanding, consumers no longer see service agents as products to be manipulated any more than service agents and managers see consumers as commodities to be exploited. Furthermore, service agents can altruistically serve the needs and complaints of customers without fear of humiliation by irate guests. Utopian, idyllic visions aside, the positive personal interaction between consumers and service agents may lead the service industry into new territory and may serve to stall the downslide of customer service into the fulfillment of increasingly selfish desires. Customer service agents will learn to empathize with offended customers and consumers will be less hard to please.

Aaron Joshua Handy, arrival TBD

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:27:00 +0000

Look how clear these ultrasound pictures are!!!

I can't want to see my new Nephew!!!

I don't think there is any doubt its a boy! Check bottom left picture!

Dying to myself--What's in it for me?

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:22:00 +0000

Please visit my buddy Mark's blog where he reflects on self-mortification.

http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/2007/03/dilemma.html

Then reflect on your own attitudes when thinking of dying to yourself. Personally, I think I have tried too many times, and failed, and putting myself to death in my own strength. I appreciate Mark's struggle to know and do the will of God. Let's participate in this journey with God and by God!

Psalm 119 and the Heart

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:33:00 +0000

wholehearted
Him
seek!

blessed
you
be!

Psalm 119 and the heart

2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart,
10 With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments!
11 I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
32 I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart!
36 Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!
58 I entreat your favor with all my heart; be gracious to me according to your promise.
69 The insolent smear me with lies, but with my whole heart I keep your precepts;
70 their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law.
80 May my heart be blameless in your statutes, that I may not be put to shame!
111 Your testimonies are my heritage forever; for they are the joy of my heart.
112 I incline my heart to perform your statutes forever, to the end.
145 With my whole heart I cry; answer me, O Lord! I will keep your statutes.
161 Princes persecute me without cause, but my heart stands in awe of your words.

God's Mercy

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:10:00 +0000

How does God's holiness and His mercy work together? How can he forgive iniquity and sin and yet not clear the guilty?

Exodus 34:6-7 The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”

1 Chronicles 21:7-13 But God was displeased with this thing and he struck Israel. And David said to God, “I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.” And the LORD spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, “Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the LORD, Three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’” So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Choose what you will: either three years of famine, or three months of devastation by your foes while the sword of your enemies overtakes you, or else three days of the sword of the LORD, pestilence on the land, with the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me.” Then David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Let me fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is very great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man.”

Lamentations 3:22-33 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. “The LORD is my portion,” says my soul, “therefore I will hope in him.” The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him; let him put his mouth in the dust—there may yet be hope; let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults. For the LORD will not cast off forever; but, though he
cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.

Psalm 51:1 TO THE CHOIRMASTER. A PSALM OF DAVID, WHEN NATHAN THE
PROPHET WENT TO HIM, AFTER HE HAD GONE IN TO BATHSHEBA. Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. 5 Behold, I was
brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than now. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. 14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God
of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. 15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. 18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; 19 then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.

I think it is clear from these passages that a response of repentance, faith and extreme hope in God accompanies the mercy of God. But the Calvinist in me wants to resist putting the condition for God's mercy in my own hand. However, I think from God's perspective "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." But from man's perspective and mine "Lord, Forgive me, A sinner!" The narrative that appeals to me most is David's plea for mercy when God gave him a choice of punishment. What wisdom! He laid his life in the hand of the Lord! May we entrust our souls to him.

Oh Dear God! May I be broken over my sin, May I cast my cares on you! Oh Lord, cleanse me from a guilty conscience! Heal me from my sin!

Short summary of Christianity: A Global History

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:06:00 +0000

Let me begin by saying I do not recommend that you read this book by David Chidester. His presentation of Christianity, while aiming at objectivity, is dangerously misrepresentative of the Christian faith. No reputable scholar could produce a work on Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other Eastern Religion with a similar reinterpretation of history and get away with it. At least Bart Ehrman is honest enough to recognize that there is a majority view of Christianity. Nonetheless, there is some value in the work.

Chidester presents several minority views of Christianity. He shows how Western Christianity has been many times oblivious to its own culture and how that has affected the spread of the religion. He also shows how superstition and syncretism (though he wouldn't call it that) have gone hand in hand.

However helpful the final section of his book, if you do read this work, remember that I didn't recommend it!

Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000.

The purpose of Chidester’s work is to explore the “rich variety of local forms of Christianity…to give a sense of depth and dimension to our understanding of the many distinctive locations of Christianity in the world” (vii). His descriptive approach to Christian history favors minute idiosyncrasies over traditional orthodox understandings. Is he trying to correct confessional histories or does he have a chip on his shoulder? Nonetheless, he portrays a view of Christianity in contrast to a Western ethnocentric view of history. However valuable his perspective, Chidester arrogantly neglects major works of church history.

In part one, Chidester presents early Christianity as a battle between diverse theologies. Reminiscent of Bauer’s thesis, he argues that “diversity characterized Christianity from the beginning” (98).” Thus, Christianity sought a center that it could never find. Neither faith nor reason, Empire nor Pope, doctrine nor devotion, could unite Christianity.

In part two, Christianity’s ambivalence towards heretics, Jews, and Muslims indelibly scarred its image. Ultimately, medieval Christianity supported a feudalistic worldview that oppressed the working masses (192). Thus Christianity controlled people through its superstitious worldview. Even the scholastics propagated an Aristotelian misogynistic worldview. The high points of medieval Christianity were poets and mystics. In contrast to the contemplative life of the mystic, the Catholic Church inquisitionally persecuted deviants and forayed through Europe on massive “witch hunts.” Nonetheless, though he will blame the rise of capitalism on the reformers, Chidester sees significant advances during the Reformation.

When he begins to discuss global Christianity, he notes that the monolithic European worldview was inadequate to convert global religions. In discussing the conquests of the New World by the Spanish, he notes Columbus’ desire to fund the millennial conquest of Jerusalem. Following, he decries the slaughtering of the Great South American civilizations by the conquistadors under the sign of the cross (356–7). Concerning Russia, he lauds the preserving of the Eastern Orthodox faith. However, he notes the error of the Tsarist Imperial approach to Christianity that failed in converting the Muslim. In North America, he finds fault with the Puritan “city on a hill” that also failed to convert the Native, but he praises the forming of African American churches. However, Chidester is overwhelmingly positive towards African Independents, for His appraisal of African prophets disdain of traditional religion and allegiance to Christ is worth consideration. Moreover, his positive treatment of the Jesuits is outstanding. They represent some of the earliest concerns for contextualization. Yet his chapter on the Holocaust reveals the danger of theologies that cannot understand God’s plan for the Jews. His concluding sections on cargo, Cold War and Consumerism are invaluable critiques of the relationship of economics to missionary endeavor. These were the best chapters of the book!!!

Sweetness

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:53:00 +0000

My Beatiful Niece

Jasmine

Doesn't she look cute?

The Shaping of Things to Come--Critical Review

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 05:01:00 +0000

Since the following review was submitted for a grade, it is intentionally critical (in the academic, not negative sense) of Frost and Hirsch's influential work. Their book is the book to read when beginning to understand the missional church movement in Australia. Overall, the book is well-written and has valuable insights. Do not be distracted by the weaknesses revealed in this review. They only show areas of improvement, for which every book, except the Bible, has room. Please take note of the positive aspects mentioned, and note that I recommend this book to be read.

The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st-Century Church, by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. Peabody: Hendrickson; Erina: Strand, 2003. 236 pages. Reviewed by Wesley L. Handy.

In The Shaping of Things to Come, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch argue that discipleship should be “based” around Christology, and ecclesiology should be “reframed…entirely on missional grounds" (xi). Michael Frost, the founding director of the Centre for Evangelism and Global Mission at Morling Theological College in Sydney, has written several books including the recently released Exiles: Living Missionally in Post-Christian Culture (2006). He was also co-director in the establishment of the Forge Mission Training Network, which Alan Hirsch is currently the National Director. Furthermore, Frost has planted a missional church on Sydney’s northern beaches called Small Boat Big Sea.[1] Alan Hirsch, coming from a Jewish background, is active in training missional leaders through Forge and puts his missional ideas into practice with The Red Network (formerly South Melbourne Restoration Community).[2] Hirsch also has recently published a book entitled The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (2007). Frost and Hirsch are active in developing the methodology their first prescribe in The Shaping of Things to Come. Though their book claims to not be a “how-to” book, they do not approach the subject from an academic “ivory tower,” they are actively putting into practice what they propose.

Their basic proposal is that missiology, best represented by the incarnation, drives ecclesiology. Fundamental to their method is the contemporary cultural morass called postmodernism. They argue that the Christendom-mode church fails postmodern cultures; in fact, it formed a grand “comma” in history between the early apostolic church, prior to Constantine, and the late missional church arising from the ashes of modernism. They identify three principles of the church that guide the structure of the book: it is incarnational, it is messianic, and it is apostolic. Furthermore their presuppositions are that the western, Christendom model of church is both “dated and untenable" (15), and the church has an essentially “indissoluble relationship to the surrounding cultural context" (16) which is moving away from modernity towards postmodernism. They claim that “whereas Christendom has unraveled because of its seduction by Western culture, the emerging missional church must see itself as being able to interact meaningfully with culture without every being beguiled by it" (16).

The book is divided into four sections that discuss the current state of Christianity and the three characteristics of the missional church. The first section of the book compares the Christendom-mode and missional-mode church. Frost and Hirsch give four characteristics of a missional church. First, a missional church creates “proximity spaces” whereby Christians and “not-yet” Christians can interact.[3] Second, the church participates in “shared projects” with members of its surrounding community. Third, the church is involved in commercial enterprise and so “bringing some intrinsic value to a community.” And finally, the church maintains an “emerging indigenous faith community" (23–8). While the Christendom church has been attractional, the missional church is incarnational. It is reaching out to its immediate context in culturally meaningful and holistic ways. Where Christendom has been dualistic, the missional church rejects Greek philosophical dualisms in favor of messianic Jewish spirituality. The church does not separate sacred and secular but views life holistically. Finally, whereas Christendom has been hierarchical, the missional church focuses on the egalitarian, apostolic five-fold ministry.

One positive aspect of the authors’ description of the missional church is that Christianity is pictured as pertaining to all of life, even the mundane. Furthermore, they take seriously the necessity of interaction between the church and the world for evangelistic and meaningful impact to take place. This flows well with the example of the early church as sharing the gospel daily in the marketplace. Frost and Hirsch believe that something about the nature of the church is evangelistic. They find that the changed life is one the key apologetic for Christianity. Holiness is not being physically separate from the world, but being compassionate, kind, and loving (54–5). And though they will limit the vocal proclamation of the gospel intimately with the role of the evangelist, they find a key role for the verbal telling of the gospel.

Section two defines the incarnational aspect of the missional church. The incarnation of the Jesus Christ models the contextualized church. Like Jesus, the church identifies with “all the conditions, even the limitations, the struggles, and the doubts of humanity" (36). The church is local; in the same way Nazareth supposedly played a role in the development of Jesus, so does the local context play a role in the way the church “engages” the world. Finally, the humanity of the church points to “Jesus [as] the reference point for all genuine knowing, all true loving, and all authentic following of God.” These four truths lead to two conclusions about incarnational ministry: first, the church “must always enter fully into the context in which it happens to find itself" (37); and, second, the church will need to “identify with them in all ways possible without compromising the truth of the gospel itself" (37). Thus, the missional church sees its context as an unreached people group and reaches them through church multiplication. In order to facilitate this growth, the missional church does not create sacred places to keep out their targeted group, but creates “green” spaces, or “Third Place Communities”, where Christians and “not-yet-Christians” can interact (75).

Frost and Hirsch intentionally incorporate missions’ principles in their ecclesiology in order to prove that ecclesiology flows from missiology. However, this is a classic “chicken or the egg” dilemma. Biblically, does mission precede church? The authors neglect this discussion at large. Though they point to the incarnation as evidence that God’s mission preceded the church. The case could be made stronger with other Biblical evidence. Furthermore, they claim that the church must become marginal. This reflects David J. Bosch's understanding of Jesus ministry (see Transforming Mission, 33). Though Jesus was concerned with the poor, as was Paul, the marginalization of the church was not a part of its essence. It may have been marginalized as a result of its ministries, as well as other cultural reasons (see Robert Louis Wilken’s The Christians as the Romans Saw Them), but nowhere does the New Testament, nor church history, imply that the church remain on the edges of society out of obedience.

In chapter five, Frost and Hirsch define exactly what constitutes a gathered ekklesia. From Acts 2, they identify three broad commitments: communion through God’s word and through worship, community through learning from the apostles teaching and through fellowship, and commission through serving/giving and through Gospel sharing (78–9). Then they offer four spheres of authority in the church: Christ’s nonnegotiable commands; biblical principles adaptable by dynamic equivalence; contextualized apostolic patterns; and freely adaptable church practices (80). This “dynamic process whereby the constant message of the gospel interacts with specific, relative human situations" (83) is called critical contextualization.
What are the authors’ hermeneutical principles? Though they are dedicated to scripture, they accept dynamic equivalence process uncritically. A discussion of the relationship between form and meaning is primary. They quote Paul Hiebert’s model for critical contextualization, but do not consider his arguments for culturally transcendent forms in Christianity.[4] Yet, they embrace Charles Kraft’s dynamic equivalence model, disagreeing with Hiebert.[5] Hiebert proposes three types of contextualization: noncontextualization, critical contextualization, and uncritical contextualization.[6] Frost and Hirsch created a model critical of church forms, but their critique of postmodern culture is wanting. They call for the church to “enter fully” into the context while not compromising the gospel, but the do not give any criteria for critically evaluating the culture. Thus, they castigate Christendom for selling out to western civilization, while they themselves are in danger of selling out to postmodernism. Critical contextualization is not just critique of the forms of the church, but also of the culture.

Beginning in section three, the authors define the messianic aspect of the missional church. When it comes to “messianic,” Frost and Hirsch confuse the mindset of 1st century Palestine with later Medieval, or even later 19th century, Judaism. The find the dualistic Greek mindset prevalent through Western civilization has trumped the holistic Jewish mindset. Though they argue for the biblical directive toward right living (121), they end with a dualism between right living and right thinking that reflects the anti-rationalism of postmodernism more that messianic Judaism. They claim that by “reading the gospel through the Epistles, a disturbing distortion develops; [e]ffectively, the Gospels are not taken seriously as prescriptive texts for life, mission and discipleship" (113). Their solution is through “reapproach[ing] the Scriptures with a renewed post-Jesus Jewish mysticism perspective" (115).

What does modern Judaism have to do with Jesus? Though all truth is God’s truth, all truth must be checked against the word of God. The Judaism of Jesus’ day does not match post-Jesus Jewish mysticism. How can later Judaism critique the Greek mindset of early Christianity? This viewpoint also naively forgets that the New Testament was written in Greek. For authors who argue that the “medium is the message,” these facts appear to be contradictory.
Their chapter on “medium is the message” is the key to understanding their critique of the Christendom-mode church. The outward forms of the church communicate a message. Cathedrals may communicate beauty, transcendence, or feudalism, just as once-a-week, audience style preaching may communicate dedication, uniformity, or irrelevancy. Frost and Hirsch desperately want to communicate the holistic relevancy of Christianity and they encourage outward forms that are commensurate with that message. Though the danger is that the church begins to cater to the “itching ears” of the community, the question should not be ignored. One cannot deny that form influences meaning. If they are totally correct in this chapter, then Frost and Hirsch have supported their thesis.

The final section of the book reveals the authors’ understanding of the apostolic aspect of the missional church.[7] Their understanding of apostolic leadership revolves around the five-fold ministry proposed in Ephesians 4:11: apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers. Frost and Hirsch argue that the western church has been enamored with the pastor and teacher, but has ignored apostles, prophets, and evangelists. They argue that all five ministries are found equally and without distinction of hierarchy in the local church. They do not exalt the apostle above the other ministries; rather they see this leadership model as key to the missional growth of the church (175). They argue that since this model is intrinsic to the “DNA” of the church, it is “reproducible” and “self-sustaining” (175–6). However, Frost and Hirsch have ignored the original languages in interpreting this text. Pastors and teachers are one ministry. Also, they have interpreted this passage to refer to local churches rather than the church universal. Furthermore, they incorporated corporate-world principles that some Christians are too uncomfortable to accept to define the nature of church leadership. They are trying to show that the biblical model is confirmed by secular studies, but their argument that the ministries are balanced in the local church contradicts the results of the studies. Nonetheless, biblical arguments for the cessation of offices are wanting. However, the authors’ critique that the western church has avoided these ministries because they challenge existing power structures is left unwarranted (172, n. 10). More evidence could be provided.

The authors began by claiming that they set-out to show why the missional church is the “way forward in the important work of rediscovering a New Testament mandate for the church in the twenty-first century" (xi). The reader is left unconvinced that the missional church, as defined in this book, is the only way forward. If one was already questioning the authority of the church, or already immersed in postmodernism, perhaps one would resound a hearty “amen” after reading the book. However, though the authors deliberately incorporated missiological principles in determining their ecclesiology, they did so uncritically. They also uncritically accepted postmodern culture. Their Christology, though claiming to be biblical, tied Jesus to later Jewish mysticism, and gave too much credit to Nazareth in the life of Jesus. Perhaps there is an underlying overestimation of culture and its effects on individuals, particularly God. See Kostenberger's critique of similar incarnationalism in The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel's Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church; and compare this to David Hesselgrave's chapter on "Incarnationalism and Representationalism" in Paradigms in Conflict.

Nonetheless, their approach was not devoid of scripture. They constantly reaffirmed their reader that they believed in commonly held theological truths. They were trying to emphasize aspects of Christianity that modernism or Christendom had ignored. By constantly questioning existing models, the authors recognize that the success of the marginalized missional movement hinges on the participation and cooperation of established churches. If the establishment is unwilling to continue questioning, then the project will fail. Though The Shaping of Things to Come is a must read for anyone desiring to how missiological principles can influence ecclesiology, it fails to prove that the missional church is the only way to proceed in the future. Nonetheless, Frost and Hirsch have established that it may be one way to reach a post-Christian society, given a more thorough exegesis of culture.

[1]See http://www.smallboatbigsea.org/; http://www.smallboatbigsea.blogspot.com/.

[2]See http://www.red.org.au/index.html.

[3]This “not-yet” Christian terminology is not distinctive to Frost and Hirsch. Rather, it is a fundamental understanding for missionaries in reaching their people group through rapid church planting. Cf. David Garrison, Church Planting Movements (Richmond: IMB, 1999), 43.

[4]Paul G. Hiebert, “Form and Meaning in the Contextualization of the Gospel,” in The Word Among Us, ed., Dean S. Gilliland (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1989), 101–20.

[5] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for the Christian Witness (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), 132–7. See also Kraft, Christianity in Culture (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979).

[6]Paul G. Hiebert and Eloise Hiebert Meneses, Incarnational Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 167–9.

[7]See Wolfgang Simson, Houses that Change the World: The Return of the House Churches (Emmelsbull, Germany, C & P Publishing, 1999), 102–29, for another contemporary advocate of the five-fold ministry.

Everyone Should Start Their Morning with Turkish Coffee

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:38:00 +0000

Welcome to the World!

My New Niece:

Jasmine Shinar McDonald

"Shinar as I have been told is a traditional Kazakh name; it is a rare and
beautiful flower that is found at the peaks of the tallest mountains."

Born: February 1, 2007, 9:45 am Turkish Time

Height: 19.7 inches long

Weight: 3.6 kg or 7lbs 15oz

My Happy Brother-in-law, Sister-in-law, and beautiful Jasmine Shinar

Baptist Origins

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:37:00 +0000

I just started reading A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. I am perparing for a course on missions in the SBC from 1845-1910 and I wanted to bulk up my baptist history knowledge. I had read Henry Vedder's A Short History of the Baptists in the past, but that was a long time ago. My Baptist History Professor preferred Vedder over Torbet because Vedder was more sympathetic to his understanding of Anabaptists (Torbet specifically refutes the approach to understanding the history of the Baptists that such professor held sympathies for), I chose to read Torbet because I haven't read him before, also because Kenneth S. Latourette, noted scholar and historian, writes a forward for the work. For me, its time to start afresh.

Let me relate to you chapter one:

As stated, Torbet disagrees with the Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship theory of the origins of the baptists. According to this theory, baptists have always existed since the early church, but usually through sects that separated from the church on moral or theological grounds. As much as I love the Donatists, when I read the literature by Augustine and the Donatists, I sympathize with their motives, but I agree with Augustine that grace overcomes sin. The problem with Augustine is that he did not see the danger of the connection of church and state. Any, that's all history. The problem with the Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship is that though baptistic principles are biblical and have reared their head from time to time in church history, it is not necessary that there be an apostolic or unbroken succession of such principles.

Torbet quotes Vedder in support of the English Separatist Descent theory. Torbet aligns himself with this theory for two reasons:

"(1) It does not violate principles of historical accuracy, as do those views which assume a definite continuity between earlier sects and modern Baptists. (2) Baptists have not shared with Anabaptists the latter's aversion to oath-taking and holding public office. Neither have they adopted the Anabaptists' doctrine of pacificsm, or their theological views concerning the incarnation, soul sleeping, and the necessity of observing an apostolic succession in the administration of baptism."

I think we would do well to investigate his findings and to understand if the dividing lines between Baptist and Anabaptist is as clear as point number 2 suggests, but I'll leave that up to baptist historians.

Even given his aversion to the Anabaptist Spiritual Descent theory, Torbet does not deny that Anabaptism influenced the early English Separatists. He doubts the figures that have been proposed (about 50,000 in the early 16th century) since Anabaptist was such a broad label. But he cites the research of E. Belfort Bax who notes the striking similarities between John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and the Anabaptist Tobias. Nonetheless, Torbet notes that by the 17th century, the Anabaptists were being purged from England by the monarchy.

Torbet concludes chapter one by arguing for the influence of the Free Church Principle on Baptist origins. Firstly, the Free Church upheld congregational Bible study, discussion, prayer, and decision (30). Secondly, the Free Church is governed by the Spirit, not by political institution. Thirdly, the Free Church is a disciplined congregation--disciplined from within (democratically, not from without (by the State). Fourthly, they held to the concept of a gathered church; thus, a church was formed by regenerate membership through believer's baptism and discipline (31). Torbet quickly adds that though these principles argue for a level of autonomy for the local church, this was not to the loss of connectionalism, as he called it, rather each congregation saw a need for fellowship through associations. In conclusion, each church was equally responsible before Christ as a "gospel church".

I have been trying to understand the nature of the church more and more, recently, Alan Knox, on this on his blog posted concerning the geographic aspect of the church (See also this post concerning distinctions between universal and local). As the post unfolded, I understood that the church is defined by its relationship to Jesus. I think Torbet is trying to defend the Baptists from charges they they were unheathily bifurcating between universal and local church. He is trying to say that Baptists saw the biblical necessity of responsibility before God for the church in the above four concepts and that this did not split churches apart from one another.

Are you Interruptable?

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:56:00 +0000

This past Sunday, during a sermon on Luke 19:1-10, my pastor claimed that Jesus was the most purposeful being in the universe and the most interruptable. What he meant by purposeful was that Jesus knew his mission and was focused on it all the way to the cross. In Luke 19, that mission is expressed by verse 10:

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

What he meant by interruptable was that Jesus took time for people. Ultimately, the lost are people. He noted that from chapter 13 through 19 the text mentions six times that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. Jesus' purpose was to die! But, he was "interrupted" by the Rich Young Ruler, by Bartimaeus crying out to the Son of David, by Zaccheus climbing up a tree to see him. I think my pastor used the term interruptable to emphasize that Jesus' mission was that people would believe in him and that one of Jesus' methods was to spend time with these people. My pastor made the point that Jesus' ministry was only three short years yet he had reputation of ministering to "sinners" that preceded him--Zaccheus was anticipating Jesus' arrival. Being purposeful and being interruptable are not polar opposites. Being interruptable was part of Jesus' purpose. In order to seek, he had to be interruptable.

The question is, are we too busy for lost people?

Don't be offended by the term lost! Jesus said it to describe something extremely valuable that must be found. Remember the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son in Luke 15! We use the term in derogatory ways--he's lost himself, you're a lost cause. But Jesus used the term in an endearing way--He desired to find that which was lost. He came to sick, not the the healthy, he came to save sinners, not the righteous. I think deep down we know that we need Jesus' healing and saving power. If you are a follower of Jesus, you know this for certain. If not, rejoice that God cares enough to seek for you!

Are we too busy to be interrupted? My pastor asked, what purposes do you have that are more important than Jesus' purpose? See how interruptable he was, are you willing to be interrupted. To have to move, take a different job, share with your neighbors, take the initiative to greet a new worker at the office, go out of your way for someone, ultimately, to have a desire to share the gospel with others this year???

A couple of months ago my friend posted this about academic integrity. I will repost his comment later with his permission. His comment should be read by every Christian student, or any Christian (it relates to work ethic--Col 3:23 "Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for me.") I want to add one thing, not in conflict with my friend.

Be interruptable! Don't get so caught up in work, or study, or play, that you cannot take five minutes to catch up with a friend. In 1999, I had the opportunity to go to Kenya for two months. A dear friend of mine from Kenya who was with me on the trip related to me how offended he was that someone walked passed him without a greeting. It struck my American senses. We do that all the time, but since then, I have tried, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to greet people I know when I see them. How else are we going to be salt and light to lost people if we do not even appear to care for them. We are tempted to try to mentally persuade people of Christianity without loving them. Christianity is not just truths that we believe, but truths that we live, it is a way of life, a way of love. Having time for people is an exercise in love.

Samuel Mills, the father of American missions, one of the key factors in the Haystack Revival and one of the key influences that led to Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice being sent by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. He barely passed seminary. Perhaps he was a poor student, but his biographers point to his mission activity in the Brethren (a secret society preparing for missions) and his prayer life as things more important than his studies. After seminary, while Judson et al were on their way to India, Mills made two missions trips into the Western US preaching the gospel and delivering Bibles. He ended up in New Orleans giving Bibles to captured British troops and preaching the gospel. Could he have done all these things and at the same time aced his seminary training? Perhaps, but as one of my professors, Dr. John Hammett, says on the first day of all his classes that for some of you, it would be a sin to make an A, for others it would be a sin to make a C. I think I understand more what he means by that.

Take what Dougald says in his post seriously. But, do not forsake people over studies. (This does not mean being sophomoric, wasting time playing games watching TV, but ministering, sharing the gospel, greeting people).

Interesting?

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:37:00 +0000

Who are these guys?

New Blog and Apologies

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:06:00 +0000

Dear Friends, I apologize for not being active here. I have been extremely busy with school work.

But I have another blog to point you to. Two of my buddies and I are co-authoring a blog of missions and the church.

Please check it out

http://www.missionsforum.blogspot.com

I will continue to post on Silk Road Wanderer for other related issues. I need to tie up a few loose ends as you can see my list of incomplete conversations in the archives.

Thanks for your patience and understanding

Abraham and Circumcision

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:19:00 +0000

I have been reading through Genesis and just recently came to chapter 17 when God covenants with Abraham and gives him the rite of circumcision. Below is a copy of an email sent to a dear friend:

In Chapters 12 and later 22, God promises to Abraham that his "seed" would
bless the nations. Then, in chapter 15, he tells him that for four generations after his "seed" goes into Egypt, then they would return to the land. There is a drama going on here, the "seed" who would crush Satan's head is expected (Gen 3:15). Every newborn child has the expectation of being this one. Cain is a child from the Lord, but then he is cursed by God, but God gives another son, Seth. All the people of the earth are destroyed in the Flood, but God saves Noah and his three sons, one of which is
cursed--actually his grandson Canaan, and one is blessed Shem. Then Abraham
is blessed, but he has no heir, then along comes Ishmael. Every new story is
an addition to the drama, but in chapt 17/18 God gives a glimpse of the future, His promise would not fail, the seed to come would not be Abraham, nor Isaac or Jacob or the patriarchs. It would still come but later. God always points the one whom he renews the covenant with, and the reader, to the future. There is still future hope. We must have the faith of Abraham (Gen 15:6). Also notice the covenant to Abraham, it is an eternal covenant, but the covenant is not circumcision.
Circumcision is a sign of the covenant, much like the rainbow was the sign of
God's covenant to not flood the earth. God's promise would prevail. Only, the
sign of circumcision had to be obeyed. Else man violated God's covenant. God
could not violate his own covenant, it was sealed by an oath. Check the book of
Hebrews here. Many people see the Abrahamic covenant as solely related to
circumcision, this is not the case. The covenant was deeper, circumcision
pointed to the covenant.

I was amazed at the introduction of the "sign" theme in chapter nine. Actually,
it was already introduced in chapter one, the heavens being signs for the times
and seasons. Then in chapter 17, circumcision is a sign. I became interested in
the theology of "sign" while studying Isaiah (see 7:14; 37-39; 66:18, only a few
of the many references to sign). Signs are used by God to show his faithfulness
to his covenants, but also to point the people to the past (rainbow to the
flood) or to the future (spreading of God's glory to the nations), but also to
both (circumcision to God's covenant with Abraham that would be fulfilled in the
future in the blessing of all nations through his "seed" (singular in Ch
22). See my buddy Dougald on the collective noun zerah.

In what way is circumcision a sign? Well, I will continue this discussion later. I think this is going to relate to the discussion of Colossians 2:11-12 started below

Disagreement or Opportunity for Greater Understanding

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:05:00 +0000

This past Friday, as a small group of us gathered for prayer, encouragment and Bible study, while we were trekking through the book of Colossians, we came to this passage:

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also
raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead
-- Colossians 2:11-12 (NASB)

Interestingly, and probably with the intention of the text, the NIV interprets "the removal of the body of the flesh" by "removal of the sinful nature." However, I wanted to keep the body imagery. It is implicit throughout. You don't circumcise spirit, but a physical body. A sinful nature is not buried, but a body. A spirit is not raised, but a body.

Furthermore, body imagery is evident throughout this section of the book: 1:18; 1:20 (implicitly through blood--spirits don't bleed, bodies do); 1:22; 1:24; 2:5 (Paul here is not bringing attention to his body, but his absence, though he is spiritually present); 2:9; 2:10 (head metaphor); 2:11; 2:12; 2:13; 2:16 (implicit through references to food); 2:18; 2:19 (head metaphor); 2:20 (life and death, bodies live and die); 2:23; 3:3; 3:4; 3:5 (key verse); etc.

Why am I making a big deal out of this? I think Paul is trying to remind the Corinthians of their baptism. And he is doing so in terms of life and death. Not life and death of the sinful nature per se. I think that is implied. But I am trying to argue that he intentionally leaves the reader with an ambiguous qualification of life and death. Why? The act of baptism is a symbol of an eternal reality that was accomplished in real time on the cross and made effective in real time for the believer at the birth of their faith. However, Paul wants them to remember their physical baptism in terms of life and death. That at their baptism they were phsyically identifying themselves with Christ.

One of the beauties of reading the church fathers on baptism is the incessant usage of realist language. This has led many people to think the fathers were proto-Roman Catholics, I'm sure some were. However, baptism was spoken of in real terms in order to preach the gospel. When I was baptized, I died with Christ, I identified with his death. I also rose with him, I identified with his resurrection. The gospel implications is that without Christ's death, I would be dead in the uncircumcision of my flesh, as Col 2:13 puts it. The NT uses realistic language to get us thinking differently about our lives.

"For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live,
but Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20, NASB)."

God wants us to be identified in every aspect of our life with the Risen Lord. It is an ever present truth--a one-time baptism signifies this. But it is also a future truth, that won't be revealed until he comes (Col 3:1-4):

"For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the
image of His Son, so that we would be the firstborn among many brethren; and
these whom He predestined; He also called; and these whom He called, He also
justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified (Rom 8:29-30)."

But we haven't been glorified yet, though we know we will be: one, because he promised it; and because we are currently glorified in Christ while our life is hidden in him (Eph 2:6-7; Col 3:1-4).

Before you burn me as a heretic, I intend to do some research. I want to exegete Col 2:8-3:11 in the Greek, examine the history of interpretation, and see if my conclusion is correct. I will take the challenge to humbly accept it if I found initial thoughts were wrong.

Mark, feel free to keep from from heresy! I need your wisdom, insights, questions and corrections.

Bookworm

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:56:00 +0000

Dear friends, I've been away for a while, I'll probably be away for a couple of more weeks before I post again. My nose has been in the books. When I come up again for air, I will have a lot to say. Until then, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Lovingly,

Wes

How can we be incarnated?

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:33:00 +0000

The incarnation is essential to understanding Christology. Many would argue that Christology is essential to every other Christian doctrine. How does Christology relate to the church and to missions?
One answer that has gained popularity since the advent of contextualization is via the incarnation. Missionaries incarnate Christ to the context in which they serve. Here is where the ambiguity begins. Everybody uses the incarnation as their model and end up with different meanings. See Bosch, Kraft, Hesselgrave/Kostenberger, Heibert, Frost and Hirsch.

This is an introductory post to an analysis of Hesselgrave's Chapter in "Paradigms" on Incarnationalism vs Representationalism.

Go to www.missionsforum.blogspot.com to find the complete analysis

New Horizons

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:45:00 +0000

The nature of the church is a hot topic among theologians and lay-theologians alike. The emerging church, church planting, denominationalism, the missional church, C1-C5 contextualization models, etc, etc, all have brought new interest to the subject of ekklesia. In my search for people with whom to dialogue on the subject, I came across backyard missionary Andrew Hamilton, "Hamo" for short, living it out in Australia. Check out his site, He has extensive links to other interesting blogs and sites. He also has reviewed works by Frost and Hirsch, two of the top names in the missional church movement in Australia. Please check out his blog. Also, if you have any links to other interesting blogs dealing with the nature of the church. Please feel free to post them in your comments.

Not a wasted enterprise

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:53:00 +0000

Thanks the well spelled out encouragement of my dear brother dwm iii, I think I shall make camp within this blog-o-sphere. Though, I'm not laying any foundations here. Time will tell if this is more than a fad. But perhaps this shall not be a wasted enterprise!

Life surely can be overwhelming. Due to my rigorous schedule, with work, my Ph.D seminars, and my family, it is very difficult to maintain a proper mindset of life. I have just begun to read a book calling for a radical change in western ecclesiology: The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st-Century Church by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch.

This is not the first book I've read that challenges Western ideas of church, see Houses that Change the World by Wolfgang Simson. In fact, if you compare church planting methodology in the non-West versus the West, you will find an interesting, and quite large, disconnect.
At least with International Mission Board missionaries of the Southern Baptist Convention, the methodology employed oversees in planting churches is in stark contrast to the way of doing church in North America. According to their CPM Booklet, see also David Garrison's seminal work on the subject, a healthy church, or rather movement of churches planting churches within a people group, geographical area or poplution segment, is bathed in prayer, accomplished through "abundant gospel sowing", is led by local, "lay" leaders, meets in homes, not "church" buildings and is growing by multiplication through intentional church planting.
Do I see this in my local church in America? Not really. Don't get me wrong, I believe God is doing something in the lives of believers in my fellowship. We are growing in obedience. But...the focus of church ministry is fundamentally different. Case in point: Missions is something you do over there! Not to disparage John Piper, he didn't come up with the idea, but he propogates, in Let the Nations Be Glad!, the idea that missions is only that which is done on the frontier--where Christ has not been named. Everything thing else is just considered evangelism. (I'm glad he is so passionate about evangelism, you could never discredit his ministry for lack of concern for the lost. Aside: Isn't it interesting that some, though not all, of the greatest evangelists in history had strong views of God's providence. I don't want to say "were Calvinistic" or "were Reformed" because that would preclude Luther and others who are not in the Reformed tradition historically or who preceded the Reformation.) Nonetheless, by making the false dichotomy, one is not challenged to see everyday life as "missional", to borrow Frost's and Hisrch's category. Though the emerging church may be giving too much credence to postmodernism (is it the next philosophy of the day, or is it the result of the demise of the Enlightenment project, a transition into the next epoch of worldview?), at least Frost and Hirsch recognize the need for seeing everyday life as missional. That the point of doing mundane things is not the thing in and of themselves, but in being an everyday witness to the redeeming power of Christ. I must admit, I am only 24 pages into their book, so I will suspend judgment on their overall thesis and purpose, but I do find some of their ideas resonating with what I have been learning lately.
As I began this post, I know that life can be very overwhelming, but not just for me. My good friend Mark and I have been meeting together for prayer and Bible study for several months now. For the past few weeks, we have been meeting at my house along with my beautiful wife Zhanara. Just recently, we have been engaged with an idea that is shaking our current paradigms for life. We are on a mission trip. We began by talking about stewardship. How God has blessed us so that we can bless others. Then we began to reflect on our current spending habits. Mark related to us a parable he had been learning from a Randy Alcorn book, Money, Possessions, and Eternity: if you were going to be living in a hotel room for 80 days, you knew you were going to have to leave, would you go out of your way to redecorate, paint the walls, get new furniture, etc. No, it would seem foolish. Well, this life is a hotel room. It is not our final home. The way we spend our money reflects what we believe about our home. As we began to think about our lives are short pilgrimages (Augustine has a great discussion about this in City of God), we also began to reflect on the purpose God has for us in this time. We spend our time on making "our hotel room" comfortable. We distract ourselves from our heavenly home. What if we began to view life as a mission trip. Then our jobs, which seem very mundane at times, are the support for our mission. In fact, while we work, we have opportunties to reflect Christ in our ethics, as well as in our interaction, verbally with others. When we have to mow the grass and do chores that have to be done around the house, they are things that any missionary would have to do anywhere (how long do you think it takes to pay an electric bill in a third world country?). But, we view our houses as instruments for mission. We can be hospitable, reach out to our neighbors, invite people over. When we are not working, rather than settle in to a movie or the monotonous TV routine, we can be intentional about mission and evangelism. In fact, we can call each other and encourage one another. Hey, why not encourage others? Its a radical change of mind. I have been encouraged in the small number of pages I have read in Frost's and Hirsch's book that they are at least say, missions is not just something done overseas, its a way of life, a way of church. Kudo's!!! I can't wait to finish the book, even if I disagree with them of some key points.

Here is the question that we are left with: Is the institutional church irredeemable, or can there be "revival" that leads to a missionary engagement with North American culture?

Welcome

noreply@blogger.com (wlh) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:18:00 +0000

Homies, I am probably not going to do much with this blog. The blogosphere is to me, a big waste of time, but hey, who knows, perhaps I'll warm up to it. If anyone even reads this message, send me a response, just to let me know if the enterprise is even worth it! Okay, I'm a little pessimistic, kinda like Eeyore on a warm summer day, I can't enjoy the heat because I know it will only end. Maybe the blogosphere will explode. A continued de-personification of inter-human communication that leads to the further fragmentation of not just Western society, but of world culture (if there is such a thing). Perhaps, it will ward off Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" as level-headed, truth-seeking intellectuals from every civilization interact and dialogue leading to a dialectic "Zeit-giest" synthesis that ushers in time of unprecedented world peace. Heck, even Jews and Arabs will lay down their bomb-vests and precision smart-bombs and take to the keyboard to discuss the possibility of reconciliation and co-habitation. Or perhaps, we'll lead to the end of pork-barrel legislation forever. No more big-brother, just millions upon millions of annoying tattle-tale little brothers. Okay, I've gone too far!!!

I really would like to use this blog to edify someone. I don't know who. Perhaps I'll never have one person stop by to say hello. But if its you, don't let this email discourage you from stopping by again to see if I have actually said something that might be construed as possibly being encouraging. Until then, I really don't expect to be posting things too often, but May God Bless you and Keep you and Make His Face to Shine upon you!!!

Wes