January 2007 Archives

The 17th and 18th criteria in William Webb's paradigm of the redemptive trend -- or how we move the Bible's message into our world in a progressive, redeeming way -- deal with Extrascriptural criteria. No matter how biblical we think we are, extrascriptural factors play a role in much of what we do. Here are his criteria:

Do you think a change in pragmatics renders a text cultural, or does it create the need of "creative re-application"? And, does science work with you so that, once you learn something as solid in science that we will see more and more of the Bible as cultural?

#17: Pragmatic basis between cultures: a component of a text may be cultural if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another. It becomes more transcultural if the pragmatic basis can be sustained.

Example: leaving the corners of your field unpicked so the poor can avail themselves of relief. Lev 19:10. If you live in the inner city of Dublin or Chicago, I doubt a farmer miles (kilometres) away leaving his filed unpicked is of much use.

Washing feet, obedience and submission to children, obedience and submission to kings/presidents, even congregational obedience -- since congregational govt has softened this one.

Women and obedience to husband: influenced by lack of education, lack of social exposure and experience, lack of physical strength, economic dependence and marital-age difference (5-15 years norm). The only pragmatic concern that remains is physical strength, and he contends that it is insufficient to sustain the original pragmatically-based guideline to obey and submit. It becomes a non-hierarchical respect instead of obedience.

#18: Scientific and social-scientific evidence: a component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence. If the two conflict, there is a good indicator the text is culturally confined.

Examples: geocentric vs. heliocentric models; flat earth vs. round earth.

Women: women are seen as reproductive gardens and if no children the problem was the female and now we know it is an equal contribution. Women as poor leaders (Isa 3:12): today women are effective leaders in all kinds of capacities. Women as more easily deceived (some interpret 1 Tim 2:14 this way): both patriarchalists and egalitarians agree this is not an accurate interpretation of the text. (Webb engages a recent defense of the patriarchal view.) Webb thinks times have changed on this one because the original factors that gave rise to the problem are no longer present: women are not more easily deceived. 1 Tim 2:14 inculcates finding leaders who are not easily deceived, male or female.

Sometimes I find myself saying someone is "old." The other day I told Kris that someone who is "old" to me is someone who is 10 years older than me -- which means "old" keeps changing. The nice thing about this calculus is that I'm never going to be old. Nice thought, don't you think? It means today that someone has to be at least 63 for me to consider them old. How do you determine who is "old"?

Now being 10 years older than me doesn't mean you have to be considered old. For instance, our friends in Florida, Jim and Bonnie Panther, aren't old. I think they are about 10 years older, but they are way too young and like us to be considered old.

Which means, there are only three real ages for me:

1. There are the "old" -- 10+ years older and act like it;

2. There are folks "our age" -- and that means anyone who is like us in all sorts of ways;

3. And there are those who are "young." They are age-wise younger and aren't like Kris and me in all sorts of ways.

(College kids and younger are not yet "young"; they are still kids. They get in our sights when they start working. My two children and their spouses are now "young.")

My colleagues Brad and Barb Nassif and Boaz and Sarita Johnson are "our age" but I think Joel and Karla Willitts and Genevive and Peter Dibley are "young". If you still stay out late on Friday night or Saturday night, you're "young." If you are regularly home on Friday night by 8pm or so, you are "our age." If you eat dinner at 4pm so you can go to the matinee, well, I suspect you are "old."

Again, the psalmist -- the one whose torch in the Torah that guides his path -- is in trouble: his life is in jeopardy (119:109) -- snares have been set for this light-following feet (110), but he still does not stray.

I'm impressed here: this psalmist over and over complains about being in trouble, being oppressed, and being chased. Over and over he says he is committed to following the Torah, and walking according to the light it gives. And over and over he gets himself back in trouble for following the Torah. Some would cave in.

Notice the interchange of the following:

Life in danger ... I will not forget your Law (v. 109).
Wicked have set traps for me .. but I have not strayed from your precepts (v. 110).

The darkness is thick; the dangers many; the light of the Torah is sufficient; keep walking. His feet know the way.

Last week we began looking at Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways. This week we want to look at chp 1. Alan Hirsch is a practitioner (not simply an "armchair theologian") of missional churches; he has been involved in revitalizing, re-envisioning, failing, and re-focusing local churches in Melbourne Australia. Chp 1 is his story -- fascinating.

Eventually this story will come down to learning how to build a church in which there is at least 80% participation. Most churches have a 10:90 ratio or maybe a 20:80 ratio of participants and spectators. The question we need to consider is this: What percentage of Christians who attend our churches actually participate? How big does a church become when it becomes functionally non-participative? (All of this hinges on the meaning of "participate".)

Alan and Deb Hirsch were involved in revitalizing a church in South Melbourne and it happened -- with some rough and tumble radical types -- ex-druggies, prostitutes, gay and lesbian culture. Some began following Jesus and the church grew fast and radically. Eventually they opted for a restaurant face to their "church" and, while they learned a lot, it failed. They came to two conclusions: (1) they learned how to build a 10:90 or 20:80 modern church but (2) wanted instead to participate in an ecclesia (church) that was highly participatory and missional.

The former appeals to about 35% of the culture (in USA) and about 17% in Oz. Church growth principles shape the 20:80 model. Here are its strategies:

1. Expand the building for growth and redesign.
2. Ensure excellent preaching that is relevant.
3. Develop an inspiring worship service with a good band and positive leaders.
4. Good parking.
5. Ensure excellent programs for kids.
6. Develop cell groups rooted in a Christian educational model.
7. Make sure next week is better than last week.

The ecclesia model of Hirsch focuses on making missional disciples. Here are the factors:

1. A covenanted community
2. Centered on Jesus Christ (not just "God").
3. Worship: offering our lives back to God through Jesus.
4. Discipleship: following Jesus and becoming increasingly like him.
5. Mission: extending the mission of God through the activities of the covenanted community.

The ecclesia model here found that its statement had to be core practices that brought into living reality its core values (beliefs, doctrines). They arrived at this "naughty" acronym:

T: Together we follow -- community focused.
E: Engage Scripture -- integrating Bible into life.
M: Mission -- missional activities bring cohesion.
P: Passion for Jesus -- worship and prayer.
T: Transformation -- character development and accountability.

I wrote last week about my new shoes, Born Blast. I got a pair of black ones, and they are like walking on air -- comfortable and an easy fit. So, I suggested to Kris that I buy a pair of brown ones - just like the black ones. Then I'd be covered for all my wardrobe -- which really isn't well thought out at all. Kris' response of what she saw as l' style d' faux pas was a decisive "bad idea" kind of thing, and I'm curious about what you think. Is it OK to have two of something?

Who notices my feet?, I say to myself. I wore them several times last week and no one said a stinkin' word and not only that, no one seemed even to look. So, I'm thinking that my comfort is far more important than my appearance.

Is this a male-weakness on my part?

First, here's what I'm talking about:

Second, my tendency is this: if I like something a lot, why not have more than one? I don't buy one golf ball at a time and I don't buy different kinds of golf balls; I like Titleist so I have boxes of them. Once I bought four identical Oxford shirts in four different colors -- I was done shirt-shopping for two years or more. We've got two Toyotas -- not one Toyota and one Dodge.

So, my contention is this: since I've found a pair of shoes that I really like, why not have two? I wear either black or brown shoes. Is there something wrong -- style-wise -- in having more than one of the same item -- different color, of course?