1. A guy called Myka articulated the problem with postmodern/relativist tolerance quite nicely: It reduces the power our beliefs have over ourselves and others.
2. An important thing to prepare people for when they go to Bible College is that godliness for them will look very different, serveing God as full-time Bible College students, rather than active church members/ministers.
3. The incarnational model of mission seems to place the stress on us imitating the incarnation, by incarnating ourselves in the culture we are trying to reach.
I think a slightly different emphasis would be helpful: James 1:21 tells us that God has already incarnated his Word in us. We are already in the world/in the flesh/"in-carnate". The challenge is not so much becoming more in the world, the challenge is for the Word that is planted in us to have control over every area of our lives.
If we take seriously the call for us to humbly submit to the word planted in us in every area of our lives, we will find ourselves thinking throuhg all the 'incarnational-mission' questions: how does the word of God planted in me affect my reaction to sport, or art?
But I think it is important to recognise that it is not being in the world that we need to strive for, rather it is the Word being incarnate in us that is teh miracle.
4. "There's no secret to x (fill in the gap: preaching/church planting/cultural engagement)... you just gotta get on with it. You gotta put you trust in the gospel, not in some methodology".
That is the evangelical cliche in the circles I move in. Intuitive, pragmatic, just-get-on-with-the-gospel. The intuitive approach has many benefits. It releases you from having to have the perfect model. It recognises that you learn through doing. It allows you to incorporate exceptions to the rule. It can help you put your trust in God and his gospel, rather than the latest technique.
But...
There is a hidden tyranny of the intuitive approach. Let me list some of its dangers:
a. It can be naive: all of us have certain assumptions and models of doing things that shape what we do and how we think. Our intuition is informed by millions of examples and ideas that contrict what we think is normal/natural/right.
b. It can be impervious to criticism: if you define clearly what principles and plans shape your ministry, you are open to having these points assessed, questioned and challenged. But if you say that what you do is just an intuitive application of getting on with the gospel, you may subtly imply that those who disagree with you are disagreeing with the gospel.
c. It can be slow to change: there are certain big-picture assumptions that shape everything we do. If we don't lay them out clearly, we may never see them.
d. It can be arrogant: there are so many things that we can learn from people who have gone before us. Failing to take the time to think through the practical wisdom of others, and to learn from the mistakes of others is putting a lot of faith in our intuition.
e. It can be unfair: the intuitive thinker and just-get-on-with-it approach acutally does borrow plenty of theoretical ideas from here there and everywhere. In practice it recognises the value of the critical, analytical and theoretical thinkers. But if someone is in our church and has these gifts, they would not receive the encouragement and support to develop them. The intuitive church praises insightful analysis in books, but rejects it when it appears in the church.
f. It can be unbalanced educationally: There are some people who are more theoretical/analytically minded. They will better learn how to do x (preach/church plant etc) if we explain these things with a more sturctured model.
g. It can be unbalanced criticially: It is very common to hear:
"Now don't get me wrong, we can learn a lot from church growth manuals... *but* we must never ever put out faith in those things...".
It is not so common to hear:
"Now don't get me wrong, we must not put our faith in church growth manuals.... *but* if we want to serve God in our generation, we must learn how to grow and improve in even the practical elements of ministry."
The assuption is that our danger is always corporate, managerial, program-driven stuff. I doubt this. I think that sometimes our danger is to put our faith in hackneyed, un-thought-through, derivative, intuitive models, rather than having the dilligence and humility to think how best to do ministry in our context.
Volume 7 Number 1
