Andrew has sparked off a fascinating discussion on Sola Panel.
One especially sharp comment came from ex-Hobartian Stu White:
Establishments that have been built upon strong prophetic ministries face three options:
1. Rediscover their prophetic voice by dealing -in a costructively critical way- with a current and significant blindspot that genuinely hinders the life and mission of the church.
2. Keep sounding prophetic without actually having anything to be prophetic about. In which case, criticism is no longer constructive but destructive and negative.
3. Make a transtition from prophetic voice to gracious etsablishment. At this point, the establishment becomes a sounding board, a prayerful encouragement, and a grounded resource for the church it transformed and the new prophetic voice wherever and whenever it may arise.
I think the unease of the next generation is largely because some of the establishments we have, and still do, love who were even a prophetic voice that we benefitted from, are currently hovering around option 2.
I think every Christian movement should assume it must transition to option 3 at some stage. I hope this generation of Christians who rightly recognise the form of church needs a serious refresh, graciously makes the transition themselves when their work is done.
23 comments:
Man I think stu's analysis is so right. But even if it is off the mark it still must be heard. This is because it is forcing us to ask: how can I seves God better? How can I love him and his people? We all need to ask this, inc the prohetic voice.
I, for one, would love to have the MTS-Matthias movement become a gracious establishment.Hi Mikey. What do you mean by this?
Ben - I don't quite understand what you don't understand.
I would like the generation of leaders produced by St Matthias and its daughter churches to joyfully adopt the role of gracious establishment... rather than become grumpy prophets or something.
Mikey
Are you asking these 30, 40 and 50 year old men to graciously no longer exercise a prophetic/teaching ministry, contending for the faith?
Di
Mikey,
You said, I, for one, would love to have the MTS-Matthias movement become a gracious establishment.To me, that implies that you don't think the "MTS-Matthias movement" is gracious.
Also, I don't know what you mean by gracious.
This is orsome.
I think Piper is a good example of this -- he's taken on a spiritual-fathering type role, and while he's still contending for the faith he's also mentoring, giving the benefit of his wisdom and experience to younger leaders.
But I think a bad example (or an example of what not to do) is how things have gone down in the last few years with the Southern Baptist Convention here. It may not ACTUALLY be a bunch of grumpy oldsters trying to force the young guys to wear ties and preach against the evils of alcohol from behind white pulpits but that's how it comes across. The "grumpy oldsters" are the ones who fought so bravely in the conservative resurgence in the 80s and 90s. And now that the SBC is conservative again and those mean ol' liberals have gone, they've had to find somewhere else to put that energy -- and Acts 29 and young leaders are the targets now.
Oops. Long. Sorry.
Thanks everyone for comments!
@ Di - No! Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm talking big-picture and emphasis, rather than a blanket ban :-) And please don't hear me as a young guy laying down demands. I'm wishing what seems to be to be most honourable to those older than me.
I'm praying for the power for the older generation, in general, to adopt, in general, a primary stance of encouragement.
@ Ben -
I don't know what you mean by graciousYou don't know what Stu means by gracious :-) Supportive and open-hearted in focusing in building up the next gen.
To me, that implies that you don't think the "MTS-Matthias movement" is gracious.Sadly it can give that impression, yes. That it is more focused on (trying to) being prophetic that it doesn't adjust to the changed landscape.
Stu is spot on. Hope they manage to make the shift.
Mikey,
I can only assume you have never met Phillip Jensen. Anyone who has spent more than five seconds with the man would never be able to suggest that he might become a grumpy prophet, old or otherwise.
The generation of leaders produced by St Matthias was actually raised by God and in His mercy people are hearing the gospel all over the world.
I do not know you but I would not be surpised if in some way you have been blessed by the ministry of some or even many of that generation of leaders.
Can I suggestt that, in seeking to honour those godly men and woman who have gone before you, you don't imply that they might "become grumpy prophets or something"?
Lucy C (a grumpy young woman).
@ Lucy, I apologise sincerely for giving the impression I have given you. 'Grumpy prophets' is a colourful expression, not a serious accusation (in most cases)
I can only assume you have never met Phillip Jensen. Anyone who has spent more than five seconds with the man would never be able to suggest that he might become a grumpy prophet, old or otherwise.Amen! I have spent quite a lot of time with PDJ and have enormous respect for him, as you would find by searching "Phillip Jensen" in the search bar in the top left of my blog. I am not thinking of Phillip at all in this post, actually.
The generation of leaders produced by St Matthias was actually raised by God and in His mercy people are hearing the gospel all over the world.Amen and amen.
Once again, sorry for giving the wrong impression, Lucy.
Thank you Mikey for your very swift reply.
I appreciate it and am glad you cleared up my misuderstanding.
Thank you again.
Lucy C
(Not grumy anymore but still young).
Thanks for your response Mikey, but I am not sure you have answered my question.
You said
'I'm praying for the power for the older generation, in general, to adopt, in general, a primary stance of encouragement.'
Doesn't 'encouragement' primarily involve exhortation/teaching from scripture?
Di
@Di - I'm not thinking of the basic, expository ministry but the many other dimensions of ministry and public communication.
All of this is talking about overall emphasis and primary focus, rather than only one thing or the other.
Am I hearing you right?
You don't think they (MTS-Matthias movement) should have a lead in public ministries (as opposed to a church gathering)?
Gosh Di, I feel like we are stuck in a bog of misunderstanding!
If someone else wants to have a go at trying to explain what I'm trying to say, please feel free!
Sorry again, Di, if my poor communication has caused offence or confusion.
I would say there are some situations where it is not appropriate to encourage.
In fact there are lots of cases where encouraging would be wrong.
I have lots of friends who have a great love of God and a desire to be involved in full time ministry. But there is something in their life that means that they are unsuitable for serving God in that capacity.
Some of those friends have taken the encouragemnt to stay in full time secular work humbly and realised that they can serve God in other ways. Others have become bitter and resentful of the person who encouraged them not to volunteer for ministry.
I can understand that it would be nice to feel that we are always being encouraged by our elders but I don't think it is realistic or even sensible to want to only be encouraged.
"If someone else wants to have a go at trying to explain what I'm trying to say, please feel free!"
I'm ducking for cover on this one man! The bull has well and truly been grabbed by the horns.
...and that is a great shame.
Di, I'm not going to speak for Mikey, but as someone who read Stu's comments and agrees with them (and Mikey's) perhaps I can share my perspective.
I'm from outside Sydney, from a church culture that was greatly encouraged and taught by Sydney evangelicalism. We have a lot of love and respect for Sydney evangelicalism.
I'm now living in Sydney with my husband while he studies at Moore College. As an outsider with an now close up perspective please understand that I'm not someone who hates Sydney or is trying to tear things down.
No one would deny that the gains of the last 30 years or so were hard fought for. And there is still contending for the faith to be done.
But, (and please hear this gently) sometimes it feels like Sydney has spent so much time fighting the good fight that the fists are still raised - metaphorically.
And when someone lovingly seeks to offer constructive criticism it is mis-interpreted and that person is treated as suspect (at best) or fought against.
[aside: PDJ's response to the Mark Driscoll thing was an exception to this and really stood out to me because it was so gracious and balanced]
I'll be blunt here: I do think there is some danger of Sydney falling into Stu's option number two. I'm not saying it is, but I am saying that it is something to be careful of. I would hate to see this happen and I pray that it will not. But the negativity I see when stuff like this is raised is not good.
I have seen only graciousness from the elders of Sydney evangelicalism. I'm not trying to criticise the Jensens etc. But from those coming after those original 'prophets' who seek to defend and uphold the establishment of Sydney I have definitely felt a quickness to defend that is not good.
By all means keep fighting against those who seek to tear down and those who are against the gospel... but when friends (or even the younger generation) lovingly seek to raise criticisms... I think that a quick, fighting response shows a trend toward that option 2.
No one is trying to say that the Sydney establishment should do this or shouldn't do that. They are just urging that the way forward should be towards the gracious establishment... and when even that urging is mistaken and fought against so quickly - well, that is exactly the issue!
Bron
I was asking Mikey questions in order to listen and understand.
I was asking Mikey what he meant by some of his phrases:
His desire for ‘MTS-Matthias movement (to) become a gracious establishment’.
In response he said:
‘I'm not thinking of the basic, expository ministry but the many other dimensions of ministry and public communication.’
I am trying to understand what he means – what will this look like in practice? I am trying to discuss in a friendly manner.
Di
Di,
Thanks for your kind response. Glad to hear your questions are friendly. It's so easy in text to misunderstand each other isn't it. I guess I interpreted the tone of your first comment as sounding a bit incredulous and read the subsequent comments in this light. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you!
I guess my comment also comes because I feel like Mikey raised some of this stuff in a fairly positive way but was very quickly questioned by several people in a way that seemed very defensive or attacking in tone.
But hey, I'll let the man speak for himself! Glad to see the discussion go on :)
Hi Mikey.
I'm surprised by all these comments and saddened by some.
I'm interested to know why people have misinterpreted something that I would see as deeply respectful and honouring in your post, you said:
"We desperately need their experience, theological brilliance and shared desire for theologically-rigorous missionary pragmatism."
To say that we can find value - not only that but explicitly NEED the value - in the history and knowledge of the MTS-Matthias movement, their commitment to a thorough understanding of the Gospel and a continued legacy in its desire for mission is something wonderful to say.
I saw this as your major point. That this is the way that MTS-Matthias can continue to serve the Christian community And to desire that for them is great!
It's good that blog posts allow us to bounce off and explore the ideas of others. Maybe as bloggers we need to be more careful in the way that we share information, and articulate our own opinions more so as not to be misread. As commenters, maybe we should ask more questions rather than make so many grand statements, and allow for such misinterpretations to occur. We might love and learn from one another better if we er on the side of graciousness.
Post a Comment