Sivin Kit’s Garden

Archive for the ‘Mission’ Category

Celebrating Lesslie Newbigin’s 100th Birthday Today with 10 Things You Probably Did Not Know About Him

Interesting fact about Bonhoeffer and Newbigin both of whom have inspired me tremendously!

Though only three years apart in age, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Feb 4, 1906 – Apr 9, 1945) and Lesslie Newbigin (Dec 8, 1909 – Jan 30, 1998) never did to my knowledge meet one another though the 27 year old Bonhoeffer was in London pastoring a German congregation from 1933-1935 while the 24 year old Newbigin was training for the ministry in Cambridge.  Both were very involved in ecumenical affairs and international relationships but Bonhoeffer was active in the 1930’s with the World Alliance, Life and Work, and Faith and Order; and Newbigin was primarily involved in the 1950’s and 60’s in the International Missionary Council, World Council of Churches, and Faith and Order.  Though both were highly effective in the international sphere, both ended their lives more optimistic about the local church and somewhat disappointed in the theological compromises of the large ecumenical organizations.

Remembering a Prophet

I agree with Vinoth Ramachandra .

Jesus rebuked the church leaders of his day for honouring prophets by building monuments to them but not paying attention to what they actually said. The best way to honour Newbigin is, surely, to pick up and read some of his essays and books.

Lesslie Newbigin (1909-1998)

Interesting insight from one who “had the privilege of working with Lesslie during the last few years of his life.”

The thing that struck me most forcefully about Lesslie when I first began to work with him was his tremendous energy. In the years following his ‘retirement’, he was successively a lecturer in missiology, pastor of an inner-city church, moderator of his denomination and the inspiration for an international movement whose aim is nothing less than a radical revitalization of mission to Western culture. On top of all that, he maintained a busy schedule of national and international speaking engagements and wrote prolifically on missiology.

Many people (including many Christians) who achieve positions of prominence or influence are only too conscious of their own importance – not so, Lesslie. For me he epitomized intellectual humility. He was always very open about the dependence of his ideas on others, always willing to listen seriously to criticism, always ready to encourage younger men and women who were struggling with aspects of the relationship between the gospel and our culture.

A less obvious personal characteristic – but one that became clear as one got to know him – was his gentle sense of humour. At times this could be slightly self-deprecating, e.g. when he commented that old ecumenists are only really at home in airport departure lounges. Or he could be gently ironical. However, his favourite form of humour was the limerick; he admitted that he used to relieve the boredom of ecclesiastical committee meetings by writing limericks about his colleagues.

The energy, humility and sense of humour together serve to obscure another important characteristic, namely, his courage. His autobiography gives scant mention to an accident during his first term in India. That accident led to ten operations on his leg, the very real prospect of amputation and more than a year spent on crutches. When I knew him, half a century later, he was still suffering the after-effects. However, he could say ‘God did indeed turn that accident into a source of manifold blessing for which I cannot cease to give thanks’ (Unfinished Agenda, p. 44). Towards the end of his life he also had to cope with failing eyesight. I think many of those who read his final works would be surprised to discover that by the time he wrote them he was no longer able to read. His humour and his courage come together in a typical remark: ‘You don’t have to be able to see to use a typewriter!’

The Missionary Who Wouldn’t Retire

one more. . with a great line.

As we tell the Jesus story, we draw people to him as a person worthy of allegiance rather than as a proposition to be evaluated.

God’s Mission and Ours in the 21st century
An address by the Archbishop of Canterbury to a meeting of the Intercontinental Church Society at Lambeth Palace

Making disciples is a matter of shaping people who are willing to go on learning from God. Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t seem to talk about making members, recruiting people to sign up: he wants disciples. He wants members of his body, not members of an organization. And the members of the body are those who share in the action of the body – a disciple is a learner, somebody who puts themselves to school under God and God’s Messiah. So go and make learners; encourage people to embark on the journey of discovering what the gift of God is.

In mission when people see the new creation, the transformed reality that is set before them, they will need time to learn what it’s about. Don’t look for short cuts. Draw people in to the newness and mystery and excitement, and then let them know that it’s a lifetime’s work to find your way into it. Take the time that is needed for people to learn and to grow to be disciples. Of course Christ asks from his disciples service, obedience, sacrifice, but all the time Christ asks us to continue learning, day by day taking up the cross, walking this path and discovering as we go.

An address by the Archbishop of Canterbury given to a meeting of the Alcuin Club at Lambeth Palace
Founded in 1897, the Club (named after Alcuin of York, deacon, abbot of Tours, d 840) has a long and respected tradition of promoting sound liturgical scholarship within and beyond the Church of England by publishing a series of collections and other works.

Liturgy is an event of transition; something changes; where you are at the end is not where you were at the beginning; and I would maintain that understanding liturgy properly is understanding the specific changes and movements that this or that liturgical act involves. So liturgy is itself a temporal activity, it takes time and it takes ‘differentiated’ time. Differentiated time is the opposite of the unmarked time of the seven-day working week; the opposite of time without rhythm; the opposite of time considered simply as a medium you can use in order to make money or make yourself secure or to guarantee profit or whatever. The more time is seen as opportunity for activity like that the less differentiation there is. It’s much better (we seem to assume) to have seven working days on the trot than to have these tiresome interruptions all the time where you can’t actually make money for twenty-four hours. I’m not in principle a dedicated, old-style sabbatarian, but there are moments when I fully understand what that is about in its most positive sense — and many of those moments happen when I’m enjoying a Sabbath eve meal with Jewish friends, when I realize just what it is to have twenty-four hours experienced as sheer gift and grace, to be welcomed like a bride.

But that is deeply counter-cultural at the moment. Global communication and the global economy, and the work patterns that I’ve already referred to, all of that pushes us in the direction of time that is flattened out. It’s just duration, it’s not rhythmical. It’s what I called earlier unmarked time. That is, more and more, the time in which we are encouraged and sometimes obliged to live. Liturgical time is the opposite of simply time that has to be filled up. It is the time of a drama, the time of an event. It is to do with the building and release of tension, and the time needed for transition or change to happen. It is differentiated in the sense that it casts a different light on how we spend the rest of our time (or at least it should). That element of building and releasing tension is, again, something which we are very easily seduced into losing sight of in liturgy. The worship event which has no story to tell and no rhythm to follow may be highly ritualized, but what it isn’t is liturgical, transformative. It may have its own virtues and its own strengths, but they’re not specifically liturgical.

How does God reveal himself? A Christian Perspective
Lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the World Islamic Call Society Campus, Tripoli, Libya

Thus God always seeks to make himself known.  God knows that when we fail to see him and know him, we condemn ourselves to a darkness of spirit that means we never become what God wants us to be.  So he desires to bring light into that darkness – not only for the sake of human beings but for the good of all creation.  In the eighth chapter of the same Letter to the Romans, Paul says that the whole of the creation is held back from becoming what God wants it to be by the failure and sin of human beings – so that when this is overcome, there is a foretaste of the glory of God appearing in everything that has been made.  Revelation is the beginning of the restoration of all things in the universe to their proper condition.  And so Christians will speak of Jesus as the beginning of a ‘new creation’.  St Paul in another letter writes about how all things hold together in Jesus.  And because it is through Jesus that the creation is brought to its new condition, the condition in which it is set free to become what God made it to be, the early Christians concluded that creation had always held together because of the eternal Word of God which was embodied in Jesus.  Jesus’ life came to be understood as the translation into human terms of an everlasting dimension in the life of the one God – the eternal outpouring of divine love and its reflection back to the heart of God, the movement outwards and then back into the depth of divinity that allows us to speak of God ‘the Son’, though not in any material or literalistic sense.

So we do not say that Jesus ‘becomes’ divine, or that he adds something to God.  He is simply the human form of the eternal Word which, says St John in his gospel, is always ‘in relation to’ the God who is the source of all things.  When we as Christian believers identify ourselves with him in the ritual of baptism, we are made able by the gift of the divine Spirit to call God ‘Father’ just as Jesus does.  In other words, God makes himself known to the believer not by telling us new information about himself, and not even or not only by revealing a law, but by making us able to enter into a relationship with him in which we have confidence and intimacy – like the intimate relationship that a child has to a parent.

When Christians speak of God making himself known, they mean that God, in addition to the signs he spreads abroad in creation and in addition to the revelation to Moses of the Law for his people, makes himself known as a loving father to us.  Because Jesus in the gospels prays to God as father, and because we believe that he is more intimate that any other with God, we understand that when we are made able to pray in his words, we are brought as close to God in love as we can be.  And because we also believe that Jesus perfectly expresses the one unchanging will of God, we know that in Jesus’ life and death and rising from the dead we encounter a God whose purpose is always love and forgiveness.  It is the whole life of Jesus that is the revelation, not only his teaching.

An introduction to St John’s Gospel
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, spoke last month – without notes – to students of St Paul’s Theological Centre, London, about St John’s gospel. This is an edited version of the transcript of the first of his two talks:

Is it eye witness in the sense that it’s reporting exactly what Jesus said?

I suspect that there again we may just possibly be asking the wrong kind of question. And let me paint a picture here which carries some sort of conviction for me.

John, obviously, by the end of the first century is quite an old man. Like every member of his society and culture, he has a very good memory.

People in cultures like that have very powerful memories. They can remember long discourses and they’re used to recalling quite extensive communications of various kinds.

At the same time, they are not, as it were, walking tape recorders, and their memory can also be filled out and expanded with what you might call mental footnotes.

But I’d like to think of John sitting in the middle of a group of his disciples and they say, ‘Tell us about the time when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus.’

And John says, ‘Nicodemus came to Jesus by night and Nicodemus said this and Jesus said that…’

General Synod, York – The Church of the Triune God
Following an allocution from Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Persamon, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the following speech introducing a synod debate on the report at the July Group of Sessions 2008. References are to paragraphs in the report.

And I want to begin by noting that there’s an easy possible misunderstanding of the way in which this document sets about its business. As is said on the first page of the report, it’s not simply that we are being commended to a social analogy for the Trinity; there are three divine persons and lots of human persons and so God and Humanity are a bit like each other really. The document goes a great deal deeper than that. It’s much better to say that in the light of what is revealed about reality itself, in the doctrine of the Trinity all talk of the Church must be consistent with that, and if fundamental reality is revealed in the doctrine of the Trinity (as existing in relation) then that dictates and shapes everything we say about the Church and indeed about everything else.

So, for example, (paragraph) 1.22 is crucial, ‘The Church is the body of Christ, the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and the abode of the Holy Trinity. It is not primarily a sociological phenomenon, but a gift of God the Holy Trinity’, the Church is as it is because of God’s being as God is, in Trinity. And thus the Church is as it is to be a manifestation of God’s life, a life in communion. What is basic in everything is Agency acting in interdependence, in relationship, in mutuality, but the created order is always at risk of losing that interdependence, and human beings are very particularly at risk of forgetting their interdependence. Hence the fall, hence sin, as essentially the assertion of self-sufficiency against God and against others.

And that means of course, that our salvation is the restoration of relationship. You’ll see if you turn to (paragraph) 2.2, the phrase, ‘These eternal relations are the cause of our salvation’. We are the way we are because God is the way God is, and we are saved in the way we are saved because God is the way God is. Salvation is the restoration of communion, and that happens effectively, decisively, when the eternal life of God the Son in communion with the Father of the Holy Spirit is, through the Spirit, translated into the human life, and death and resurrection of Jesus.

Once again, the form of our salvation depends on God being the way God is. And lest anyone should think that there is some kind of weakening or softening of an emphasis on the centrality of the cross here, I draw your attention particularly to (paragraph) 2.12, ‘The Son of Man is glorified in his betrayal and death: the work of God’s Spirit is power made perfect in weakness’. The signs and wonders of Jesus’ spirit-filled ministry must be understood in the light of the paschal mystery. The paschal perspective, the perspective of Good Friday and Easter, is the way in which we grasp, in human terms, in the human world, how God is the way God is in Jesus Christ.

So the Church appears as the Spirit’s creation out of that incarnate reality in which we are liberated from our isolation (might look at paragraph 2.40 for that). So, that immediately suggests the sort of point made in, for example (paragraph) 3:32. It’s inevitable that diverse receptions of the Gospel, diverse ways of receiving and hearing the good news, are implied in this pattern. Salvation is not a monolithic message, delivered all in one go, to one set of homogenised people. For our restoration to communion, a diversity of hearing and understanding is part of the reality to which we’re called. And (paragraph) 4.14 will tell you a little bit about the proper dimensions of a diversity brought together in reconciliation, that’s not just passive co-existence.

Hope to spend more time on “The Trinity” as the year ends. Good stuff from Alan Roxburgh

REALLY excellent interview from RENOVARÉ!

Timely! (HT: The Work of the People)

The Full Text here.

I was a little too far to join Christianity 21 . but it sounds and looks great! I love what Paul Soupiset did below.

* * *

Updating the post with more of Paul’s awesome Livesketches (his illustrations are captivating!), and I love the music too!

Breakfast for thought (HT: Rethink Mission)

I like the distinction of the church .. being attractive more than attractional.  While there’s nothing I would strongly disagree with Ed Stetzer (his answers are more  hurried, neat and tidy), I resonate more with how David Fitch articulates his thoughts (esp. on incarnational and witness).

Interesting to note that when Ed Stetzer gave examples his focus was on the big ones in Korea, Nigeria and Latin America. But in Malaysia and big parts of Asia, while there are “mega churches” and doing good ministry and seeking to be faithful in mission, but I wonder whether this kind of focus is helpful when most of us cannot relate to the “mega church” paradigm. Again Ed has some good insights and well thought through, but it tends to be neat and tidy. so, far in the 2 videos he talks the most seemingly cramming in as much as possible.

However, while David Fitch is slower, with more pauses, he is less defensive and apologetic, maybe it’s simply because of where I am today theologically, ecclesiologically, and missiologically  I would find myself relating more to what David says. Probably, my friends who are in different settings would be drawn to what Ed says.

So .. let’s continue to see how things evolve.

* * *

(updated with part III and my feeble second thoughts!)

What a delightful surprise to get some comments from even Ed Stetzer! Thanks guys.

Ed StetzerOctober 4th, 2009 at 9:04 am  

Hurried, neat, and tidy.

My life.

Ed

Bill KinnonOctober 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm 

Sivin,
Good comments – I very much appreciate your perspective on this. Part III is now up, as well.

Dave & Ed come at missional from very different perspectives. What I love most about the conversation is how much fun they had doing it. Modelling unity whilst having some fairly profound differences in perspective.

Ed’s brain does go at a million miles an hour – so I don’t see him cramming stuff in but rather that’s just how fast he processes stuff. And Dave’s delivery reminds me a little of Jack Nicholson.

The beauty of the internet is for the possibility for an engagement like this.  But first on my first impressions of the “conversation” (perhaps more second thoughts). 

To start off . on a more human and personal level, it’s a great conversation.  And I agree with Bill that it’s a great example of how to engage in a conversation like this.

On a humorous level and in terms of delivery, I too was thinking of Jack Nicholson when Dave was speaking too.

Now, for the record, as I said earlier I don’t have much I’d totally disagree with Ed.  And of course, the limits of merely watching a video like this for both Dave and Ed, is that we do not have a personal relationship (perhaps after this we will) and thus appreciate the nuances Bill mentions e.g. “Ed’s brain does go at a million miles an hour”

So, first impressions out of the way.  Now some second thoughts.

For someone not living in the USA context, I’m very much aware how much of the conversation by both Dave and Ed is shaped by it.  It’s where they live and breath.  This is most evident in my humble opinion on a substantial amount of reference to the “Mega church” phenomena and the general Evangelical landscape there.

So, what I see is a helpful critical engagement missiologically and theologically (as well as Ed’s repeated reminder Biblically) on the given location and context the churches in USA are living in.  I thought Dave’s interesting push-back on where some “mega churches” are succeeding in places like Texas, is worth more in depth discussion.

Ed’s reference to Nigeria, South Korea, and Latin America is noteworthy.  Because it’s one of the few places where the conversation was nudged a little more globally.  I recall Dave mentioned Europe a little. And I think is actually crucial in the conversation.  Because, theologically we would anchor our “missional” conversation on God’s mission for the World. And if we could reflect that more in our local reflections then I think it helps to do some needed check and balances.

I can comment a little on South Korea, since I’ve been in Seoul and have been in conversation with friends in Christian ministry at different points. And one of the things they are known for is the “mega church”, cell groups and prayer (and also missionary sending). However, on the ground from what I hear from some Koreans, there’s also the serious challenge of competitiveness, disunity, losing the younger generations, reverts back to Buddhism, the stagnation of Christianity, etc. which often is not mention as we talk about the successes.

Now while we celebrate each other, we also seek to honestly step back and ask hard questions. So, for me this kind of honest conversation is needed as Ed and Dave have modeled in the USA context for us in a global context as well.

I have good friends in more “mega-church” like churches in Malaysia.  So, while I personally do not feel called to lead one, this is a given reality for many of my friends who may not be the senior pastor, or find themselves moving in that direction. 

To me, Ed’s words would be very helpful to them from a constructive point of view if they continue to be that context. I would also guess that for many in Malaysia since most would probably fall into the “Evangelical-Pentecostal-Charismatic” (EPC) stream will find the way Ed articulates his theology safer for them to engage in more “missional” perspectives. 

But there will be those like me (maybe), where I’d even question theologically the helpfulness of articulating in EPC language when engaging a majority Muslim and pluralistic context.  This is further accentuated by the socio-political climate we are in currently in Malaysia.  Thus, the place for ways of articulating and reflecting theologically like Dave is more helpful.  Both are needed.

Perhaps, more is needed in my view to speak beyond EPC (it’s almost impossible to be a theological liberal in Asia and survive!) and “Practical” categories as this is in some ways at least for a lot of the Chinese speaking and English speaking churches what we are already very comfortable with.  And my personal gripe with the Malaysian situation is the need for more “self-theologizing” (after the missiological three-self formula).

That “self-theologizing” process would keep in mind starting from a local context (and yet intentionally global in outlook), engaged in reflexive Scriptural engagement (some might prefer the term biblical) and highly theologically robust (not as in a tight theological system but in community with others while appreciating differences).

There are many side issues we could delve in, e.g. the whole impact of Christian publishing (usually birthed out of USA), or the lack of critical thinking on our side here in Malaysia or Asia buying ideas lock, stock and barrel from our friends from the west, or the lack of confidence in our own thoughts (and thus reflected even in the low view we have even with our own ministries with the indigenous people), etc.  so, there’s a wide variety of side issues which need to be brought in to double check the missional vision we are talking about.

Well, here I sit, I can do no other . with my not so neat, and very much untidy but still a little hurried thoughts.

Dear friends,
You are specially invited to the launch of Peter Young’s book, Peter’s Pithy Pointers, and the Commissioning of The Micah Mandate.  As many of you would know . . .

The Micah Mandate is described as a “Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility”. It is based on a verse from the book of Micah in the Bible.

The project began shortly after the March 8, 2008 general election.

“A few of us sat down and felt that maybe we could do something to give some space for alternative Christian voices,There is also an element of raising awareness. We were wondering if we could have a unique voice in the midst of other voices.”

The details of the event are below and in the attached pdf.  Looking forward to see you.

the launch of Peter Young’s book, Peter’s Pithy Pointers, and the Commissioning of The Micah Mandate

Date: Saturday,, Aug 22 2009
Time: 5pm – 6pm
Venue: Sin Chew Daily Hall, Petaling Jaya

The book will be sold at RM5 a copy but we encourage bulk purchases
on the day of the launch, so do bring along extra cash.
Please RSVP by Aug 15 for catering numbers. Confirm your attendance
with Bob Teoh via email bobteoh88@gmail.com.
Google map (19 Jalan Semangat Petaling Jaya) for directions.

Challenging stuff from The Work of the People through Claudio Oliver from Brazil.