Saturday, 10 March 2012

Discipleship 101: How to disciple a new believer

From Justin Buzzard. He talks about how he disciples new believers.

He has a neat definition of discipleship:

Discipleship is truth transferred through relationship.

N.T. Wright on Justification (responding to John Piper's concerns)

N.T. Wright's view of justification is a little different from the reformed understanding. Here are a couple of articles outlining the differences. The first article is from Christianity Today summarising the differences between Piper and Wright and the second is an interview with N.T. Wright at the Gospel Coalition blog responding to John Piper's critique.

The Justification Debate: A Primer

Two of the world's most prominent pastor-theologians on justification—and what difference it makes.

John Piper and N.T. Wright, compiled by Trevin Wax | posted 6/26/2009 09:54AM

COMMENTS (35)

Interview with N.T. Wright – Responding to Piper on Justification

Today’s interview with N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham) concerns his new book: Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.

Justification represents Wright’s response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification (see my commentary here) and is scheduled for release in the UK in February by SPCK and in the U.S. in May by IVP.

My previous two interviews with Bishop Wright can be accessed here and here.

Trevin Wax: How does this robust discussion on justification between you and John Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world?

N.T. Wright: How does the robust discussion between me and Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world? Well, I hope it will, and that’s part of the main point of what I’m saying.

My anxiety about what has now been seen as the traditional Reformed view (though there are many traditional Reformed views!) is that it focuses all attention on ‘me and my salvation’ rather than on ‘God and God’s purposes’, which – as we see in the Gospels, and in e.g. Romans 8 – are much wider than just my salvation. This book, for me, thus follows from Surprised by Hope and the other things I’ve been writing in the same vein.

More generally, I hope that the book will alert people to the fact that the underlying discussion is really about taking Scripture seriously – (a) the whole Scripture, not just selected parts, and (b) Scripture as the final arbiter, over against all human traditions including our own! That cannot but help the church in its purpose in the world . . .

Trevin Wax: What would you say are the key differences between you and Piper on justification?

N.T. Wright: Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.

Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).

Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as inRomans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.

Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.

Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.

Trevin Wax: What do you hope this new book will accomplish?

N.T. Wright: I hope it will clear up many misunderstandings, and show that the version of the ‘new perspective’ which I embrace and expound (there are as many quite different versions of the so-called NP as there are expositors of it) is not at all inimical to the real concerns, including personal salvation, substitutionary atonement, and so forth, of the ‘traditionalists’.

I hope, too, it will send the next generation of thoughtful Christians back to Scripture itself, not to this or that tradition.

Trevin Wax: How does this short book relate to the longer book on Paul that you are currently writing?

N.T. Wright: The longer book is intended to be a full-scale treatment of Paul’s theology, integrating traditional ‘theological’ topics with the political and philosophical ones which are implicit in his work. I sketched what I intend to do in Paul: In Fresh Perspective, particularly chapters 5, 6 and 7. Imagine each of those chapters on a grand scale (e.g. about 200 pages each!) and you’ll see what I have in mind.

The debate with Piper functions as a sub-debate within the middle one of those chapters. I didn’t want to have to go into that much detail on that particular debate in the big book, since there are so many other debates out there that need to be engaged . . .

Trevin Wax: Do you see a ‘middle ground’ being reached in recent discussions? A post-new-perspective equilibrium or sorts?

N.T. Wright: No, not an equilibrium. A lot of confusion, rather.

I think there’s a danger in ‘old perspective’ supporters still trying to run an implicit ‘conservative versus liberal’ debate on this one, trying to accuse NP folk of some of the failings of an older liberalism. Better to see the historical and theological quest to understand Paul going wide open to encourage everyone to get back to reading the texts in their proper contexts. If that means going beyond this ‘perspectives’ language, so be it. But it is sometimes helpful to put down some markers as a shorthand way of signposting key moves.

One of the truly worrying things about Piper is his insistence that we should be wary of reading Paul in his Jewish context . . . which basically means that we end up reading him as though he was really a 17th-century theologian born out of due time . . .

Trevin Wax: What is at stake in this debate over justification? If one were to adopt Piper’s view instead of yours, what would they be missing?

N.T. Wright: What’s missing is the big, Pauline picture of God’s gospel going out to redeem the whole world, all of creation, with ourselves as part of that.

What’s missing is the big, Pauline view of the church, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, as the sign to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and they aren’t.

What’s missing is the key work of the Holy Spirit in enabling the already-justified believers to live with moral energy and will so that they really do ‘please God’ as Paul says again and again (but as Reformed theology is shy of lest it smack of smuggling in works-righteousness again).

What’s missing is an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition . . .

For further reading, check out my summary statements of Wright and Piper’s positions in the June 2009 issue of Christianity Today.

Friday, 9 March 2012

The 5 Fold Ministry of Ephesians in Operation Today (An interview with Alan Hirsch & Tim Catchim)

The blog post is from Ed Stetzer's excellent blog.

The Permanent Revolution: An Interview with Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim

Thursday March 8, 2012 ~ 10 Comments

Alan Hirsch has been a friend for many years (we worked together on the Missional Manifesto, among other things). His work is always provocative and passionate, andThe Permanent Revolution is no exception. You can download a sample here.

Alan is writing on the "apostolic" focus and function. I've written on apostles before,here and here, but Alan's take is different. Over the next two days, I will share an interview with Alan and Tim Catchim, his coauthor of the book. They will be by to interact in the comments, so if you have any questions or comments, please share them below.

1. You say in your book that you wroteThe Permanent Revolution to highlight the apostolic assignments named in Ephesians 4 (APEST). Describe your growing conviction about this specific section of Scripture.

One of the challenges in writing this text was finding substantial materials on the Ephesians 4 text. In large part, there simply isn't any out there. This alone was a key indicator that something significant is missing from our ecclesiology. If we were to ask Paul to lay down his most thorough understanding of the church, he would undoubtedly slap the book of Ephesians down in front of us.

The letter is described by Barth as the constitution of the church. It contains our richest formulations of ecclesiology in the New Testament. Our convictions about the significance of Ephesians is also weighted by its historical setting in the Jesus movement. It was written to a burgeoning church planting movement that swept across the Asia Minor province. This letter is not only most substantial treatise on ecclesiology, it is also his most movemental letter we have record of.

Regardless of where you locate the date of Ephesians within the corpus of Paul's letters, the fact that Paul mentions the apostolic vocation as an essential component to the churches maturity and capacity to grow into the fullness of Christ should alert us to it's axiomatic function in the ongoing life of the church. The progression of unity in the one God (4:1-6) provides the platform for APEST (4:7-11) which in turn provides the basis for the church to be what Jesus actually intended us to be--mature and functioning as the extension of his ministry on the earth (4:12-16).

We can no longer afford to rip Ephesians 4:7-11 out if its context and relegate its relevance to a bygone epoch of church history. It's just plain dishonest exegesis, manipulative politicizing of the text, and dangerous undermining of our capacity to mature fully as God's people.

2. Why aren't more theologians writing on the apostolic ministry of the church?

Two things come to mind: Language and our localized notion of the church. As far as language, the word apostle literally means to "be sent." The Latin form of the word is missio, and it is where we get our word mission and missionary from. Therefore all talk of missional church in de facto talk about apostolic movements.

There is undoubtedly some reservations when it comes to integrating the word apostello into our vocabulary of leadership and ministry. For whatever reasons, even the denominations that pride themselves on being biblical and using biblical frameworks and language to carry on contemporary discourse about ecclesiology have for some reason felt the need to edit this language out of their lexicons and formal discourse. The word is right there staring us in the face, along with at least eight other people in the New Testament being called apostles outside of the 12.

Whatever reservations are there, the biblical evidence warrants a re-integration of this terminology into our language of ministry and leadership functions within the church. Until the word is accurately translated (rather than transliterated into Latin) we say that we should opt for the language being used in scripture. Since when did we Protestants prefer Latin to Greek??

The second being our overly localized notions of the church. The church clearly has a local expression, no one can doubt this. However, the church also has a city wide, regional and global dimension as well. If we expand our notions of the churches to fit the biblical (movemental) proportions, than ministry and leadership are no longer restricted to the more parochial interests of the local dimension.

It seems that the local dimensions of the church have eclipsed our understanding of the church and monopolized our imaginations. This has, inadvertently, pre-scripted the scope of and nature of what can rightly be called legitimate forms of ministry and leadership. In other words, if the local church is THE model of church, the exclusion of the citywide, regional and global dimensions, the leadership and ministry of the church will be limited to what can happen and take place within that local setting.

Seeing that the apostolic function has a trans-local dynamic built into it's very nature, a strictly localized notion of the church will inevitably de-legitimize the forms of ministry and leadership within the church that operate outside of the localized parameters - the apostolic being case in point.

From this angle, the apostolic ministry, outside of foreign missions, has literally been off the map for most people. The more localized notions of the church have all but edited this function out of our imagination.

3. You point out in the book that some might, unfairly, critique your approach as anti-institutional. To be honest, I will not be surprised if you hear that often. So, in what ways would you say integrating APEST into a missional strategy actually builds structure?

This a good question. We are not opting for no structure or organization. In fact, the reader of The Permanent Revolution will discover that around 50% of the book dedicated to organizational dynamics and the structural dimensions of church. It is the type of structure that matters! As we say in the book, organization is a mobilization of bias. In other words, we design our organizations to achieve a certain goal or purpose. If we think about this conversely, then we can tell a lot about an organizations goals by looking at how it is designed.

We suggest that the most effective way of organizing for apostolic movements is going to be a combination between what Ralph Winter describes as modalic (local-nurturing) and sodalic (regional-pioneering) structures. Currently, the church is primarily structured around the more modalic functions and needs to expand its organizational structures to include the more trans-local, networking functions of the sodalic structures.

Another way of saying this is to expand our vocabulary and notion of the church as a dialectic between the center and the edge. The center exists to resource and empower the people of God who are journeying towards the edge of organizational, geographical and cultural boundaries with the gospel.

Once we insert the notion of a center and an edge, we begin to catch a glimpse of the landscape in which we must operate as an organization. Structures at the center are often not responsive to the critical kind of ministry that goes on at the edges. This needs correction if we are to expand Christianity in our day. It's not that we don't need structure--we do--the issue isthat we need a different kind of structure and organization than the prevailing forms.

4. If one has a base gift in the area of teaching, does that mean they are off the hook for evangelism? How do you encourage the church to engage in every part of its apostolic calling?

We are certainly not off the hook when it comes to representing Jesus. However, we have to recognize the diversity within the body. The central teaching of Ephesians 4 is that the inherent diversity in the body is what provides us the essential resources and relational frameworks to grow into the fullness of Christ.

If someone has a base ministry/gifting as a teacher, they need access to an evangelist, or an evangelistic ministry in which they can spend time learning how to function evangelistically. Granted, the teacher may not be the best at evangelism, but it is the task of the evangelist not only to do evangelism, but to equip the other members of the body, including teachers, to learn how to do what they do at a a certain level of efficiency and effectiveness. This is how the giftings equip the other parts of the body for works of ministry. This kind of equipping normally happens over an extended period of time, years really.

So we can say that while not everyone is a teacher, everyone is nonetheless called to share what they know from the scriptures; not everyone is a shepherd, but we are all called to care; not everyone is an evangelist, but we are all called to share the good news; not everyone is a prophet, but we are all called to listen to God; not everyone is an apostle, but everyone is called to live a sent life.

The Permanent Revolution: An Interview with Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim - Part 2

Friday March 9, 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Yesterday, I began an interview with Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim about their new book The Permanent Revolution. You can read part 1 here.

Most of your who read my blog probably know who Alan is, but here is quick refresher:

Hirsch is co-founder and adjunct faculty for the M.A. in Missional Church Movements at Wheaton College (Illinois). He is also adjunct professor at Fuller Seminary, George Fox Seminary, among others, and he lectures frequently throughout Australia, Europe, and the United States. For more about Alan, visit his website here.

You may now know Tim as well, but here is a short bio:

Tim is the founder and director of Generate, a coaching and consultant agency for apostolic ventures. He specializes in bringing strategic vision and clarity to entrepreneurial ventures and the process of innovation. For more about Tim, visit his website here.

As they did yesterday, Alan and Tim will be interacting on the blog and answering questions below.

The conversation continues...

5. On page 98 in the book, you discuss the tension between big A apostles and little a apostles. When many hear you've written a book on apostolic calling, as you point out, many might misunderstand what you mean when you talk about apostleship. What do you mean? How is this different than the charismatic version of "Apostles" we hear about in the charismatic movement (and I've written about here and here)?

Let us be quite categorical here: We are in no way suggesting that the ongoing and legitimate role of the apostolic person in the life of the church in any way adds to, alters, or subtracts from the original canon of Scripture. We don't know of anyone within broad evangelical circles who would say this. Any such claims should be dismissed immediately.

What we are saying is that the work of the original apostles went beyond simply writing the Bible. If that is not so, them most of them failed because most did not write the Bible. The apostles in the Bible clearly had other functions that related to the church's innate capacities for advance, doctrinal integrity, networking skills, creating translocal organization, etc. These are clearly necessary in any form of advancing movement...and they are necessary today more than ever as the church experiences increasing marginalization and has to adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture.

Furthermore, we believe that the distortions of apostolic ministry found in some extreme circles of the charismatic church are dangerous caricatures of a extremely important function. But since when has extremism stopped us from trying to understand a function better. In fact it should drive us to clarity.

For instance, just because the Grand Inquisition was a severe distortion of the pastoral and teacher function (a violent demand for conformity of behavior and thought) doesn't mean that we jettison the ongoing vocation of the shepherd and teacher! Just because some Tele-Evangelists abused the evangelistic ministry, doesn't mean we reject the incredible work of Billy Graham as illegitimate ministry. Why do this with apostlic and prophetic people?

We believe that whatever ministries we have now (all APEST functions) can derive their archetype from Scripture. This is true for the apostolic (what we call extracting small "a" from big "A" apostles) but is also true of the teacher (small "t" from big "T"), etc. The same interpretive rules should be applied to all the vocations

6. Is The Permanent Revolution a book about theology or methodology? Are they separable in this case?

Ahh, this is a good question Ed. We see APEST as being primarily rooted in the ministry of Christ, so in some sense, this book is thoroughly about Christology. In other words, if Jesus expressed his ministry in APEST form (and who can doubt this?) then the ascension imagery in Eph.4:1-16 shows that the church extends his ministry in the earth--in fivefold form. However, all theology has to be incarnated, that is, it has to land on the ground be worked out in the real world.

This book stands on the Christological foundations of APEST and makes a concerted effort to go deeper into the apostolic calling and ministry. If we said this in a broader way, we believe that whatever methodology we might adopt, should be informed, inspired, and legitimized by our best theology. Hence the Missio Dei inspires our missional methods, and the Incarnation requires us to act incarnationally in the Way of Jesus, etc.

7. You often use the metaphor of DNA when describing the behavior of APEST in the local church. You also describe use the image of a genetic mutation (I love that) to describe failure to lock into the core DNA of the gospel. Every philosophical/methodological trend in church history serves a purpose for a season, and has distinct strengths and weaknesses. If churches, on the whole, adopt a missional, APEST philosophy of ministry (as you describe in your book), what mutations would you predict we then need to guard against next?

The temptation is always to go from one end of the spectrum to the other. Right now, we are pretty much locked in to a two-fold ministry paradigm, that of the Shepherd-Teacher. If the church answers its call to fan out its notion of what legitimate forms of leadership and ministry look like, and integrates the APE's into the equation, it will have to resist the energies of fragmentation that emerge anytime diversity is recognized and affirmed.

This is one reason what we end the APEST section with an all-out exploration into the apostolic function. The diversity within APEST needs a unifying force to hold it together. Without a compelling external mission coupled by an internal motivation to unity, then wakening the diversity within APEST could eventually lead to dissipation. We need the apostolic ministry to provide that missional focal point around which the diversity within APEST can find a unifying vision and rigorous venture to collaborate around.

But truth is, serious dysfunction will inevitably come when one form of ministry predominates over the others. Partly because one form cannot possibly represent the whole ministry of Christ in the world, but partly because there will be no balancing in the leadership equation and all the dysfunctions will come to the fore. So for example when one form of APEST leadership is dis-located from the others it will tend to monopolize the culture and to have a negative effect in the long run. The one-leader type church is most at risk in this case, but we can all recall organizations that demonstrate the truth of this.

So for instance,

A: If an apostolic leader dominates then church/organization will tend to be hard-driving, autocratic, with lots of pressure for change and development, and will leave lots of wounded people in its wake. As such it is not sustainable and will tend to dissolve with time.

P: If the prophetic dominates, then the whole organization will have a one-dimensional (always harking back to one or two issues) feel, will likely be factious and sectarian, have a "super-spiritual" vibe, or somewhat paradoxically, will tend to be either too activist in to be sustainable or too quietist to be useful. This is not a viable form of organization.

E: When an evangelistic leader dominates, the organization will have a obsession with numerical growth, will create dependence on effervescent charismatic leadership, and will tend to lack theological breadth as well as depth. This type of organization will not empower many people at all.

S: When pastoral leadership monopolizes the church/organization will tend to be risk-averse, co-dependent and needy, and overly lacking in healthy dissent and therefore creativity. Such an organization will lack innovation and generativity and will not be able to be transfer it's core message and tasks from one generation to the next.

T: When teachers/ theologians rule, the church will be ideological, controlling, moralistic, and somewhat uptight. A rationalistic, doctrine-obsessed, Christian Gnosticism (the idea that we are saved by what we know) will tend to replaces reliance on the Holy Spirit. These types of organization will be exclusive based on ideology like the Pharisees.

8. You discuss entrepreneurial risk and innovation in ministry and obviously value creative strategies. Given the antiquity of the gospel, why must we continue to innovate and dream up new ways of doing the same things?

The gospel will always be the gospel, and this is the compass by which we navigate our efforts to be risky and innovative. With the ever changing cultural landscape of the West, we are faced with an ever increasing level of complexity. The historical reality of the gospel, and the surplus of meaning within it's multiple metaphors i.e. redemption, reconciliation, etc., provide us with the linguistic storehouse, as well as the conceptual capacities to mediate the power of the gospel in every age.

However, once the gospel has been planted in a particular context, we have to let the resulting ecclesia begin to work out in its own culturally appropriate ways of how and where to gather, how to pursue biblical forms of leadership, and how to subversively live the gospel in their context. In every age the church has learned to hold on to the unchanging truths of the gospel while mediating that truth in ways that not only affirm the positive elements of their host culture, but eventually subvert the dark sides of that culture that stand to enhance the principalities and powers of the enemy.

9. Any final thoughts you'd like to leave our readers?

We don't believe in silver bullets--one simple solution that will fix all your problems. But darn!, this gets awfully close to being a silver bullet for the church right now. We believe that a recovery of the power of Ephesians 4 ecclesiology, and the re-integration of a fully functioning apostolic ministry in our time, will awaken powerful forces within the church. Jesus has given us everything we need to get our job done.

Part of what that means is found in Eph.4. It's vital genetic information for a missional form of church. And all we need to do is reactivate it in the power of the Spirit ...and boom! The Permanent Revolution is a hefty book. It will make you think very hard and against the grain of much of our inherited thinking in this regard. But so much rides on us getting this right. Read the book.