The Missionary Dilemma
I think the dilemma of the missionary is such: how far does the missionary go in becoming like the people he’s trying to reach, in order to reach them?
It’s a question that I’ve been asking myself for a long time.
I just read a powerful quote, in which the author, James K.A. Smith (Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism), addresses this exact issue with a great metaphor. I’ll share the extended quote here:
“…Worship can be both a way of inviting the lost into the body of Christ and a way of building up the saints, forming them into the kinds of people that pursue the kingdom with heart, soul, mind, and strength.
Worship, then, needs to be characterized by hospitality; it needs to be inviting. But at the same time, it should be inviting seekers into the church and its unique story and language. Worship should be an occasion of cross-cultural hospitality. Consider an analogy: When I travel to France, I hope to be made to feel welcome. However, I don’t expect my French hosts to become Americans in order to make me feel at home. I don’t expect them to start speaking English, ordering pizza, talking about the New York Yankees, and so on. Indeed, if I wanted that, I would have just stayed home! Instead, what I’m hoping for is to be welcomed into their unique French culture: that’s why I’ve come to France in the first place. And I know that this will take some work on my part. I’m expecting things to be different; indeed I’m looking for just this difference. So also, I think, with hospitable worship: seekers are looking for something that our culture can’t provide. Many don’t want a religious version of what they can get at the mall.”
The more I’m pastoring and meeting people, the more I’m tending to agree with the author’s assessment. I think we need to stop worrying about being so cool and having the latest videos in our sermons and preaching and teaching what the Bible actually says with clarity. I think people are more interested in that.
I’ve been there in the prior, but I think I’ve been changing.
So what do you think? What do you think of the author’s traveling analogy? How far should the missionary go?
[image by digital insurrection]
No related posts.
Hey Rodlie, interesting finishing comment…i firmly agree that at the end of the day we need to teach the Bible and along those same lines lift up Jesus in every aspect. As to the example given, not wanting to go to far here, but having lived in different places: In L.A. we have basically Mexico in certain areas, In N.Y. you can go to China Town, little Italy,and well in Miami of course you have Little Havana (my personal favorite:-)
Essentially perhaps if a big population of Americans went to France you would probably see…well you get the point..Again though i fully understand/comprehend the bottom line issue, there still seems so much more though. People will gravitate to a certain degree where they feel most comfortable and find others they can relate with, the atmosphere of a church and how it lives is crucial to this. The Stanley’s, Chandlers, Driscoll’s, and so on, preach strong but as you and I know still create a place where the people they are reaching will feel welcomed. Of course there is a fine line that we must walk, here in is where the debate continues to rage on…
What were you going to say…if a big american population went to france what? Wasn’t sure what you were meaning there.
Concerning the Chandler, Driscoll, and even Stanley, I think those are guys that are doing it right. They’re preaching hard and preaching right (for the most part). And like the quote mentioned, it of course assumes that you’re offering biblical hospitality.
I think the point of the the chapter in the book is that we are called to invite people to a relationship with Jesus Christ and to lift them to Him. Further, I there’s been the perception that people these days are turned off by not understanding everything, where he makes a case that people actually want a little mystery and to be called into something. He gives the example of entering and becoming part of the culture of starbucks. They invented using venti and the other sizes. They don’t say small. It’s a different language that people learn and become a part of.
It is a fine line that we have to pray about walking correctly.
Rodlie,
I love this post! I agree with the author’s traveling metaphor, completely. If the “outsider” is willing for change and ready to be called into something, as you said, he/she will take in the new culture as it is. Conversely, little familiarities help to extend the hospitality successfully. For example, the American might not travel to France expecting American food, but the comfort of having a restaurant open at dinner time or a plate of baked goods available in the morning, is hospitable enough.
Great job with all your reflection, Rodlie. I think having the latest videos in your sermons isn’t as powerful as really knowing the word of God, and preaching the bible with clarity.
Thanks, Melanie! There’s definitely a balance that church have to figure out with that.
Rod, I’m a little confused by the message of this post combined with the most recent post of a video clip mocking contemporary worship. Not sure what you’re trying to say here: we should not adapt to cultures when sharing the gospel? contemporary worship with new/old songs is a consumer-driven compromise of the gospel? … I could use some clarification because the brief comments made so far could be interpreted in a wide range – at least from where I’m reading from.
Kudos for a great topic, I’m just tentative to jump in until I understand a little more clearly.
Thanks!
The purpose of posting the video was not to mock contemporary worship. The video was actually made by the guys at Northpoint Community church, though I think the video helps to highlight a little of what I’m wrestling with. The question, based upon the quote that I mention is, “How far should a missionary go in reaching and interacting with the culture.” I’m just thinking that some church are going too far in trying to reach their culture. In the work of the gospel there is always a transaction, if you will. I’m coming to you and reaching out to you, and I want to bring you to and help you learn about Jesus. In coming to Jesus, though, there are things about us that need to change as well. I change to reach the person, in a sense, and the discipleship process of following Jesus changes them.
We try to be so “relevant” and “seeker sensitive” that we sometimes rob Christianity of some of the things that actually make it rich and unique. Specifically, I don’t agree with churches playing “secular” music before services and that sort of approach.
And I think the author is saying, that people don’t expect and are surprised and sometimes put off by that approach as well. It’s saying that postmoderns want to be invited in and don’t mind learning elements of a new language if it’s done in the right way. Like learning the language and culture of starbucks.
Does that make sense?
For example, the kinds of churches that are using these kinds of approaches, are generally those led by those in the boomer generation. You’ll notice that many of the younger ones, that are seeking to reach the postmodern generation and thinking (Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, and others), actually don’t use those kinds of approaches at all. In fact, it seems that at times they work really hard at going in the other direction. They jump right into the text with almost no introduction, have communion weekly, and don’t change “the language of the gospel” in order to accommodate seekers.
Check out this quote from the book:
“The postmodern church resists the tendency of pragmatic evangelicalism, which tries to ‘dumb down’ the story to make it accessible or attractive to the culture. Instead, the postmodern church affirms the timelessness (and timeliness) of the biblical narrative as it is told. Rather than trying to translate the biblical story into a contemporary, more ‘acceptable” narrative) which usually ends up compromising the narrative to culture), the postmodern church seeks to initiate the listeners into the narrative” (p. 77).
I appreciate your question, however, i believe it is easy to blur what you are talking about. You were asking about the missionary blending in/understanding/speaking like those he/she is wanting to reach and the dialoge moved towards churches.
A missionary will not be affective if they do not know about who it is they are targeting. We, as church goers, have our own language. We use phrases like…the blood, the lamb of god, being born again, sanctified, justified, streets of gold, holy spirit/ghost…etc. When I hear those words/phrases, I am not shocked, confused or repulsed. I grew up knowing these words.
There are other groups of people that did not grow up like i did. Ghosts/spirits may trigger something entirely different in them. The only way to understand a people group you are targeting…is to be among them, listen before you speak. This is not a week assignment. Sometimes it can be a very long process. Once you understand, as best you can, thier language (even if it is English is can be totally different from yours)your goal is to preach the good news in such a way that they can understand…avoiding words that will prevent them from hearing what you are saying.
Example…We refer rightly to Jesus/God as Lord. For he is whether we acknowledge it or not. If you use the term Lord to a group of people that have been lorded over unjustly by local lords, then you will hinder some from listening. They do not want anymore lords in their lives. This is a very small example.
Lastly…i know of some church plants in specific communities that play “secular” music before the worship begins. At first I respond…”Why would they do this?”, but for those communities it made a big impact. The community i know of is filled with tradional churches. 283 churches for in a community of 20k people. It is a small town. Things do not change much here. the tradional church also hasnt changed. The people living here (non followers) have a pretty accurate picture of what church is like. (dress a certain way, don’t let others know your issues, heavy on judgemental, light on grace, quick to save you, absent to biblically disciple you.)
The group of folks starting the plant asked the questions…what have people in this town experienced in church growing up or by church. What are their reservations about coming into a church.
Are they interested in Spiritual things? They began with the premise that no word or event could be used or done without explaining it…from giving, tithe, baptizm, worship…etc.
They chose to begin thier time togeher on sun morn with a secular song. They believe that non-followers will walk in with an expectation of what will happen…this one song disarms them and allows them to be less defensive to everythng that follows.
anyway…i write too much. Blessings to all you do inthe Name of our Lord.
Thanks for those thoughts, Chris. Certainly this is not an easy or simple issue. I think there are many questions, theological and otherwise, that surround it: what does it mean it mean to worship God? How far should we go in borrowing language from secular society before introducing them to a new ideas and thoughts? Is there a new language? Not saying I have the answers. When we study the first few centuries of Christianity, we find that church services were for believers. Unbelievers weren’t even allowed inside. Now saying that that’s how they should be…just trying to give a little more perspective on a complicated issue.