Miguel Labrador's Blog, page 13

Identifying With and In Your Cultural Contexts For Disciple Making

A couple of years ago I was invited to a 3 day International round table discussion on Discipleship.  During one of the discussions, I was able to share some thoughts about catalyzing a disciple making culture.  About 20 minutes into the conversation a church leader from another country stood up and objected that I, as a “Gringo,” did not know or understand the context of the people here and that my advice wasn’t culturally applicable.  Almost immediately, several others around the table objected to his objection.  They were people who knew us.  They were people who have seen the work of our ministry up close.  They were the ones that have inspected the fruit of the missional ideas that we espouse.  That wasn’t the first time an objection like that was directed towards us.  That kind of objection can take on many forms.  It’s both wonderful and bothersome when someone asks, “How can we take what you’re doing in your contexts and cultures and make it work in ours?”

It’s a difficult question to answer because “our context” is so very diverse, and the question itself might be one sided.  It’s not “what works,” but “who works.”  ”for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” (Philippians 2:13)  

In the region of Ecuador where we work, there are more micro-cultures than in many other parts of the world.  The reasons are extensive, but center on microclimates, micro-geographics, micro-economies and micro-stories.  Initially when I was thinking through this, I was going to name some cities, towns, villages, and neighborhoods and describe the differences among them culturally.  Then I decided it might be imprudent.  Instead, here are some two-word descriptions of some of the communities we work in:

Transient Hosters

Intense Workers

Entitled Coveters

Agrarian Loners

Religious Protectors

Suffering Sinners

Isolationist Defenders

Curiosity Satiators

Tourist Pleasers

Inquisitive Seekers

Movement Joiners

Fearful Worriers

Prepared Listeners

Faithful Migrators

Tribal Warriors

Conquered Objectors

Hope Quitters

Forgotten Yearners

Tradition Maintainers

Disciple Makers

As I stated earlier, these are my “off the cuff” first thought, two-word descriptions of just some of the cultures we find ourselves working in.  I don’t mean any of them to be derogatory.  These reflections are meant to be thought provoking and representative of my initial assessments.  Each of these would also have distinct sets of sub-cultures.  The above list only represents about half of the communities that we have worked in.  Discipleship in these contexts necessitates an adaptable manner of gospel delivery, but an unwavering message.  So, in answering the question, ”How can we take what you’re doing in your context and make it work in ours?”, I would ask in return if any of these descriptions fit your context?  Surely there are some similarities.  Disciple Making is rooted in the Gospel.  The Gospel is neither pre-modern, modern, or post-modern.  The Gospel is trans-generational, trans-cultural, and trans-modern.  We likewise do ourselves a disservice when we get bogged down in arguments of Eastern vs. Western and Hebraic vs. Greek thought because primarily, we are a people who are being transformed by the renewing of our minds.  Additionally, we simply can not limit every human being to two schools or modes of thinking.  There is no magic decoder ring for discipleship within different contexts or cultures.  It’s simply being in and amongst people in motion while gospelizing and loving them and God.

A  few questions:

1.  What two-word description would you use to describe the context(s) you’re working in?

2.  In what ways do you try to understand and identify with the cultures and contexts in which you live?

3.  What contextual or cultural barriers exist where you are that impede disciple making?  

 

                         
CommentsToday it was autistic sex offender. (Just pretend sexoffender ... by David WoodsWhat two-word description would use you to describe the ... by Jim WrightRelated StoriesChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Counting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me?Discipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile! 

Isn’t Repentance, Replacement, and Restoration God’s Reparative Therapy?

I hear the term “Reparative Therapy” being tossed around quite a bit these days.  In essence, it’s about helping some to change a behavior that others find contradictory to their own established norms.  In most cases, the one receiving therapy has entered into it on their own accord because they recognize that something within needs changing.  I understand that is many cases, “Reparative Therapy” is associated with forceful tactics hyper-moral compulsion, and bigotry, but this does not undermine its core concept.  Does it?

Isn’t what God does with sinful human beings “Reparative Therapy?”  I accept that the word “Therapy” may actually minimize the infinite-ness of what God does, but in essence when God grants repentance (2 Timothy 2:25) (Acts 11:18) (Romans 2:4), replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19) (Jeremiah 24:7) (Ezekiel 36:26), restores us (Job 33:26) (Lamentations 5:21) (Galatians 6:1-3), and causes us to walk in His ways (1 Kings 3:14 ) (Ezekiel 36:27) (Hosea 14:9), isn’t that all reparative?

God’s reparative therapy hurts.  But likewise, that pain doesn’t negate it’s divine origin or purpose.  At times, God does this through the agency of people.

In his book, “Wounds That Heal: Bringing Our Hurts to the Cross,” Stephen Seamands says:

As we abide in Him, so Christ, the one who opened himself to unimaginable dread and despair, abides in us.  His courage and determination is imparted to us.  As we stand beneath the cross like a patient facing a painful operation, we are able to say to Jesus, our great physician and surgeon, “I am ready.”  In Christ, we can open our arms to embrace pain and endure the suffering necessary for healing.  Christ’s grace not only enables us to embrace endure suffering, it also transforms us through our suffering.  Suffering we feared would be destructive becomes redemptive (reparative). 

Those who seek spiritual change must know that it costs everything! (Luke 17:33).  Those who know what’s right and fail to do it are complicit in the sin. (James 4:17)  Those who call good evil, and evil good have been warned by God and are still under warning (Isaiah 5:20)

So, Isn’t Repentance, Replacement, and Restoration God’s Reparative Therapy?

                         
CommentsWell, I don't see it as therapy so much as surgery. He gave me ... by Chris JefferiesI don't know that it's that much of a Doctor-Patient ... by David WoodsRelated StoriesSabbath & Mission‘We Don’t Need No Education’ ~ The Apostle PaulChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge? 

Sabbath & Mission Part II

It seems I may have been wrong in making the assertion that ““The Sabbath was made for mission, not mission for the Sabbath.” It makes sense that a Sabbath rest would prepare us for upcoming or future mission.  But Heschel, in critiquing Aristotle  had this to say:

According to Aristotle, “we need relaxation, because we cannot work continuously.  Relaxation, then, is not an end” ; it is “for the sake of activity,” for the sake of gaining strength for new efforts.  To the biblical mind, however, labor is the means toward an end, and the Sabbath as a day of abstaining from toil, is not for the purpose of recovering one’s lost strength and becoming fit for forthcoming labor.  The Sabbath is a day for the sake of life.  Man is not a beast of burden, and the Sabbath is not for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of his work.  ”Last in creation, first in intention,” the Sabbath is “the end of the creation of heaven and earth.”  The Sabbath then, is not for the sake of the weekdays; the weekdays are for the sake of the Sabbath. ~ Heschel

In discipleship group tonight I asked the question: “Is the principle of a sabbath rest more for resting from previous work, or to prepare ourselves for future work.  Most said the latter.  According to Heschel both would be wrong.  What do you say? 

                         
Commentsoops, this is what comes from shooting from the hip. I forgot ... by Rob KampenI resisted posting to part 1, however this one spurs me to ... by Rob KampenRelated StoriesSabbath & MissionChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Two Kingdoms in a Phone Booth. 

Sabbath & Mission

Jesus told the Pharisees that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)  He said this because the Pharisees challenged him and asked him why he allowed his disciples to pick grain and eat it on The Sabbath.  Jesus’ answer was bit perplexing, but here’s what the Pulpit Commentary has to say regarding it:

 The sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the sabbath. The sabbath, great and important as that institution is, is subordinate to man. If, then, the absolute rest of the sabbath becomes hurtful to man, a new departure must be taken, and some amount of labour must be undergone, that man may be benefited. Therefore was Christ justified in permitting to his disciples a little labour in plucking these ears of corn on the sabbath day, in order that they may appease their hunger. For it is better that the rest of the sabbath should be disturbed, though but a little, than that any one of those for whose sake the sabbath was instituted should perish. 

Now, “The Sabbath” ( That which was observed from sundown on Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night), in my opinion, no longer exists. Jesus is our Sabbath rest.  “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” (Hebrews 10:12)  Just as Jesus rested after performing the ultimate sacrifice, He “sat down” and rested ~ ceased from His labor of atonement because there was nothing more to be done, ever! Because of what He did, we no longer have to “labor” in law-keeping in order to be justified in the sight of God. Jesus was sent so that we might rest in God and in what He has provided.

That said, I believe the principle of “a sabbath rest” (a period of time set aside from a larger period of time for rest and God Directed reflection) is both valid and applicable for God’s people today.  But, I’d like your comments and thoughts on this phrase adapted form the above thoughts:

“The Sabbath was made for mission, not mission for the Sabbath.”

 

 

 

 

 

                         
CommentsWell, yeah. Sabbath was made for people. If you consider ... by David WoodsToo Funny David… I'm trying not to “over think” the ... by MiguelI think you and “Mr. Commentary” may be over-thinking this ... by David WoodsRelated StoriesChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Discipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile!Counting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me? 

‘We Don’t Need No Education’ ~ The Apostle Paul

Many falsely assume or even proclaim that they have been taught by God directly without the aid or through the agency of people. I’m not talking about the daily life lessons we learn as we walk together with God and each other (Matthew 28:19,20), or the wisdom he gives us when we ask (James 1:5), or even the answers to our prayers. I’m talking about overarching concepts like the Gospel, ALL that Christ commanded, and those things that God has revealed concerning His own nature.

No one can claim to have received these things while perched on a mountain on an island of their own existential creation. Some may claim, like Paul, that they “received the gospel he preached and that it was not of human origin, and that they did not receive it from any man, nor were they taught it; but rather, received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11,12)

But, they would be wrong.

Paul spent his entire life in the scriptures which were mediated through men by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He was a Pharisee and a descendant of Pharisees, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, studied under Gamaliel, and was thoroughly trained in the law of his ancestors. He was “taught” extensively and exhaustively.

So, what was Paul saying them? If we look carefully at Galatians 1:12,3 – He said that what he received was not from “human origin.” he was referring to the vision he had “fourteen years before” ( 2 Corinthians 12:1), to the specific aspect of the “gospel of grace.” and not to all knowledge he had attained in the past. A few questions:

Can anyone be born again without the scriptures? (Careful, it’s a trick question)

Can anyone claim to be taught directly by God in such a way as to understand ALL that God has revealed without Scripture?

Can anyone claim to have been taught anything by God which contradicts scripture?

                         
CommentsAre you speaking in the name of the Lord in this post of yours? ... by William Floyd1. Yes 2. Minus the prophecy and history? Yes. 3. No by William FloydRelated StoriesI Don’t Want To Be That Guy Who’s Pegged As Anti-Church, But…Church, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Counting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me? 

Church, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?

Re-Emerging Church – Re-Church – Retro Church – Renaissance Church – Reformed Church – Reimagining Church – Recuperating Church – Recapturing Church – Re-establishing Church etc. etc. etc.

The desire to “get back to the way things used to be,” and the desire to “find out where God is working now and join him in it,” often causes a separation in the body of Christ. The attitude of maintaining clashes with the desire for movement. MegaChurch and Missional Church struggle to mediate and balance modalities.

For certain, there is idolization in both extremes. When monumenting overshadows mission, then the church becomes passive. When movement vision becomes myopic, then the Maker is put on the fringes.

When those who hold to the past and think it was better, and by consequence think that they too are better for emulating ancient disciplines, then Pharisaism sets in. An idol is set up when one worships their own ecclesiastical constructs instead of Christ.

When those who push the envelope to the extreme for the sake of modernity in mission no longer bear the burdens of one another in community (Galatians 6:2) and no longer esteem others higher than themselves (Philippians 2:3), and no longer encourage and equip for the work of the ministry (Acts 14:22), then they fail to remember the church’s Ebenezers (1 Samuel 7:12) and are too quick to move ancient boundaries. (Proverbs 22:28 NLT)

Both extremes are disposed to calling down fire upon the other. (Luke 9:51-56) The sedentary stigma of being sticky or staying put and hyper missional mantra of always pressing forward stretch the church like a dried and inflexible rubber band. While contraction and expansion should be held in good biblical tension, it is often and willingly exchanged for faction and division.

Disgust, disdain, or diminutive talk and action will simply not further the motives of the King and His Kingdom.

A confession:

I have been guilty of all of these things. In my zeal, I’ve often sacrificed tact and diplomacy. Forgive me. I find myself at somewhat of a loss on how to maintain that biblical tension and yet strongly come against anything that thwarts the gospel from going forward, stifles the making of disciples, or works in opposition to Kingdom advancement. I need your help to maintain a proper balance. I’d like to do that via a few questions:

How would you encourage those who sacrifice mission for monuments?

How would you exhort those who sacrifice assembling for advancing?

What are some ways to keep being sent and being sticky in good biblical tension?

                         
CommentsMiguel, I appreciate your humility in asking us publicly to ... by CarlosI think unkind and unloving would consist of doing what I've ... by David WoodsI think we are all guilty of occillation between extremes. I am ... by Dennis BrownThanks Lisa, That's just it! When I'm under compulsion to ... by MiguelAnswer to all three questions, and many many more: Follow ... by David WoodsWell put, my friend. I too wonder if I go to far in extremes. ... by Lisa RobinsonRelated StoriesCounting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me?Discipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile!Ephesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent? 

Of Hierarchy, Tiers, and Levels of Authority Within the Church.

In Lance Ford’s book, “UnLeader: Reimagining Leadership …and Why We Must,” he states:

“In the kingdom of God we must view Jesus as our big L Leader—the one and only Senior Shepherd. Men and women can, and should, function in leadership but never be underscored with rank as leaders. Leadership must be viewed as a spiritual gift and not as a position of power. To develop the familial culture of a Jesus community requires us to jettison any hint of corporate-style, top-down authority structure, along with the language that supports it.” *

In order to unpack this statement and place ourselves within an environment for fruitful discussion, we must define our terms carefully and establish a somewhat open frame of reference.

I’d like to do that by asking three questions:

1.  How do we, or should we, provide structure to leadership within the church if we are not to have hierarchical systems or tiered authority constructs?

2.  Are there different levels of authority within Church? Are those different authority levels vested in people?  What determines those levels?

3.  Is a flat leadership biblical?  Does flat imply zero structure or leadership? 

Some scripture texts you may find helpful (3 John 1:9) (Mark 10:42-44) (Luke 22:25-27) (2 Corinthians 1:24) (1 Peter 5:3) (Matthew 20:25-27) (Matthew 23:2-12)

*Ford, Lance (2012-09-01). UnLeader: Reimagining Leadership…and Why We Must (Kindle Locations 713-717). Nazarene Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

                         
Commentsemmanuel, it appears you are presenting Christ as 'divine ... by MarshallPower and authority are not bad in themselves. It is the abuse ... by emmanuel tordzroHow Jesus redefined “leader”, and so the way the apostles ... by MarshallRelated StoriesCounting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me?A Wolfgang Simson Quote That Could Rip Your Church Door Off Its Hinges!Two Kingdoms in a Phone Booth. 

Counting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me?

Being in one of the most bio-diverse regions on the planet and equally diverse when it comes to people and culture, I’m often fascinated by the many ways an idea or even a saying can be conveyed.  Here in Ecuador, there are a myriad of ways to ask another person how much something costs.  For example:

¿Cuánto cuesta? = How Much is it?

¿Cuanto vale esto? = What’s its value?

¿Que valor tiene? = What  does it have?

¿Cuál es el precio de esto? = What is the price of this? 

¿Cuánto son? = How much are they?

This represents a short list of the most common ways to ask how much something costs.  I’m sure there are others.  If you know of any others in Spanish, leave them in the comment section.

Jesus, in addressing a large crowd, said

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?  “Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ “Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? “Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.  “So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.” Luke 14:28-33

The idea of “cost” here in the Greek (ψηφίζω/pséphizó), is to reckon, compute, or calculate. One thing in this passage that strikes me.  Jesus doesn’t ask us to ask Him what it will cost to follow him.  He already said what it would cost.  Nor is it a negotiation or a bargaining scenario.  There are no deals to be made, no concessions or compromising, no haggling, and certainly nothing close to the question, “What’s in it for me?” 

As often as we hear the phrase, “the cost of discipleship,” you’d think that we would know what Jesus meant by His words.  When we beckon others to follow Christ, when we preach the Gospel of the King and His Kingdom, when we act as His emissaries ambassadors, and representatives, are we devaluing it all in such a way as to have people come to the conclusions that 1.”it’s not worth it,” or 2.”there’s nothing in it for me,” or maybe even 3.”What you’re selling looks like a cheap knock-off.” 

A few questions:

What does it mean to you that we should count the cost?

What are some common ways whereby the King & His Kingdom are cheapened?

How would you counsel someone who does understand, counts the cost, and decides it too high a price to pay? 

                         
CommentsHow would you counsel someone who does understand, counts the ... by Chris JefferiesRelated StoriesDiscipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile!Ephesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent?Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology? 

A Wolfgang Simson Quote That Could Rip Your Church Door Off Its Hinges!

I was listening to and old podcast today from Neil Cole, Alan Hirsch and Wolfgang Simson.  In that podcast, Wolfgang said:

“The Church is often not driven by the needs of Jesus the Messiah, but very much driven by the needs of the religious consumers that fund a system around themselves to “fill” their spiritual tanks on Sunday so that they can do “the really important stuff” on Monday through Friday, which is to make money.  And, if that’s church, then it’s been sucked into the wrong and anti-apostolic direction by the consumerism of people.  If we let that happen, we die.” 

What do you think of Wolfgang’s quote?

You can get the Podcast Here. 

 

 

 

                         
CommentsReminds me of a quote I heard about recently from a Chinese(?) ... by Rob KampenI think it accurately describes the “legacy church”, some ... by LeahAbsolutely correct! It's a sad state of affairs when all that's ... by Cameron StevensIt has happened many times and in many places but the church ... by Tom YaccarinoRelated StoriesTwo Kingdoms in a Phone Booth.Nothing Will Prevail Against The Mission Of The Church.The Church; A Base of Operations, A Rest Stop, or A Gas Station? 

Two Kingdoms in a Phone Booth.

It’s not hard to imagine squeezing a couple of people into a phone booth.  In fact, there was a mid-twentieth century nostalgic flare for trying to cram as many people as possible into small spaces like phone boots, cars, and even… outhouses. 

Have you ever tried it?  How many did you cram into what?  

Imagine for a moment that you are confined in a small space, like a phone booth, with another person.  Imagine as well that this person is a stranger.  The possibility of your two worlds colliding, or better yet, two Kingdoms existing simultaneously in the same proximity are pretty good.  

For the believer, God “has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son.”  (Colossians 1:13) Unbelievers remains in the Kingdom of darkness.  These kingdoms often exist side by side and crammed into small spaces.  It’s the natural order of things.  It’s the needed order of things.  Whether they overlap, bounce off each other, effect each other, or simply coexist is difficult to say.  Christians have a propensity to talk of “extending” the Kingdom, “expanding it,” and even “taking ground” for it.  Admittedly, the language of the Kingdom is a bit difficult to express when it comes to its growth.  Lately I’ve been dwelling on the word “envelope.”  My wife has suggested that we help others “realize” it.  The Kingdom is expanded, extended, and taken, but not so much, in my opinion, by humans.  The King does those things.  His emissaries, or disciples, represent the King and His Kingdom and are but one of the means God uses to demonstrate and declare it.    

When Kingdoms exist in proximity, conflicts arise, ideologies collide, and delineations become clearer.  Both are always trying to envelope the other.  For most, this is an invisible conflict.  The Apostle Paul states: 

“But and if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that are perishing: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them… Seeing it is God, that said, Let there be light, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 6).

While these kingdoms can exist in proximity, they can never have true fellowship with one another.  Again Paul says: “what fellowship can light have with darkness?“(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

And while the Kingdom of Light can envelop the Kingdom of darkness, it can not, ultimately happen in reverse.  The kingdom of darkness can not overcome the Kingdom of Light.

 ”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness overcame it not” (John 1:1, 4-5). 

In order for the Kingdom of light to overcome the Kingdom of darkness, and to move or “transfer” people, we must cooperate with God as He moves out and expands His Kingdom.  He is the one who sends us in the manner that Christ was sent. (John 20:21)

When we incarnate or enflesh the Kingdom amongst others there’s collision.  As Alan Hirsch says, there are four characteristics of incarnation. Those are presence, proximity, powerlessness, and proclamation. [1]   

Presence ~ Jesus did not engage us with ideas alone. He engaged us with his life.  We are to be salt & light.  Our presence illuminates and preserves.

Proximity ~ The incarnation is literally about the God who came near (proximate). God was made flesh in a specific geographical region.  He drew near. 

Powerlessness ~ Incarnation brings with it a posture of powerlessness. Philippians 2:7 says that Christ emptied himself taking the form of a servant.

Proclamation ~ Finally, Christ came near for the specific purpose of proclamation: “The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and be baptized”  He is both incarnated logos and bearer of logos (message)  He is medium and message.  He never separated the two, and neither should we. 

So, whether it’s being crammed into small spaces or just coexisting in larger geographical areas, we must constantly remind ourselves of conflicting kingdoms.  We must also be aware that these Kingdoms can wage war within us.  Through presence, proximity, powerlessness, and proclamation, the church exemplifies God’s story of a King and Kingdom in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and coronation of His Son. He sends ambassadors who represent Him and call others to turn our hearts to Him.  As a church incarnated in the community or crammed into a telephone booth, you should also be a people who announce and demonstrate the reign of Christ.  A few questions:

1.  What verbs would you use to describe the human element in the “expansion” of the Kingdom?

2.  What adjectives would you use to describe the Kingdom?

3.  If someone were to ask you, “What is the Gospel of the Kingdom?” and you only had a 10 seconds to give an answer, what would you say? 

 

 

[1] Alan Hirsch. Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church (p. 133 & following). Kindle Edition.

 

 

 

                        Related StoriesEphesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent?Discipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile!Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?