TODAY'S READING: TANSFORMING WORLDVIEWS

Hiebert, Paul. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of HOw People Change (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).

"What is the gospel and what changes must take place when one becomes a Christian?"

It is a question we have all wrestled with many times. Hiebert gives three possible answers: (1) a change of belief; (2) a change of behavior; (3) a change of worldview.

Asked another way, "What must take place for a conversion to be genuine?"

Hiebert suggests, Conversion to Christ must encompass all three levels: behavior, belief, and the worldview that underlies these. Christians should live differently because they are Christians. However, if their behavior is based primarily on traditional rather than Christian beliefs it becomes pagan ritual. Conversion must involve a transformation of beliefs, but if it is a change only of beliefs and not of behavior, it is false faith (James 2). Conversion may include a change in beliefs and behavior, but if the worldview is not transformed, in the long run the gospel is subverted and the result is a syncretistic Christo-paganism, which has the form of Christianity but not its essence. Christianity becomes a new magic and a new, subtler form of idolatry. If behavioral change was the focus of the mission movement in the nineteenth century, and changed beliefs its focus in the twentieth century, then transforming worldviews must be its central task in the twenty-first century (11-12).

In the first section of the book (chapters 1-4) Hiebert gives a philosophical foundation for understanding "worldview." In the second section (chapters 5-9) he traces the development of worldviews from "Small-Scale Oral Societies" to "Peasant Worldviews" to "The Modern Worldview" to "Postmodernity" to the "Glocal Worldview."

Chapter Ten is Hiebert's proposal for a "Biblical Worldview" and Chapter Eleven is his discussion of "Transforming World Views." (if you don't have time to read the whole book, read the intro and then chapters 10-11 to get the thrust of his proposal without all the background).

So having read the book in light of the quote from the introduction above, the first thing I wonder is if Hiebert is really making a case for entire-sanctification. Yes, technically entire sanctification is a transformation of the heart, but does that transformation not necessarily yield a transformed worldview. Is not the holiness of life as important of the holiness of heart?

If this is the case, that conversion is not just a new belief that results in new behavior, but also requires a "second work of grace" by which one's entire worldview is transformed, then we holiness folk ought to be on the leading edge this transformed worldview. We simply must ask the logical evaluative question: how is that working out for us?

Lets not take much time with new converts, we all know holiness takes time. Lets look straight to the old-time, mature and entirely-sanctified saints in our churches. Do their lives give evidence to having a transformed worldview? Do they look at the world differently? Are their values, and priorities and allegiances notably different than all the good people in our communities? Are our churches notably different in the way they approach life than the rest of the world? Do our churches present a radically different kingdom ethos than the secular world of individualism, materialism, consumerism and nationalism?

I was watching facebook the other day when a mentor of mine (a female) posted this update:

What would you have done when the strange man you just met because you are giving him a ride into town says, "I have just gotten out of a psychiatric hospital. I was there because I pleaded innocent by reasons of insanity to the two felonies of kidnapping and rape."

Dee gets it. That is a transformed worldview. Maybe it was dangerous, but I think we are called to take up our crosses - that sounds pretty dangerous to me.

O that I had that kind of faith. O that my worldview might be transformed.

The Changing Face of World Mission

I just finished reading The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends, by Michael Popcock, Gailyn van Rheenan, and Douglas McConnel (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

If Newbigin (Gospel in a Pluralist Society) was insightful, captivating, and intriguing, then Pocock, van Rheened and McConnell are more along the lines of mind numbing, off-putting and disinteresting. Filled with gross mischaracterizations such as “In contrast with postmodernists, evangelical Christians…” and “In contrast to postmodernitists, Christians maintain…” the authors seem not terribly acquainted with the postmodern movement in the Church and risk alienating many postmoderns who might otherwise find the book helpful. Filled with the kind of stereotypical fundamentalism that advocates divine foreknowledge and determinism, over-accentuates the satanic, and is hyper-fascinated with the demonic, the authors risk alienating many non-fundamentalist evangelicals who might otherwise find their book helpful. Filled with the kind of judgmental, ecumenical blunders such as praising the conversion of other Christians (ie Roman Catholics) or doubting the faith profession of Bono, the authors risk alienating any other Christians, not already offended, who might have found their book helpful.

That said, the authors’ contribution also includes some helpful discussions. Among the positive contributions of the authors is the three-fold yearnings of postmoderns. The perceptivity to note that people have an innate longing to experience transcendence, to feel significant, and to need community is to be commended. Even more commendable is the perceptivity to note that modernity has stripped Christianity of these foundational components reducing Christianity to a life of personal piety with just “me and Jesus – my best buddy.”

Perhaps the most important contribution offered by these authors is their careful look at the “Changing Motivation for Missions” in chapter six. This chapter traces the history of missions in each era of the church by examining the driving force behind the mission work of the church. The early church did missions for God’s glory. The Constantinian church used coercive and often violent means in order to expand the kingdom (whether the kingdom in question refers to God’s kingdom or that of the emperor is not always clear). The Reformation-era church did mission out of a fear of hell, as exemplified in Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God.” Which brings the conversation into the present day, post-Christendom church.

After examining the current theological conversations concerning hell, lostness, and glory, it would seem the post-Christendom church has indeed come full circle back to the pre-Constantinian church in its emphasis on the glory of God. This mission motivation, interestingly, is directly linked to the yearnings of post-moderns for transcendence, significance, and community. The larger issue, however, is a missiological question raised by this changing motivation for mission in relation to the transition from modernity to post-modernity – from Christendom to post-Christendom. How does the local congregation, comprised of people whose motivation for mission was formed in the modern world of Christendom (fear of hell) evangelize people who are formed in the post-modern, post-Christian world who long for transcendence, significance and community?

Motive drives method. A “fear of hell” motive will produce a mission endeavor that is focused on comforting this fear by providing a way out of hell and into heaven, but is that what post-moderns are seeking? Put another way, one will always come to the wrong solution if one is not asking the right question. Those operating with a “fear of hell” motive are attempting to evangelize by answering a question no one is asking. The result will inevitably be grand failure. Can moderns evangelize post-moderns, or must moderns have to become post-modern to evangelize post-moderns? The missiological answer (and also the theological one if the incarnation means anything at all) is that moderns must become post-moderns, or at least enter deeply into the post-modern world. Is such a transition even possible, or is world-view so ingrained that modern churches are simply destined to die, while new post-modern ones sprout new life?

What say you?

Newbigin On Pastoral Ministry

How one can complete 8 years of full-time theological education, including not less than four missions & eveangelism courses, and not encounter Leslie Newbigin’s Gospel In A Pluralist Society (1989) is simply beyond comprehension. If one wants to understand what is going on in the field of missions and evangelism today, one has to start with this masterpiece published over twenty years ago. When one reads the popular emergent church authors like Rob Bell and Brian McClaren, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. When one reads the more mainstream missional church authors like Daryl Guder and Alan Roxburgh, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. When one reads the academics such as Bryan Stone, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. Leslie Newbigin’s Gospel In A Pluralist Society is a must read for anyone wanting to understand better the missionary nature of the faith and of the Church.

I could go on and on and on, quoting the gems in this classic test, but I want simply to reflect on one particular quote that truly resonates with my heart in parish ministry.

What kind of ministerial leadership will nourish the Church in its faithfulness to the gospel in a pluralist society? It is frequently said that the Church in Britain is now in a missionary situation. It is not clear that the full meaning of this has been understood. We have lived for so many centuries in the “Christendom” situation that ministerial training is almost entirely conceived in terms of the pastoral care of existing congregations. In a situation of declining numbers, the policy has been to abandon areas (such as the inner cities [- or the case could be made for rural areas as well]) where active Christians are few to concentrate ministerial resources by merging congregations and deploying ministers in the places where there are enough Christians to support them. Needless to say, this simply accelerates the decline. It is the opposite of a missionary strategy, which would proceed in the opposite direction – deploying ministers in the areas where the Christian presence is the weakest (235-6).

When I read this, my mind immediately jumped to the way The Church of the Nazarene matches pastors with congregations. The prevailing philosophy seems to be the big churches get the best pastors while the little struggling churches have to settle for the left overs. This is quite ironic because we are a denomination of little churches, yet the system is so slanted toward the big churches.

Not long ago our Pensions and Benefits Board voted to change the retirement system for our pastors. Previously, every pastor got a set retirement contribution and a bonus contribution if their church paid their P&B Allocation in full. Under the new plan, the dollar amount of a pastor’s retirement contribution is proportional to the dollar amount her church pays to the P&B Allocation. In other words, large church pastors get a larger retirement, while small church pastors get a smaller retirement. This is but one example of the way The Church of the Nazarene favors the big churches and ignores its smaller churches.

There are many pastors (myself included) that would love to pastor smaller, poorer churches in our urban and rural communities. The problem is that such pastors are typically forced to choose between either (a) living near the poverty line, with no employer provided benefits; (b) being bivocational in order to provide for the family and giving the church what time and engergy is left (which is no recipe for success); or (c) moving up the “ladder” to a bigger church in order to provide for one’s family. Inevitably then, the “best pastors” will inevitably gravitate to the bigger churches, leaving the smaller churches to struggle. Think about it. When was the last GS elected right out of a church whose average attendance was fewer than 100? How about a DS? It doesn’t happen because the “good pastors” pastor the “College Churches” of the world.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am absolutely not criticizing any “College Church” pastors; they are indeed wonderful pastors. The system, however, does exactly what Newbigin describes. It accelerates the growth of the big churches and accelerates the decline of the small struggling churches. What if we created a system that made it possible for the “good ones” to pastor small churches. What if we incentivized pastors to stay in small churches instead of pushing them to take ever larger ones?

In my opinion, the simplest way to accomplish this is through the pay structure. If Districts were directed to implement a pay matrix, similar to that used by teachers and other professions, where pay is determined by (a) years of service and (b) education, then much of this issue would be resolved. As an added bonus, it would also incentivize education! A pastor would be paid the same whether she served a church of fifty or fifty-thousand. That salary should have to include health insurance and retirement as well. Churches who can afford to meet that pay level would be free to call their own pastors, while churches who cannot afford to meet that pay level would be matched with another nearby church who together would share the pastor and the cost.

I realize that change of this magnitude is likely to never happen, but Newbigin is right to assert that churches serious about missions have to reverse the trend and figure out how to deploy the strongest pastors in areas where the Christian presence is weakest.

So how would you approach this difficult task?