Comments for The story of the missional Church at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://pres-outlook.net Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:58:04 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/5451.html#comment-3465 I appreciated Stephen Hayner's piece asking us to hear God's call for a missional church. It is especially important that the church hear and respond to the first questions he poses: "What is God doing in the world? What is God's purpose for the church?" I hope that many will hear and embrace the church, denomination, communities, people, and partnership that are dreamed of in Professor Hayner's conclusion. It may be presumptuous to think that any thoughts, comments or questions I add regarding his analysis will contribute to answering the fundamental question he poses, but at least writing them down will help me in thinking about them. Summarizing the Church's story and the fall of Christendom in a few lines is a daunting task, and perhaps Professor Hayner has done this as well as anyone could. There are some things I would say differently about the history of the church in recent years. Professor Hayner does seem to use the term "culture wars" ironically, so perhaps when I say I am not inclined to think of efforts to make progress in our culture as a war he might agree. But even when forced to apply that term, I would not say that this is something we "began to lose." For example, I was born into a nation in which it was acceptable to withhold very basic rights from a large fraction of the population, equal pay for equal work was not an accepted concept, and opportunities in education and elsewhere were more routinely and openly denied. Although there is so much remaining to be done, I cannot help but think that I live in a slightly better culture now than the one of 50, 100, or 200 years ago. What I fear instead is that a non-missional church is making itself irrelevant as others more adequately address the real failures of our culture. For example, it is in post-Christian western Europe that one finds lower divorce rates and a real commitment to provide adequate health care to all citizens. And too many in our American churches continue to openly support rather than oppose discrimination against certain of our people. I also wonder if Professor Hayner places too much emphasis on numbers, four times using the words "churches that are growing" in relation to a characteristic of the missional church. The growth of the global church in the regions of the world cited by Professor Hayner could not be disputed and are indeed a cause for rejoicing, but one might also note that these areas are also those in which great numbers of people suffer under economic deprivation or political oppression, or both, and that these conditions throughout our history have provided a people open and ready to hear the good news. As they do in America, questions of "culture wars" can distract the global church. One side of the conflict among our Anglican friends finds support in the leadership of the Nigerian church, while the Archbishop of Cape Town expresses thoughts more consistent with the mainstream of the American branch of that Anglican church. The global church is not immune to looking at culture to find what people like, and in America some of the churches experiencing the largest growth have stadium-event-like worship services, health clubs, and coffee bars, and seem to fit best with Professor Hayner's "clubhouse" description. I may not share Professor Hayner's confidence that noticeable growth will necessarily be an outcome in the west and I might also look to Luke 4:18-19 as crucial for our call, but I hope that we can consider seriously and respond to his story of the missional church. - david carothers Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/5451.html#comment-3462 The large missing element in this otherwise fine piece must be pointed out. Growing churches today are also doctrinal churches! Churches that are explicit in what they believe and then teach these things to their congregations and their leaders are in the forefront of this new movement. Whether one looks to Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City, the Sovereign Grace Churches or Mars Hill Church in Seattle, it is clear that all over the country there are solidly Reformed churches that are not only growing, but are changing their communities in service to Christ. Instead of dividing us, as the old and failed ecumenical liberals taught, doctrine--and more specifically--sound, biblical doctrine actually unites and excites churches! Now if only the failing PC(USA) could come to understand this lesson. But it may already be too late. Time will tell. - Toby Brown Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/5451.html#comment-3463 I agree with the comment made by Toby Brown. Where is the doctrinal part of the entire PGF movement. A year ago we were told they were going to be strong within. At that meeting they initially put forth a piece that could be signed by progressives. They quickly adjusted that piece before the end of the meeting but ever since then the PGF's theological piece has been MIA. I have been assured by leadership within PGF that it would be revealed by the meeting in Houston. Due to my wife's illness, I was unable to be in Houston but in the accounts I have read from those present I haven't heard anything of the theological statement coming out from PGF. Maybe it simply hasn't been reported yet. Right now the only place where theological clarity is being offered for a faithful way forward within the PC(USA) is by some in the New Wineskins Association of Churches who have put forth such a way. Interested persons may take a look at their material at http://www.newwineconvo.com/ - Matt Ferguson Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:00:00 +0100