We live in an era when the church is, more than ever, talking about the need to "contextualise", to engage with culture or "inculturate". Whatever the jargon, the church in the West is waking up, maybe yawning and stretching in the process, to the realities of a mission environment. It's overdue and reflects the actual fact that our inherited church culture is often so far removed from the surrounding culture that it can seem to be an exclusive and inward-looking club. And yet the language of much missiology leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. If we had the right technique, used the correct language, adopted that particular cultural behaviour, then the church would be far more successful, so the argument goes.
It's a struggle I come up against when I teach on other religions. If they were being honest, what many people are looking for is the knock-down argument or a particular way of organising the church or a cultural nuance to observe that will suddenly convince/win-over/speak into the heart of those of other faiths.
Call me old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that mission is actually not about success, numbers, getting our message across...it's about about obedience. The thing is, being obedient means that we will incarnate ourselves in culture, bless God at work in the world, be challenged and learn, aswell as sharing who we are. We contextualise because that happens as we follow God's spirit in his work in the world. And the results; well that's God's business.
In the meantime, I'll hold on to my allergy to the latest quick fix/strategy/church structure and strive to be obedient. The church may or may not grow...But then again, that too is God's business. Whether you be mainstream, inherited, emerged, emerging or emergent, there is no magic bullet out there. Somehow or other, it all comes back to that cross.
Comments