The second response seemed to be the headline grabbing response. Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Seminary, whom I respect and admire, called on the SBC at the annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky to take up a special offering in August of this year to help make up for the shortfall. It was creatively entitled “Christmas in August”. There were press releases, press kits, videos, web banners and other tools to get the word out. There were stories that pulled at your heart strings about missionaries having to leave the field, or not getting to go to the field because of the lack of funds.

The response within the IMB seemed to reflect how severe the budget crisis really was. One, it was decided that the number of personnel on the field needed to be reduced by about 700, from 5,700 to 5,000. Two, only 300 people would be sent to the field in 2010, not 300 units (a single, a couple, or a family), but 300 people total. Included in this point is the suspension of the ISC and Masters program and a severe cut in the number of Journeymen that make up the 300 count. Three, no pay raise was given to field personnel, which will mark the 5th consecutive year that personnel on the field have not received a raise. Four, medical insurance/coverage was cut. The cut does not have to do with what is covered, but what field personnel must pay out of pocket to receive care. Five, the company match given to employees 403b account was cut from 10% to 5%. And six, the Field Parity Supplement was changed from using the Expatriate Index to the Efficient Purchaser Index. For those of you that are unaware of what the FPS is let me explain. The FPS is a percentage of base pay that attempts to give all missionaries equal buying power around the world. By changing from the Expatriate Index to the Efficient Purchaser Index each unit would see a 7% to 12% reduction in take home pay.*

Why does this cause me concern? The obvious reasons aside (retirement, medical, etc.), I’m concerned about the message we, the IMB and the SBC, are sending to the members of our churches. The message seems to be: we have a budget crisis, let’s raise some money so that we don’t have to stop sending people…you know, pray, give, or go. And trust me, the IMB has a detailed strategy for how it sends people. We have really fancy graphs and charts documenting the number of unreached and/or unengaged people groups around the world. We show this really touching map of the world with colored dots (in red I think) of all the people groups that are unreached. The church sees this and responds (well, not really) by giving money so that the IMB doesn’t have to stop sending people to these red dots. The problem is, we have a broken system. We think that the way to reach the world is for SBC churches to give more money so that we professionals can go to the red dots and take care of business. Honestly though, we don’t have the money to implement some of the strategies we would like to. We’ve been told in our affinity group that for 2010 only half of our submitted strategy budget was approved. HALF. But yet, we’ll implore churches to give more to send more. How about we stop sending for a while? How about we not cut medical, retirement, and strategy? How about we re-think strategy? Where was the press release detailing the cuts that I listed above, with the nice videos and web banners? They were no where to be found because it’s much easier to get churches to give to send more, but it’s not so easy to get churches to support those of us already here. As long as I can pull at the heart strings towards the red dots I’m more likely to get a few bucks.

And before someone comments and states that I sound like I’m ungrateful, that I need to be thankful for the IMB and what they’ve given me, and that I should just take care of myself and let the IMB take care of the sending, let me just say for the record: I’m extremely grateful for the IMB. I’m blessed that they take care of my house, car, and other expenses. I’m thankful that I’m allowed to live out my call through an organization and am not having to do it all alone. I just have great concerns that we’re calling people to give money to a broken system. We can’t keep giving and sending and not take care of the problems.

*Field personnel just received word last week that changing from the Expatriate to Efficient Purchaser has been put on hold. FIeld personnel are unsure at this point when the change will be implemented.

On September 22nd, Ed Stetzer wrote a nice article on contextualization. I have no issues with the article at all and I enjoyed reading through the comments that followed.

As a follow-up to Ed’s piece I thought I would open my site up to the practical side of contextualization. I would love to hear about some real life examples, by those working in cultures outside the US and those working in the States. If you’re in the US you may not realize it, but contextualization is at work. Some of it is good, and some of it is unnecessary.

Sometimes I feel that we, those of us in the evangelical Christian sub-culture, spend a good deal of time learning. We go to conferences, read books, listen to podcasts, and then share our experiences with those things. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with these things, but sometimes we focus too much on the learning and too little on the doing. That’s what I would like to focus on in the comments here…the doing…the ins and outs of contextualization.

And be sure to check out The Upstream Collective. They are putting together details about their next Jet Set tour which will take place next year in London and Paris.

The Upstream Collective is currently in Asia with Ed Stetzer on a Jet Set Tour. They are meeting with local pastors and field workers to learn more about the culture, the work currently being done there, and to come up with ways that American churches can partner in the work.

A recent Twitter update from Upstream read: “We share the gospel to build relationships, not build relationships to share the gospel.”

This is an interesting quote and I would love to know the context within which is was shared. But in an effort to generate a little discussion, and in preparation for an upcoming post and video clips by Ed about Social Justice and Evangelism, I thought I would post a couple of thoughts. Again, I don’t know the context for the quote above, and am interpreting it from a Western European perspective where I have lived for over three years.

The Gospel is by nature a divider. There will be some that hear and believe in the Gospel resulting in salvation. Yet at the same time there will be those that hear and do not believe. Sharing the Gospel to build relationships assumes that you will be building relationships with those that believe, not with those that do not believe. From this group a church will/can be planted, established, discipled, and multiplied. But is it safe to assume that those that are lost in Taiwan, and those that are ministering to them are at a different place in their journey towards Christ? In other words, is there fertile ground in Taiwan by which we can forsake relationships with all, in order to focus on those that are ready to respond to the Gospel. This, of course, is not a bad thing. In fact, I rejoice that there are those in Taiwan that respond to things like the EvangeCube and are coming to faith. I, however, have not encountered fertile ground in Europe by which I can forsake relationships with all in order to focus on the few that will respond positively to the Gospel.

I can’t help but think that I would reverse this statement for it to be more accurate in my European context. Europeans are relationship driven. By and large things like the EvangeCube don’t work. They’re a turn off to the average European. But relationships, relationships are where life happens. Relationships are my opportunity to be Jesus, to introduce to Jesus, and to lead to Jesus. I build relationships to share the Gospel. I simply can’t expect, in a European context, to build relationships as a result of my sharing the Gospel. I have to build relationships in order to present the life saving message of the Gospel.

As I said in my last post I’m ready for the break. I’m ready for a time of refreshment. And hopefully one of the things that will come from that is a renewed focus on being a voice for missional living through my writing here at CD. For those that follow the site you know that I’m not the most consistent in putting out material. Essentially it comes down to me not taking the time to sit down and write. I have tons of thoughts and questions swirling around in my head, but am an expert at procrastinating, even to the detriment of this site.

Another thing that I have to guard myself from is cynicism. I’m a cynic. It’s not a good thing, but it’s part of who I am. I recently started a series on a critique of the church. After looking through the drafts for the second and third part of the series I realized that I was doing the thing I didn’t want to do, criticize. So, I scrapped the series and left the first post as it is. I still have strong opinions about the church in the west, particularly the American church, but I’ll look for alternative ways to get my point across.

Why am I saying all this? Because Cultural Dichotomy is going to go dark for a time. If you follow CD you now that my posts are few and far between. You may not even notice that I’m gone. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it is what it is. Keep CD in your news reader. I’ll be back.

As of July 21 our first term will officially come to an end. On that day we will have lived in Western Europe 3 years, 2 months, and 3 days. For the next 6 months we will live in America and return to Western Europe in January, 2010. So in this, our last newsletter before leaving, I thought I would give you a snapshot of our time here.

In our 3 years here no new churches have been started as a result of our work. In fact, no one that we know of has come to faith as a result of our work. Some, especially those from a western culture and mindset might view these results as a failure, or a poor investment of time and resources. We, those of us from the West, tend to be focused on numbers as an indicator of success. We gauge things like salary, number of kids, attendance numbers at church, and number of games won as things indicating success. It tends to be a very pragmatic way of looking at things. It makes sense to look at numbers. If you’re on a football team and you win 3 games and lose 13 you’re not very successful, or so it would seem.

Fortunately, God is not as pragmatic as we are. He sees things a little differently. And He’s given me the strength to look at our time here through a different set of lenses. While I’ve not planted a church, or directly led someone to Christ, I’m closer in my walk with my Savior than I ever have been before. My marriage is stronger than it ever has been before. And my children, understand God’s redemptive plan and life in a different culture. I’ve grown in patience, have developed an entrepreneurial spirit, and have gained a true understanding of what a missional-incarnational life looks like.

I don’t list these things as a way to boast. I boast in nothing but the cross of Christ and Him saving me. I list these things to simply point out that God has a way of getting us to a place in our life where He wants us. It may not “look” successful to others, but I don’t think God is terribly interested in “looking” successful. He is most interested in His glory and our joy. I can leave Western Europe on July 21 joyful, knowing that I have done everything I can, under God’s strength, to glorify Him.

The Christian subculture, which is now distinct from the prevailing culture of the West, is a hindrance to the rapid propagation of the gospel. In the United States, we have equated discipleship with teaching our families to read James Dobson in order to raise their kids, listen to Dave Ramsey in order to balance their checkbook, listen to Third Day for their musical enjoyment, and read Tim LaHaye for their literary enjoyment. None of these are necessarily bad things, but we have effectively created this “Christian bubble” that makes it impossible to engage in the rapid propagation of the gospel. Discipleship has been redefined by many Christians as acclimating converts to the Christian subculture. Moreover, one can be fully immersed in the American Christian subculture and have no connection to God whatsoever.

The Potential for Church Planting Movements in the Western World. By Ed Stetzer and David Garrison

My thinking has led me to want to write a couple of posts about the church, but I’ve held off for a couple of reasons. One, my friend Ernest Goodman has been writing a series of articles on the Counterintuitive Church and I wanted to make sure the direction I was going wasn’t going to duplicate or repeat things he had already written. By the way, if you haven’t taken the time to read Ernest’s series I would recommend you take the time to do it. And two, there were things I wanted to write about without being critical. I think there is a difference between offering a critique and being critical. I didn’t want to be the later. I just finished ReJesus, by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, and a quote in the last chapter prompted me to go ahead with my plan for a very short series of posts (2 or 3) on the church. Here’s the quote:

But the point is that somehow these people, most of them ministers, failed to recognize that Jesus was regularly and scathingly critical of the religious leaders of his faith community. Futhermore, Jesus’ seven messages to the seven churches in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:1-3:22) contain plenty of harshly critical comment directed at the church! To claim it is un-Christlike to criticize the church is to disregard the example of Jesus (185).

My first critique is that the church today is bi-polar. It doesn’t understand it’s purpose. It has no sense of direction. It doesn’t know who it’s intended for. One reason the church is bi-polar today is the overuse of the word missional. Church leaders use the word without understanding what it truly means. They use the word as though it’s another program, like the Men’s Ministry, Upwards sports, and the monthly ladies dinner. It boggles my mind that churches have gone to the point where missional is now listed on church websites as a quality. All the while the vast majority of these churches would never think it feasible to release their church members out into the community (on a Sunday) to impact the Kingdom. The same leadership that promotes their church as missional also begs that it’s members invite, invite, invite friends and family members to the next big series.

So which is it? Are you still blatantly attractional with your program driven church experience, pretending to be missional, or are you missional in your mindset but don’t know how to translate it to vision and action?

And maybe the bigger question should be: do church leaders today know who makes up the church and what it’s intended to be? And so that you don’t miss where I stand on the issue let me flesh it out. I firmly believe that the church is intended to be a collection of believers (both local and universal), and that the members of the church have been uniquely gifted for the encouragement, discipleship, and admonishment of it’s fellow members. I also believe that the church is the vehicle by which God will save his elect. The church is the body of Christ, his bride. This does not mean, however, that the Sunday church experience should not be welcoming to the not-yet-Christian.

In my second post I’ll explore more deeply the Sunday church experience and why many churches have gotten it wrong.

Communities of Grace

Here are his mini-movements:

• Neo-Anabaptists
• Neo-Calvinists
• Neo-Missiologists
• Neo-Clapham’s
• Digital Pentecostals
• Neo-Liberals
• Blenders

I find myself spread across the neo-calvinists, neo-missiologists, and blenders (to an extent). You can find his definitions and the entire article here.

Yesterday I was reading about how easy it has become, how innate it is, for us to co-opt God to our own egos and agendas (88). An example was given by Michael about a man he had several conversations with at a conference. This man was a believer. As part of the activities at the conference Michael had asked the participants to go through the process of re-Jesusing Jesus (yes I made that word up). This man that Michael was working with presented Jesus as this cuddly, fatherly type that is all-gentle, all-kind, and all-forgiving. After Michael talked with the man a little more he realized that because of the home this man grew up in (a cold, distant, unpleasable father) that he needed a Jesus like he described to deliver him from his past.

And while there is nothing wrong with this type of Jesus it doesn’t paint the whole picture. It’s not a complete portrait of the man we (I) follow. Hirsch and Frost then posed a question I can’t get out of my head:

Can you see how our understanding of Jesus can be so easily shaped by our own psychospiritual needs? Show me your Jesus, and I’ll tell you who you are.

One of the things that I’m seeking to find out this week is what portrait I’ve painted of Jesus. Who have I made him into, that while it may be partly accurate, isn’t the whole picture? It’s time I re-Jesus Jesus.