Pages

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Spreading the gospel in post-modernist society

A few nights ago at Laidlaw College Christchurch I heard the second of two lectures by Ian Proven, a teacher at Regent College, Vancouver who visited our city for a few days. In the course of that lecture Ian said something which I have been pondering. In my own words, this is what I have been thinking about:

In a world which is very sceptical about truth claims, which places no value on claims to uniqueness for a large truth claim (compared to plenty of value on other forms of uniqueness such as one's own individuality), for the gospel to be heard as a true story it needs to be able to connect to the story our culture is telling itself about what the meaning of life is. If we wish the gospel to regain the ground lost with the demise of Christendom, how Christians tell the story of the gospel needs to do more than tick the boxes of Christians who hear it. The gospel needs to be told in a manner which is able to be received by a world which neither knows the gospel nor is able to receive as truth the gospel as Christians often tell it. Thus Christians need to understand culture and society around us better and relate the gospel to it accordingly.

In a sense there is nothing new missiologically here: 'when taking the gospel to another culture communicate it in the language of that culture' is a well-established principle. I guess I am reflecting not on the novelty of what Ian Provan said, but on the implication that we Western Christians may be settling to easily for a form of survival as a faith in a pluralist, post-modernist world. Are our ambitions too small? Are we prepared to rethink what the gospel of Jesus Christ is in terms which communicate truthfully and truly to a world which is not the world, say, we grew up in during our formative years?

That in part is what I am trying to get at in my post below re women bishops. To a world without the gospel, how does the gospel make sense? Is it believable if it comes as a package with social and ethical conditions attached which are nonsense to the world trying to make sense of the gospel? Clearly some are going to put their hands up and say 'Yes, it does. Look at how my congregation is growing.' Around our post-modernist world we see varieties of expressions of being the church associated with growth: Roman Catholic churches, conservative Anglican churches, Eastern Orthodox churches, Fresh Expressions, and so on. Perhaps we should be satisfied with these stories of growth, such as it is? In a country such as my own, however, all too often these stories of growing congregations either represent transfers of Christians (so no gospel growth of significant numbers of new Christians) or statistically speaking a handful of new Christians. In broad terms, the number of Christians actively expressing their faith through church attendance is at best a static small proportion (I suggest around 10%, maybe 20% if we allow for irregular attendance) of the overall population. What I heard Ian Provan challenging us to think about, is whether we could have greater gospel impact through better attention to relationship between how we tell the gospel and how the whole population of non-Christians makes sense of any truth claim in this day which is derisive of any claim to tell truth applicable to the whole world.

These are tough questions to raise. Not least because the very raising of them may be inferred by some as criticism of past and present gospel work. That is not why they are raised here. They are raised here because looking at the future of our world - for example through the percipient eyes of a scholar such as Ian Provan - the gospel may be in for a rougher ride than we have ever thought possible. Not the rough ride of persecution, but the rough ride of dismissal, avoidance, and deafness. So I raise these questions hesitantly, but also raise them insistently because I am confident that none reading here wishes to be complacent about the course of the gospel in the twenty-first century and all want to find a way, if possible, to reach many more people for Christ than we are currently doing.

Incidentally, in the RCL readings for tomorrow, the Parable of the Sower is the gospel reading (Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23), and one of Paul's great explanations of the gospel is the epistle (Romans 8:1-11). As I prepare to speak on (mainly) Romans 8:1-11, I am struck by the language Paul uses which presumably made excellent sense to his readers 2000 years ago, and require careful unpacking and explanation by the preacher to make sense to hearers today.

13 comments:

  1. How do religious movements survive and flourish in hostile environments?
    Historically, by having more children and bringing them up in that faith. Which means:
    1. be pro-natalist - something not likely in aging NZ, where abortion is widespreaad;
    2. establish good Christian schools for all (not for the wealthy, as Anglicans too often have done) - and make sure they really are Christian schools that teach and pray the faith, not faith-lite finishing schools for the upper middle classes turning out cultured skeptics;
    3. have vibrant Christian youth work in churches (and pay to make this happen);
    4. resolutely teach a simple but strong daily devotional life (something that Roman Catholics used to be good at);
    5. take on the challenge of apologetics in the face of the idols of our age - learn from people like Ravi Zacharias and other latter-ay C. S. Lewises the intellectual and moral integrity of the historic Christian faith;
    6. give up the bizarre belief that mainstreaming non-Christian sexual ethics will somehow convert the world. It won't the traffic runs the other way;
    7. don't follow advice (or money) from aging North American churches in terminal decline.

    "Palaiologos"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only two comments so far on the critical question of the survival of the church in the post-Christian west?

    Where have all the pundits gone? Have they NO ideas or energy for evangelism at all, just for burning questions like the propriety of grape juice in communion?
    "Palaiologos"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another "drive-by shooting" from Peter the Greek. I thought ad hominems were not going to pass moderation. Why would anyone with a different viewpoint comment if this is the mocking tone of the discussion? Tiresome in the extreme!

    Alison

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Peter

    Alison is right. Your last comment has an ad hominem edge. It only just passed moderation.

    People are entitled to comment on details of Christian life without being required to comment on the big picture issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not guilty, Peter. I didn't mention anyone by name or impugn anyone's character - which is the meaning of 'ad hominem' in my textbook of logic. I simply made the point that an intra-church debate of *no interest* to the vast majority that never attend church consumed a lot of attention, while the crucial question of evangelism is ignored.
    If Alison has ideas for and good experience of evangelism in a post-Christian culture, I would be very glad to hear them.
    I outlined my ideas above. What do you think, Alison?
    "Palaiologos"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe that linked text clicks through for you - it doesn't for me.

    So in case it is blogger changing the HTML tags (as it seems to me) - here, once again, is the link:

    http://tinyurl.com/helping-peter-the-Greek

    (you may have to copy and paste in your browser if blogger doesn't make it clickable)

    Alison

    ReplyDelete
  7. That is better, Alison.

    I think Blogger may have changed things, as I was able to open the link when your comment arrived as an email and I clicked it from that before clicking to "publish" the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am grateful for the many helpful comments here, and the thoughtful interaction with my first post, on how the Gospel can be communicated in a post-Christian society. This is a very encouraging sign that readers have their Kingdom priorites right.

    "Palaiologos"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, Peter, we have cleared up a few details of the character of our engagement, but we haven't really engaged with your first post.

    Here is a serious challenge, which partly reveals some biases on my part. The bias is against lists. The challenge is this: out of seven steps you list, what would be your top three?

    ReplyDelete
  10. My top three IS the top three. (I try to keep the main thing the main thing.)
    The future belongs to those who turn up for it. If you don't have (and retain) your own children, you have to acquire someone else's children - and that isn't easy or popular. If you don't teach Christianity, they will be taught something else.
    After that, love-soaked, prayer-impregnated apologetics.
    "Palaiologos"

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think my top three would be 3, 4, 5! (I wish we could do something about 2; and have a system akin to the Romans here, but I think that cannot now happen).

    ReplyDelete