platforms

Most countries in the world today no longer (if they ever had) have a missionary visa.  The few countries that have such a visa do not fully understand the role and function of a missionary.  Visa issues aside, many people at the street level do not understand the missionary category either.  When I was preparing to go, many people would ask me what I was going to do.  When I used the M word, they either had no clue what I was talking about or they would give me one of those "why don't you just leave those poor people alone and not try to change their culture" looks.  I started using the word sociologist.  When I would say that, people would look at me with a look of understanding and recognition.  They would ask me "what people are you studying?" "where will you be living?" "What language will you learn?"  This was a category they understood.  Bypassing the social misunderstanding is simply a matter of linguistics.  Bypassing foreign governments is another issue.  To do the latter many people have used "creative access platforms."  This allows them to use a category that the government understands and accepts.  Many come in as teachers, business people, students, agricultural experts and a host of other real jobs.

Here are some of the issues that are important to understand regarding platforms.
1. Will it get me into the country?
This is the primary question most people ask.  Many people stop and don't ask any further questions.  With most countries it is relatively easy to gain access.  If all else fails, teach English.  You can get a visa into the toughest countries in the world if you have credentials to teach English and have a job at a language institute or university.  While access to the country is important, it is not the only consideration.  Many people who have not fully developed a platform or who have a poorly conceived platform will be faced with the next question:

2. Will it connect me to people?
If you take a job working in the oilfield where you will be either on a platform or in a compound, then you have successfully made it into the country but you are still not going to connect with many people outside of the company.  Conversely, the right platform can be a huge benefit in building connections.  I have a friend here who came in working for a company.  I had been here three months and he and been here one week.  Because he had worked at the company for a long time from the states, he knew many of the people over here.  In fact, in his short time, he knew more people than I did and in deeper ways.  Granted, he knew them before he came whereas I am starting cold.  However, he gained access to a large network on day one.

3. How will it connect me to people?
This is where my personal platform gets me into trouble.  I work as a photographer; I have the equipment to prove it--i'm legit.  The problem is that there are many tourist locations in my country.  Walking around with a big camera makes you look like an easy mark.  It isn't a real problem, but obviously the sight of a camera does change things so I have to be selective and careful.  Definitely consider not just that your platform will put you into contact with people, but how it will put you in contact with people.

Theological Credentials vs. Practical Credentials.

Having spent many years in preparation prior to leaving I followed the path that appeared the most obvious and followed at the time: seminary.  In fact, I not only went to seminary, but I started in Bible College.  In hindsight I would have changed one of my degrees to be in something rather than theology, something of tangible good to a lost world.  There are many easy ways of diversifying degrees.  Pick a business, agg, medical, etc, undergrad and do the seminary work you agency requires.  The other option is to do a theological undergrad (if you must...) and diversify with your masters.  A Masters of TESOL will let you teach at an actual university in stead of a day-institute teaching children.  An MBA will get you a job helping local businesses.  

If you are currently looking at your options before going my advice is to forgo formal theological training (key word: formal) unless you specifically need it.  It may have been an asset in the days of colonialism but today, in most places, it is a liability rather than an asset.  Get an undergrad with a double major--business and anthropology--and then go and get a MA TESOL (a 14 hr degree many places.).

Defective Platforms
Not doing what you claim you are doing.  Many people object to platforms on the basis that they are dishonest.  They are only dishonest if you do not do what you claim to be doing.  Do what you say you are there to do.

Using your platform as a bait-and-switch.  If you want to bait-and-switch, go work for Amway.  I recently heard about a group working with a minority indigenous ethnic group in a large city.  One of their team members found a location where their people grouped up and hung out.  This worker recommended that they host a free esl class.  Their supervisor decided that they should go down there and teach Bible stories in English as the class--If they didn't like it, then "too bad, cause its free."  While this statement is wrong on so many levels, this is such a lost opportunity.  Teach a real class, make it better than anything in the city, and make it free!  This is the popularity of the internet.  You want to start a movement, make it interesting and make it free.

Picking the wrong platform is not the end of the world, but picking the right one can certainly be productive.

innovation and wonder

As the innovation of the past has become standardized, we have all but lost our sense of wonder. As the church has become standard, have we lost our sense of mission?

Innovation and Wonder from Rastis on Vimeo.

strategery

Here is a video I made of a popular post from a while back.  Enjoy.

Strategery from Rastis on Vimeo.

priorities

I have written much in criticism of big church spending.  Jerry Rankin has an awesome post on his blog.  Here is a quote:

What our convoluted priorities are practically saying is, “It is better to let the lost multitudes never hear the gospel and go to hell, than change the way our denomination functions.” It is too bad that we have a system in which only two percent of our resources are given to reach a lost world that Jesus died to save. It is unfortunate our denomination can channel only 17 percent of Cooperative Program allocations to international missions because we have to sustain everything else we are doing. We can’t expect to cease a valid ministry, compromise programs that serve ourselves and our own churches in order to provide resources to get the gospel to those who have never heard! That, in essence, is what is being communicated.

christian mugging (aka bait-and-switch: the struggle for relevance {aka the dangers of an evangelism program at your church})

Many people feel {or come across to others} just like the person in the video whenever they invite someone to church--not to mention share their faith.  The focus of this post is on the evangelism side of the issue.  Perhaps at a later point I will do something on extracted Christian living, if there is such a thing.

I was recently reminded just how hard/scary evangelism can be.  I was at a large mall in the D.C. area to do some intentional evangelism.  I was not the team leader; but was bringing a group with me to work with a group that regularly evangelized at this mall [they used EE].  Although I have taken many seminary classes in evangelism and missions, gone on numerous mission trips, shared the gospel with many many people from all walks of life and religions, and have even done those "crazy" and "radical" things like open air street preaching, the hardest part for me is walking up to a complete stranger and starting a conversation [particularly one wherein I will either be asking them about heaven and hell within 30 seconds, or announcing some completely ridiculous reason as a pretext for our "random" conversation].  Once I am in the conversation and we are deep in discussion, I am high as a kite.  But after all these years and all these hours of training and experience that initial fear remains.  Fortunately, I was working with a partner who was at ease overcoming the awkward [albeit through the interjection of his own special awkwardness-more about this in another post] introductory moment.  So I piggy backed with him and had a great time.  I was able to talk with several postmodern Muslims from Pakistan and Somalia and a postmodern Catholic from Bolivia.  We made some good progress in their understanding of the gospel, so the night was a success in those terms.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting a stellar missional, cultural thinker, Derek Webster{he is linked in my blog list-go check it out}.  I listened to him for a day, picked his brain on a number of occasions, and have thought about it all ever since.  He discussed the postmodern culture of Europe.  One problem he notes in evangelism, a problem to which the postmodern mind reacts and rejects, is the bait-and-switch.  This tactic exhibits itself in people who build relationship which are artificial in their nature and are instantly turned for proselytizing.  The moment someone doesn't convert, then the relationship is over.  I remember going out with the seminary evangelism team to the hood.  My partner went up to a group of thugs and started with some kind of "you have a Jesus shaped hole in your heart."  As part of his pitch, he promised them that he wasn't like other Christians who were there just to win people and then would leave.  The sad truth is it was his first and last trip to any hood, much less that one.  He ran it, shot off, and ran out.  He fulfilled his duty; he has a war story; he is finished.  Those people are no closer to the gospel as a result of his drive by shooting.  I am sure that there are many stories like this where people go back to their home church and talk about how resistant folks are to the gospel, when in reality they just don't like suburban Christians who are too clean to actually live in this world. The other kind of bait-and-switch is the cheesy segue and shameless analogy.  Are you really doing surveys as you knock on doors?  Is the blood of Jesus really like paint?  I think you get the point....  Someone who is dead in sin and hardened philosophically to the gospel is not going to be won by some quick shot across the bow.  The key to them understanding the gospel is not to be found in some pathetic analogy wherein you take whatever {and I do mean WHATEVER} they just said and bending it back around to whatever it was your were going to say anyway.

After chewing on Websters insights for a few days, I jotted down the following statement {probably during one of the boring sessions}

Evangelism exists because missional living does not.  That is to say, Evangelism--as a system or pitch--exists because missional living--living the daily life of a follower of Jesus--does not exist.  Since missional living does not exist, we live with the reality of vast lostness living in close proximity to the church.  The result is that there is now a need for those who are on a church campus to go off campus to proclaim what they believe.  They must proclaim since they are not living it out visibly before the world.  There is a disconnect between their life and their message.  This makes the message appear as a shameless ploy to try to fix the shortcoming of not living out the faith in and before the world. 

To put all this another way, it is necessary for us to evangelize because we are not truly living in the world in a way in which we can, from the ethos of our lives, genuinely tell them the gospel with any real conviction.  It is easier to "mug" them, and then blame them for the hardness of their hearts.  Perhaps some introspection would do us some good here?  God did not divorce his message from his messenger.  He put the gospel, and divinity itself, into terms that we could understand: the person of Jesus.  Jesus lived among us and put the gospel into a context.  To be honest, the people who address their distance with the world through active evangelism are the minority.  The majority try to close this gap through the voting box!

Here is a short list of the dangers of evangelism {evangelism that is divorced from contextual involvement in the world}:

• we start checking boxes {if we are even willing to check that box}

Evangelism becomes something of legalism.  It is merely an action which we perform.  It becomes a passionless sales pitch.  It doesn't matter if it is coherent or relevant to our hearer so long as we get through the pitch.

• we adopt a one size fits all mentality

Similar to the last one.  If we just HAVE to get through our acronym or survey or whatever, then there is never any need to think creatively about people as unique groups or as unique individuals.  Remember, the last thing in the world a Buddhist wants is eternal life....  Hindus and cultural Catholics are happy to "receive Jesus" though that means different things to both of those groups and it doesn't mean to either of them what we intended to say.  The gospel presentation of Peter in Acts 2 and Stephen is much different from Paul at the Areopagus.  Luke's presentation of the life of Jesus is vastly different from John's portrayal. 

• The gospel looses relevance {and we never blame ourselves}

Since the gospel is a placard and not a way of life {in this system} it comes off as headhunting.  Since the gospel is not given a face {ours} it will not be understood as it originally was {when it was Jesus' "face" on it} and the gospel will be viewed through the skewed lenses of postmodernism, Republican vs. Democrat, North vs south, black vs white, rich vs poor kind of dichotomies.   Do we really want to accept our portrayal by the media of who and what we are?  If you don't, then you better be willing to put a face and a life on the gospel {but count the cost, for you might loose your life!}  We present the gospel in such a trite scratch-and-sniff way, with no demonstration, that people are predisposed not to believe.  They appear to be "hardened."  {I am not trying to rub you reformed guys the wrong way, but I would rather work positively with God than for him to work in spite of me}  It is easier to pray for hardened peoples than to get involved in the messy, not to mention dangerous, business of living the gospel.

• we live extracted lives

More on this in a later post.

• the gospel has no natural context in our lives

The gospel turns into something that is merely believed and taught rather than something to believed and followed as well.  Thinking back to that guy in the hood {or any other lost person for that matter}, he had no means of connection with what my partner was saying.  My partner was only making a blitz through a part of town he knew nothing about.  The reason his presentation appeared to be artificial and empty is because it was.  There was no natural flow or context whatsoever.

• either we are in "evangelism mode" or "personal time mode"

There is a secularization of even our Christian life.  Either we are focused on presenting the gospel {by that I mean the acronym which we like best of have memorized} that we cannot really talk and listen to people, or we are in our normal mode where we walk about with an independent, segregated life with no real connection to people. 

• we develop relationships and conversations which are merely "bait-and-switch"

We only make friends to share the gospel.  When they don't appear to accept our trite representation of the truth, we leave them behind.  This has all the romantic appeal of someone who is looking for love only to be continually wooed by a series of one night stands.  When we bait-and-switch we are not really listening to the other person.  Typically I am with someone else when I share the gospel.  I am amazed and shocked by some of the things my partners will say.  It has no real relevance, correspondence, or or even contradiction to what the witnessee just said.  It is simply point 2.a.II of whatever method they are using.  They don't care if the other person is really saying or hearing and thus no real communication takes place.  The witnessee will raise a valid concern or question, and the person will say "well this is why..." and they will start right back wherever they were before they were interrupted.  Recently at the mall, my partner had cornered a man from Pakistan, Salmon.  When I arrived, Salmon was firmly and verbally resisting everything my partner was saying.  Finally Salmon tried to use an analogy to help my partner understand how obnoxious he was being.  He said "I like Lost.  And if I go around and only talk about Lost then everyone will be annoyed with me and won't want to hear anything about it."  To this my friend replied, "Well, lost has a lot of Christian ideas, just like C.S. Lewis' books..."  My friend was throwing out ideas and labels as thought Salmon would mystically be brought closer to cross by only hearing the word "Christian" adjective, verb, and noun forms enough times.  Needless to say, no real communication was taking place, and my friend was only putting a cheap face on the gospel.  {I will tell you how we resolved this situation in another post}

Before anyone gets up in arms and thinks I am saying that there should not be proclamation, you are wrong.  I am not saying this at all.  But there must at least be equal parts of proclamation and demonstration.  If we aren't living in the world, we have no right to speak to the world.  After all, Jesus was the one who set the model of living in the world and proclaiming the kingdom.  I am not recommending the removal of evangelism as a plan, per se, only the addition of living with intentionality in the world and loving its people the way God does.  We do need to face the facts.  Few people actually evangelize even with a method.  The problem is that they are scared and it feels weird to go talk to someone they don't know {perhaps the first step is to become involved in people's lives}.  And for the few who do evangelize, very few people listen with any real interest.  Part of this is that they are dead in sin.  But a large part of it is because in their mind there is no reason we should be talking to them.  We are complete strangers and we just walked over and are getting all in their business.  Even believers react to this methodology.  When I go out, I think it is very odd when someone just walks up to me.  I am more at ease when they are obviously there to tell me/sell me something because that always answers my first question: why?  But when someone walks across the mall straight to me and starts making small talk and asking me questions, my street smarts kick in and I am automatically suspicious, defensive, on guard.  As a result, I am not really listening as I am trying to discern their real motives.  Usually, I get to the "I need to go" long before they have time to get it all out.  Sound familiar?  If it doesn't maybe you have never been "befriended" by someone who, to your joy, invites you over for dinner only to find out that it is an Amway party...  Get the picture?

I am not advocating less proclamation, only more honest incarnation.

FBC Facebook vs. FBC Google wave

Comparing church models and operations to businesses and platforms appears to be in vogue these days.  I have been no exception; I have talked about the implications of Starbucks, Twitter, and Facebook.  If you are not interested in such comparisons, you should probably stop here.

The following comparison might not be worth making as Google wave is relatively new.  I go through phases of purging people on Facebook.  To be honest, many people are stalkers of Facebook.  Ok, so I went to camp with you once ten years ago.  But we didn't talk then, and we don't talk now.  You friended me on Facebook and I added you cause I am a chump.  We still don't talk on Facebook, so why are we Facebook friends?  This is kind of like a mega church where I see a lot of people with whom I have some kind of loose connect but don't really know more than a dozen or so beyond a superficial level.  So basically, on Facebook, people have e-shrines unto themselves, which their friends could check if they actually cared.  Oh, and there are all those meaningless causes we can sign up for which make us look like we actually know and care about the world but won't get our hands too dirty.  The problem with Facebook, as it relates to church, is that it is simply a big gathering of friends but lacks any direction and mobility in the real world.  Sounds like many churches I know.

Google wave, on the other hand, is a whole different animal.  Organic, collaborative, and participative are three words I would use to describe it.  If you don't have anything to do in the real world, wave is boring.  Try the mega church of FBC Facebook if you just want to lurk.  However, if you have friends, with whom you actually have real connections and need a place to plan and collaborate about how to operate in the real world, then FBC Google wave might be what you are looking for.  You can add people to conversations and edit, text, message, chat, etc in real time!  It is completely free flowing.  There is no one there to control {dominate} the flow of information and communication.  It is open source so that people may freely modify interaction.  It is as if Facebook is suffering from the curse of the sound system.

The main difference between Facebook and Google Wave have to with mission.  One is simply a happy fellowship.  The other only works if it is used by people who are going somewhere.  I tend to get bored fast at the "country club" churches.  There is nothing to do.  If I simply needed something to fill my time every week, I could find a more entertaining group with whom to associate.  I am interested in churches and groups who are "on the go" because we share something in common: the body of Christ is bigger than the individual.

kingdom building

Check out these two photo series by Travis Schaeffer. I don't know what he is trying to accomplish. The first link is a series of 11 Mega Churches and the second is 41 Wal-Marts. I love the quote he has on the first one: "

The result is a wash: rather than making America more Christian, the mega churches have simply succeeded in making Christianity more American"

When you look at the photos from the air there are many similarities. The differences, so far as I can tell, are as follows:

1. Wal-Mart is a business.

2. The churches appear to try to do something with symmetry and shape. Wal-Marts are square and the churches deviated more.

3. Churches also have larger parking lots.

4. Then again, the churches have to put all their "customers" in there on one day in a few hours. Wal-Mart has people there every day of the week.

From the pictures it appears that church facilities are a lot of wasted space in the city in that they cover huge tracts of land and are only used a few times a week by a special set of people. Why do we always build our own things and start our own programs? We would be better served--not to mention that we would better serve the community--if we simply used what space was available and used existing programs. Imagine the impact that thousands of dedicated Christians could make if they started invading YMCAs, inner city community centers, and soup kitchens rather than expecting people to come to a facility out in the suburbs one or two days a week to have their needs met. How many of the parents who actually need a parenting class come to the church for it? We would reach more by infiltrating existing structures which are neutral in their orientation.

Our gross appropriation of land use is necessitated by our addiction to cars. My town would be well served to have a metro. We spend gazillions a year trying to build roads fast enough (and they don't build roads fast enough!) and expanding the footprint of the city, thus making driving more and more a necessity, and it seems that the job is never finished. My town typically makes it to the top few spots every year on being the most expensive town in which to operate a vehicle. The problem is that we have a massive, predominately poor, immigrant community which cannot afford vehicle ownership. This means that they all settle in the densely packed low rent district. This has a domino effect on schools, crime, and other public services. There are over 300 languages spoken in my town. When all of those people clump up together they no longer try to integrate and adopt the host language and culture. This is a problem which will soon spin out of control and have far reaching, devastating, effects. One answer is better transportation infrastructure. But that is just crazy talk....

While we are on the topic of mega churches, here are a couple of videos about some stuff going on in the DFW metroplex. This is a news story about Ed Young Jr. They are going after him hard.

Here is his response. IMO, his response is worse than the allegations.... He says he didn’t see the news piece, but he is commenting on everything in it. Does he have political advisors?

-they don’t own a plane, they lease it [@5:00 min]

-And his house isn’t 10,000 sqft it is only 7820sqft [@7:00 min]

That is so much better than before…

What Dallas needs is more mega churches..... (/sarcasm). The money that falls through the cracks at his church and FBC Dallas would be enough to support a small country.

And I am gonna quit before I get nasty.

Here are some posts on similar topics:

eccleastical greed: a lack of ethos in urban space

Priorities

Athens, Jerusalem, Wall Street and the Church

the tractor

A friend sent me this video.  There is a lot to unpack there, but explaining a parable kinda misses the point.  Enjoy.

language and context

This is for those who think contextualization is bad....

missional living vs. evangelism

I have yanked these videos from various missional blogs.  Most of my evangelism experience to date has been with atheists, post-moderns, agnostics, "cultists," neo-pagans, and adherents of far eastern religions.  For some time now I have been studying evangelism as it relates to the Arab Muslim worldview.  I am amazed how many parallels there are between how one should reach a postmodern and how one should reach a Muslim.  One of the biggest keys has to do with building genuine relationships and not just "mugging" them.  Here is a collection of videos relating to the topic.  Some are from other voices on how to do evangelism.  Some are videos from our own side which poke fun at how we do things.  Enjoy!

The post modern perspective:

Christians Trying to Convert Non-Christians from Rethink Mission on Vimeo.

From the Navajo perspective:


How we come across part 1:


How we come across part 2:


How we come across part 3:


Just for free:

where does it itch?

I recently read an account concerning an anthropologist interviewing some tribal leaders concerning their feelings towards the local missionaries.  Although the tribe valued tolerance, understanding and patience, the anthropologist coaxed them into politely revealing a mild critique.  They said, "the missionaries scratch where we do not itch."

Reading that made me recoil as I remembered my first sermon.  I had finished my first year of Bible college and was all hopped up on Schaeffer and worldview stuff.  It was some kind of drivel about existentialism.  Not that it is not an important topic or that Schaeffer was not a brilliant philosopher-evangelist.  It was a great sermon for a crowd of philosophically washed up college students who were ready to sacrifice truth for experience.  The problem is that I preached that sermon about 100 miles from Mount Airy, better known as "Mayberry."

I am in good company concerning this mistake.  This was a lesson learned the hard way in the animistic world.  Missionaries were interested in answering the typical questions about "where do we go when we die?" when the people were concerned with the reaction the ancestors and spirits would have if they turned to Christ.  Eventually missionaries learned that they were asking different questions.  As they answered the questions at hand, they began to see people commit to their message.

A common mistake people make in interfaith evangelism is to read a classic description of a religion.  They take the high version of the religion, build an apologetic against that, and try it on some hapless victim.  The problem is that few, if any, people practice the textbook definition of their religion.  Part of the problem is that there is more than on "text book".  Would someone assuming traditional catholic doctrine be able to build an effective presentation to witness to you?  How many branches of Christianity are there?  Take just one of those branches and then look for an adherent who is a textbook adherent.  Good luck.  Most people practice popularized forms and folk forms of their respective religions.  We need to listen long enough to understand who we are talking to.

Scratching where people itch requires sacrificing our prepackaged theologies, strategies, and CPM plans, in order to listen and build relationships.  I am amazed how patient Jesus was when he took time to answer the interruption concerning an inheritance and two brothers {Luke 12}.  Not only did he listen, but he shifted his teaching for the day.  We could learn something here.

bait and switch

I found this video over at missionary confidential

ours is a God of strategy

Over the past year, I have come in contact with a lot of missionaries.  To my surprise, many missionaries I have met are offended by the idea of strategy.  They hear some strategy coordinator talk about how they are going to reach people and why they are going to go about it the way he proposes, and these missionaries balk at the idea that God uses strategy.  In fact, some of them view "human" strategy as an affront to God's sovereignty!  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not really saying anything bad about these missionaries.  They are very spiritual and because of that they have the idea [this was more true of the newbies I met] that they are on a journey together with God and he will lead them step by step through divine appointments to the right people who will start a movement as the pages of Acts unfold anew.  I do not disagree with their understanding; I only do what I do because I believe that God is already at work in the world.  If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.  The difference between us is how we describe God's working and leading.  They view it to be spiritually (somewhat mystically) and I view it to be spiritual and strategic.  

Here is an example from a different group of the same problem--a lack of defining how God works.  We were talking in Sunday School one morning about how we were going to reach our community with Gospel.  One lady suggested that we should pray.  We all agreed and talked about it some.  Everyone seemed to be fine with this solution, and the discussion distracted them from discussing it further.  I called everyone's attention back to the task by asking "then what?"  The room went silent.  There is a popular understanding that we will pray and God will do the work.  We should pray.  God will do the work.  But how will he do the work?  No one denies that it is God who saves.  But when the praying is done--or as it continues--God wants us to do the work of spreading the gospel.  It does not happen via magic or osmoses.  It happens through various forms of proclamation.  

In the same way, God does lead us and guide a movement.  But God also uses methods and strategies to do so.  The person of peace is often misunderstood in mission circles.  These anti-strategy missionaries believe that this is a divine appointment and we can blunder about our day till we have a shazam moment when we find this person who is the magic key.  I am not against the concept of a person of peace.  If you are called to reach young urbanites in your city, however, would you try to find your person of peace by looking in a retirement community?  God is big enough to do anything, but that is like looking for water in the desert or jumping off a cliff in the belief that God is going to save you if it is not your time to go.  This is deterministic missiology.  In biblical terms this is called testing the lord your God.  As crazy as that scenario sounds I heard of a family who did just that.  They felt called to reach young families.  Served for several years with limited success.  After their first term they were discouraged and concluded that the people's hearts were just too hard.  Their problem was that their town was predominantly elderly.  It was a retirement town.  Had they gone to the local government office and looked at the demographics, they would have either moved in search of their people group, or changed who they wanted to reach.  While God can get blood from a turnip, He probably won't do it just to prove it to you, or just so you can prove it to your friend.  In order to show that Spirit-driven strategy is the friend and not the enemy, I want to take you on a brief foray into God's strategy.  

Life began in the fertile crescent.  This area is called the fertile crescent because it is the "land between the rivers" spoken of in Genesis which looks like a crescent; it is Eden.

It is also called this because it stands in contrast to the surrounding desert.  We rarely think of Israel as a land bridge since it is connected to land itself, but with the constraints of ancient travel and with Israel serving as the only watered piece of land connecting three continents, it was a land bridge in ancient times.  

If you are going to cross the land from one continent to another, you cannot cross the desert.  To get from Persia [Iran] to Egypt, you would have to follow the water up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers [Iraq] to Syria and then head south through Israel.  This was called the King's Highway.  So when God chose a people and gave them a land, he did not pick the house on the cul-de-sac in the quite neighborhood out in suburbia.  No, he gave them the only piece of arable land between the three continents of the known world.  Google maps of the Persian, Greek, Roman, and Ottoman empires.  Each of these empires occupied essentially the same piece of ground.  Do you think that this kind of thoroughfare is important in proclaiming the name of one true God?  Would you consider owning every port of entry into every country advantageous to the spread of the gospel?  Every airport, sea port and border crossing?  This is what they had in their time.  It was no coincidence that God gave his people the land of Canaan.  Below is a theological map of the ancient world.

This map is clearly not drawn to scale.  The arrangement of the continents reflects the ancient trinitarian symbol.  More importantly, however, is that Jerusalem is placed at the center of the world.  This map represents the common sentiment of that era.  Again, it is not an accident or a coincidence that God gave the land of Canaan to his people.  He placed them on the center stage.  He placed them there, that is, until he sent them into bondage.  Jeremiah 29: 4 says "Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent intoexile from Jerusalem to Babylon."  That's right, the dispersion of the Jews was not accidental.  One can obviously point to their sin and say that the purpose of the diaspora was punishment.  This is only partially true. I believe that the teleological [end purpose] explanation is missiological.  Little did the Jews know at the time, but their dispersion served to plant the gospel in the first century.  Look at Paul's strategy.  His first order of business when he reached any town was to go straight to the synagogue.  There is a smattering of verses throughout Acts [9:20, 13:5, 13:14, 14:1, 17:1, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18:18, 18:19, 19:8 ]; synagogue ministry was central to Paul's strategy so much so that Acts 17:2 says that it was his custom to go to the synagogue.  This strategy hastened the growth of the early church.  This explains why, in Thessalonica, when he was kicked out three weeks later that there was an established church.


In addition to targeting synagogues, Paul's strategy was inherently urban. Paul made a 27 city tour over the course of his three journeys.  

Paul had a two-pronged strategy.  Prong 1: Go to a new city.  Prong 2: Go to the religious people.  There were two kinds of religious people he spoke to.  The first group was the synagogue.  He would stay there till he was kicked out.  Then he would go to the people who worshiped money and sex.  His message was different for the two groups.  For the first he would begin with "our father Abraham" and for the latter he would begin in culture.  His urban strategy should not be taken lightly.  He went to towns which were on major trade routs.  They were major ports, seats of government, and religious and cultural centers.  Just to emphasize this point, look at the map below.  Corinth was a key city in the Greek world.  It had a major sea port; and it was on a land bridge connecting two larger territories.  In addition to connecting these two territories, Corinth connected the Saronic Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth [3 and 4 on the map].  This is important because in that day most seafaring was done via heavy boats with small sails which required lots of paddling.  If a captain wished to bring goods from one side of Greece to the other he could cut of days of time by crossing the narrow land bridge in Corinth.  There were small tracks which would carry boats over the land.  Apparently the Corinthians were on to something because there is now a canal which serves the same purpose.


The advent of Jesus was not exempt from strategy.  Galatians 4:4 says that Christ was sent to earth in the "fullness of time."  Jesus did not randomly show up.  He came at a time when the world was united by the Romans.  They were builders.  The roads they built connected the empire.  The Romans also brought unprecedented peace, safety, and stability.  Travel was possible and relatively safe for the first time.  Hellenism bequeathed a common language on the world. Within Palestine there was growing discontent with the Roman empire and renewed messianic hope.  All of these factors [and many more] were providential in the advent of Christ and the spread of the early church.  


The time has come in global missions to think and act strategically.  Most of the missionaries I know [98%] come from small towns in the South.  This influences where they want to go when they go overseas.  It also influences where seminarians want to pastor.  We tend to focus on rural work or suburban work.  That is the case in my town stateside.  The majority of churches are middle class, suburban, and white.  My town is one of the most diverse in the world and it is a tragedy to see believers huddling up where it is safe and clean.  We need to have the mind of God.  And the mind of God is a mind of strategy with a deep and steadfast love for people.

what if the church burnt down? a lesson in helping the community

I grew up for the most part in Houston.  As long as I can remember Mattress Mack has been a Houston icon.  He supports the community in numerous ways.  If you are unfamiliar with him, here is a good article.  It is easier to come up with a list of venues where he has not helped.

Earlier this year Mattress Mack's Gallery Furniture suffered millions in losses from a four-alarm fire which consumed most of his inventory. In spite of the great loss, he was able to keep the business running making deliveries on time.  Also in spite of the loss, he tried to donate over $300,000 worth of furniture and electronics to the firefighters and stations which helped put out the blaze {though it got tangled up in city laws...} In response to the fire, his customers have remained faithful.  Many have offered to donate time and money to help rebuild the store!  Some people have gone and bought furniture that they didn't need, just to help.

Here is the takeaway for us: if your church burnt down would the community come out in mass to help?  Would they even know?  Would they even care?  "Mack" has been a regular fixture in the Houston community for 28 years.  He has donated beds to Hurricane Ike victims, helped firefighters, policemen, students, 4H clubs, given scholarships... the list just goes on and on.  Again, it is easier to point out where he hasn't helped.  We could learn something from him. 

Extraction

I have finished the series on extraction.  You can click the links to read them in order.

Christian Mugging

A personal journey of feeling out of place

What Independent Baptists and Muslims have in Common

Closer to Home

The History of Revelation

Water Balloon Evangelism

water balloon evangelism

Sadly, I know people in real life who are like Mr shorty-shorts in the video.  Whats worse, is that many of us come across like this to the world without even knowing it.

This will probably be my last post in the extraction series.  I am tired of writing on it.  It only ticks me off to think about how out of touch we are with reality.  And, I am sure you are tired of reading about it.

I was walking through the parking lot on my way to get groceries and saw that there was a Starbucks inside Krogers.  My initial reaction was one of disgust, "what are they going to put them in next?!"  The more I think about it, it is clear that they have the right idea.  I personally am not big coffee drinker.  I have only been to a coffee shop one time.  If they are going to get me to try a cup of coffee, it is not going to be by making me drive out of my way, and going somewhere I would never naturally go.  They would have to put it in the normal pattern of my everyday life in order to get me to try it.  This is exactly what they have done.

I think part of the problem with most churches (and why they aren't growing) is because they are extracted from the normal patters of people's everyday lives.  Unless it is Christmas or Easter, or someone is getting married or dying, church just isn't the place where people go.  The people in church aren't the group of people with whom they normally associate.  People are interested in Jesus; they just aren't willing to go to church to find out about him. After 9-11, when you wanted to know more about Islam, did you go to mosque or read a book?  Most people read books rather than visited with Muslims face to face because we want the leisure or reading over the pressure of what we view to be an immanent hard sell.  Do you think our post/pre christian culture views us differently?

This is the problem which both the contemporary church--which is typically only a hip traditional church--and the traditional church have in common.  Both models expect people to "come and see."  The traditional church expects people to come because they operate under the cultural presupposition that it is Sunday and people will come to church.  The contemporary church expects people to come because they are so much cooler than traditional church.  To an unregenerate mind, neither is attractive.  The unregenerate would rather be elsewhere than church on Sunday, and if they are going to pick a place based on vibe, the church cannot compete with "vanity fair."

We need to model what Jesus modeled: Incarnation.  Evangelism is not so much of an event as it is a process.  We need to quit giving flip answers so we can move on to point 3 in our outline.  Rather, we need to take the long sell and model christian life and theology for them.  If we can't.won't do that, we need to just pack it up.

It is said that we shape the building and then the building shapes us.  I am not against buildings, but in spite of our affirmations to the contrary, when we think of church, too often, we are really thinking about buildings and programs.  The post/pre christian culture needs Jesus brought to them.  If we quit thinking buildings then we will no longer be limited by geography and environment.  Why don't we take Jesus to the pub?  The sports team?  The work place?  Our street? Because we do ministry at our church building...  we are probably too busy there to ever think about these other places.  After all, that would just put our work in competition with our home church, and we don't want to trump on their turf.

We need to be mindful of which kingdom we are supposed to be building.

like a sore thumb: the history of revelation

This has nothing to do with end times.  Rather, it concerns the history of God revealing himself to man and the missiological implications which we can draw today.  

There are several key passages {Heb 1:1-2, Rom 1:18-30, Jn 1:1, 14; 17:18, Matt 21:33-41} relating to the history of revelation.  What is the process, historically and chronologically wherein God revealed himself to man.  Jesus alludes to this process in the parable of the tenants in Matt 21.  A land lord lets out his property.  He sends various representatives, whom the tenants kill.  Finally he sends his Son, thinking that they will not kill him-they do. 

Adam and Eve walked with God and they certainly taught their children about this after the fall.  In the days of Noah, there was a brief point during which the entire world {Noah and his family} knew God.  Think about being Abram, a probable moon worshiper.  For our purposes here we are going to use Abram as an “everyman.”  What is true for Abram and what followed him is also true, in whole or in part, for every man today.  The revelation of God has gone through several phases: Nature, Law, Prophets, Jesus, Body of Christ. 

If you lived between Babel and Abram’s day you would probably be looking to nature.  Scripture is clear, that God reveals himself through nature:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.  Ps 19:1

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  Rom 1:19-20

What does man do with God's revelation?  He spurns it.  Romans goes on to say that man traded worshiping the creator with worshiping the creation.  This is true historically.  In the days of Noah, his family knew the one true God.  How did they trade the worship of the living God for Idolatry?  In spite of God declaring himself to them through nature, they misunderstood and twisted revelation.

God rectified this through choosing a people and calling them out through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Primarily he revealed himself through the law.  As if the tenants misunderstood their landlord (Matt 21), he sent them another person to explain his terms.  They killed him as well.

What did the Jews do with the law?  It didn't take long for them to break it.  In fact, they were busy making and worshiping an idol while God was revealing the law to Moses! 

The story which continues through the rest of the Old Testament, is one in which they are constantly breaking God's law.  Judges describes their continued cycle of breaking the law, God's judgment, oppression, repentance, and restoration.  Not having learned their lesson, they repeat this cycle over and over again. 

This leads to the next phase of revelation: the prophets.  Hebrews 1:1 reads that in many times and in many ways God spoke to man by the prophets.  The landlord from Matthew continued to send emissaries to reason with the tenants.  So God did with man.  He sent prophets who transmitted His messages to His people.  They called the people back to God and rebuked them from the law.  They demonstrated the ways in which they had forsaken God and broken his law.  One would think that man would eventually wake up and heed what God was saying to them.  Yet they persisted.  They punished, imprisoned, and even killed the prophets.  Rather than believing and turning to God in repentance, they continued in their ways.  Just like the man in Romans 1, they continued to reject what they knew was true till they were turned over to their own darkness.  Finally, God caused his people to be taken into captivity, the temple to be destroyed, and the land to be inhabited by another.  The land represented his blessing and providence and the temple represented his presence.  He had removed his blessing and presence from them.

But, in love, he did not leave them to their own devices.  He further revealed himself through his son.  The landlord sent his son to the tenants thinking that they would surely respect his son.  Hebrews 1:2 says that in these last days he has revealed himself though his Son who is the heir of all things.  Through these phases of revelation, the message has been clarified at each point.  In this phase God sent his revelation in the form of a person.  When God chose to reveal himself to man, he put a face on it.  He spoke our language.  He understood our culture.  John 1:1 says that in the beginning was the word.  The Greek word is logos.  This word has a broader usage in the Greek world than the way John used it (and John is bridging the gap between the common Greek understanding of logos and his theological understanding of logos).  Plato used this concept and called it "forms."  These forms were eternal and transcend the created order.  These forms consist of ideas such as justice, love, beauty, and truth.  Philosophers always assumed that the logos was eternal.  John said nothing new.  His next phrase was a little more controversial, "and the logos was with God."  Many philosophers had joined the idea of an eternal logos and an eternal divinity.  Augustine actually agreed with Plato (though he comes after the days of Jn 1:1...), to an extent, in that he also affirmed that justice, truth, and beauty were all eternal.  Augustine, however, believed that they were eternal and unchanging because they were in the mind of God and God is eternal and unchanging.  John's final statement was revolutionary, "and the logos was God."  This was something that the philosophers had never thought before.  Why are truth and love eternal and unchanging?  Because God is love and truth and he is eternal and unchanging.  But logos is still very much a philosophical principle at this point.  We are at the point in the history of revelation that God is ready to roll out the next clarification and he is sending the logos himself.  But God is spirit, and we, since we misunderstood nature, the law, and even the prophets who explained the law, it was necessary for God to reveal himself in a way that could not be misunderstood [aka not in some kind of ball of ethereal philosophical logosness.]. 

"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us." 

This is the principle of incarnation.  God revealed himself in a form which was 100% human.  Our senses had become dulled (we were turned over to a reprobate mind-Romans 1) and so he came in a way which we could understand.  He spoke the local language.  You could have heard him talk and known where he was from.  He taught in local forms.  He wore local clothes; you could have looked at what he was wearing and known where he was from.  He attended the local parties, participated in their cultural festivals.  He was in every way human.  More than that, he was in every way Jewish.  All of this should be instructive to us for our stance towards culture.  There were many areas of culture which Jesus assumed.  Many of these areas do not fit our local taboos and thus we gloss over them.  For instance, the church, primarily in the South, is highly political.  They seem to overlook that Jesus stepped into an extremely corrupt political environment and said precious little concerning it.  To my KJV only brethren, in Jesus' day, there were several texts available...  he did not pick which text was best, and sometimes he just paraphrased or told stories.  Jesus was comfortable with many aspects of culture in ways which would make us uncomfortable (at the same time, he prophetically rebuked certain aspects of culture). 

Back to the story... In the parable of the landlord of the vineyard, he decides that the way to convince the tenants of his intentions is to send his son.  What do they do?  What did the Jews do?  They disbelieved; they killed him.  There is one more phase of revelation: us.  When we look at revelation historically we should expect a similar reception. Jesus says this to his followers.  He tells them that the should rejoice in the face of suffering and persecution because their fathers before them were treated in kind (Matt 5:11-12).

The next step of the story is simply you.  How did God reveal himself ultimately to man?  He put a human (Jewish) face on it.  How does God want to reach the dying world?  Airdrop Bibles and tracts?  Nope.  He sends you.  John 17:18 says that as he has been sent by his father, that he sends his followers.  He repeats this again in 20:21 "as the father sent me, even so I am sending you."  Paul affirms this message.  He says that God is reconciling all things to himself through Christ {2 Cor 5:19}.  Furthermore, we are ambassadors and God is now making his appeal through us {5:20}.  In the same way in which God did not send the logos in the form of a spirit or philosophical concept to us but put it in flesh, so also today he does not send his message through some kind of impersonal syllogism, drive by evangelism, and spiritual "scratch and sniffs" {aka tracts.}.  He wants us to be incarnational {and for the purpose of this article, not extractional}.  We know this because Paul admonishes us to follow Christ in this regard {Phil 2:5-8}.  A lot of people get messed up over "God emptied" himself.  This is because they do not understand the incarnation.  This is not emptying in the sense of loosing part of himself.  Rather it is a pouring into.  He simply poured himself into a human form and modeled the incarnation.  So to, we are to pour ourselves out-not that we are not human-and into the form of a servant following their master all the way to the cross.

like a sore thumb: closer to home

So the examples from the last post were definitely soft targets.  It should be blatantly obvious to everyone just how out of touch these methods are.  So, lets get a little closer to home.

Exhibit A
It could be the First Baptist Church of anywhere.  It is a midsized church of around 600.  The church has been in a plateau for many years.  They recently hired some new staff to try to help the church grow.  Part of this plan included updating the music.  The low grade worship war, or rumble, had been decided in favor of modernizing.  After all, if they were to reach the boomers, they would need to have better music.  They have given their website a face-lift, and are even trying to connect on facebook and twitter.  They brought in a younger worship leader and Pastor.  They are using projectors and movie clips.  They don't talk about hell, tithing, lordship.  Instead, they talk about sex, finances, and other American dream feel good topics.  They can see that they have updated their church from its former days of traditionalism. The church appears to be growing so everyone is happy.  If they were to look behind the curtains, however, they would see that the growth was not from the church impacting lostness, rather they were receiving disgruntled people from other churches.  If they were to take an honest look, they would see that in spite of their new marketing strategies that they were essentially reaching the same people: people who are already inclined to come to church and who, typically, already share a cultural Christian worldview.  They trade missional living for church growth; the lost are still lost, but at least their church is bigger.  They have made the basic mistake that many churches make.  While they rightly critique the traditional church, they make the same basic error.  They say that the church of the 50's is stuck in the cultural presuppositions of the 50's, that people will come to church.  That is true.  It was assumed, especially in the south, that on Sunday everyone was in church.  The problem with many "contemporary" churches is that they make the same mistake.  They assume that if they are simply more modern or more entertaining that people who don't care about God will somehow fell compelled to show up.  I have never found a church that good.  The problem is even deeper than drawing the lost world.  The problem extends to trying to draw believers.  Churches don't realize the extracted christian sub culture which they espouse and how phony it feels to anyone, believer or not, living in the real world.  Just think about christian music.  Personally, I own and listen to secular music more than christian.  All of the knock off bands are just that, knock offs.  Don't even start me on christian movies....  But I digress.  The point remains, take away all technological trappings and the traditional and contemporary church are essentially the same in mindset: the world will "come and see".  "Go and tell" in these camps is equated with an invitation to church.

Exhibit B
Bob is a young man who recently became a Christian.  He comes from a lower income family in a rough neighborhood.  He decides to go to the closest church which happens to be First Baptist of Exhibit A.  Exhibit A church is across the highway in the nicer part of town, mostly upper middle class.  Bob is instructed that he should not attempt to win some of his friends till he has more knowledge and training.  He begins coming to Sunday School, morning worship, and the evening service on Sundays.  There is a Monday night football group with some of the guys from church.  Bob's friends, who are a little rougher than he is are never interested in coming to church, though he invites them to many events.  For some reason, guys who are sleeping around with many women don't think they have something to learn from a Pastor about sex.  They don't want to hang out on Mondays, because they were told there would be no alcohol there--it is a Baptist church after all.  Bob also goes to church on Wednesday nights, because that is small group Bible study, and Friday nights, because that is Singles group.  He picks up extra hours at work on Tuesday nights and on his only remaining night left, the night he and his friends used to hang out at the local bar, he just stays home since his new group of friends are advising him to make wiser choices with whom he associates.  He no longer has any real connection to anyone in his old world.  His life has been transformed, but all they see is that he is no longer there.  Bob is interested in getting married, but is meeting lots of resistance at church since most of the available women are wary about his rough past.  Some of them are just "too good" for him.  He can't choose a girl from his past since he is looking for something else now.  He finds him self to be rather lonely.  One of his church friends offers him a better job.  Bob takes it.  He is now removed from the final network from his past.  His old friends just thing he is self righteous and used religion to get out of the hood to a better life in the burbs.  He no longer talks like he used to, he no longer lives where he used to, and since he has a nicer job, he doesn't even dress like he used to.  He is a carbon copy of the middle class southern American Christian sub culture.

Can he go back and reach his buddies for Christ?  Could he just invite them to church?

do you have to be born into a christian home to hear about jesus?

Recently, in a very prominent article, Newsweek chronicled the decline of Christianity in America. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, was part of this discussion and had his own thoughts on the issue. From a completely different angle, Voddie Baucham has examined the rise of Islam in France and compares the birth rate between the native French and the immigrants from across the Muslim world. Voddie’s answer: Christians should have more kids. I believe that there is a connection between the shrinking western family and the decline of Christianity in the west. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the church is in decline any more or any less due to how much or how little we are evangelizing.  Said another way, the decline of Christianity has more to do with the shrinking size of the family than it does evangelism {and this is a travesty}. 
The logic goes like this:

1. Church’s methodology centers on evangelizing those already in the church. The majority of baptisms come from the children of those already attending the church and not from outside the church network.
2. couples are having fewer children than in yonder days
3. therefore our evangelism numbers our down and the church is in decline.

So I pose the question, does one have to be born into a Christian home to hear the gospel?

It appears to be the case. This is a multifaceted issue, especially the way I have linked the decline of the church, in part, to the decline of the family. Unlike Voddie, I am not prescribing that the answer to the rise of Islam or the decline of Christianity has anything to do with family size or family integrated church (FIC). I am not prescribing that we should stop evangelizing our children. I do think it is a shame, however, that it appears that unless you are born into a Christian family you are destined to hell. We certainly should evangelize our families {and perhaps even have more children. In the new “immigrant America” we appear anti-family to most other cultures, and, not to be vulgar, weak and unmanly—its true}.

I was talking with a friend about all of this the other day. He is part of an FIC church, and he suggested that this was the way that it ought to be. God designed the family to carry down the gospel. I agree that the family is an ideal form for passing on the covenant, new or old, from generation to generation. We are even instructed to do so. This was how the old covenant was passed down. The problem was that Israel forgot that family, though important, was not the end in itself. Israel was to be a “light to the nations” {Isa 49:6, 51:4}. The covenant was for them and their children. They were to faithfully past it down from generation to generation. But they forgot that they were to be a blessing to all peoples {Gen 26:4}. Again, I do not suggest that we remove this element, only that this method by itself is insufficient. It seems that churches intent on reaching their own and the whole FIC crowd have also forgotten this.

Extended families, in many cultures, are the fastest venue for transmitting the gospel. But the gospel must jump from clan A to clan B, and from B to C, and so forth. Right now, churches are only reaching the people who are already there or people who are inclined to come and seek. It is the exception, not the rule, to find people who were saved outside the context of the immediate family or church attendance. The average church, not to mention the FIC crowd, seems to take this description as a prescription. Since, they think, most people are getting saved at a young age, or as a result of family, then this is obviously how God intended it and we should schedule our resources accordingly. On the positive side, this means that our children are getting saved. On the down side, it appears that unless the lost are our children, they will probably never hear the gospel. As our country becomes less “Christian” and as our families become smaller, we will see Christianity shrink since we are only reaching our blood kin. Again, this is not the result of more or less evangelism. Rather it is because we have reduced strategy to family only and we happen to be having smaller families.

So I leave you with the question, how do we get our churches to remedy the travesty of only reaching those who are culturally Christian or are directly related to our membership? In your circle, are people outside of your genealogy hearing about Christ, or is it only your children?

All of that said: I am grateful I was born in a christian home; but we need to reach out to those who aren't.

like a sore thumb: what independent baptists and muslims have in common

The idea of extraction has only recently hit my radar screen although I have lived under the system for many years.  Here are two obvious examples of extraction.

Part of the problem with missions to north Africa and the Middle East is that the movement, historically at least, has never become indigenous.  It is always driven by and presented as an outsider, westerner, counter cultural, crusader-esque political movement.  Extraction in this context takes place in a number of ways, many of them are well intentioned.

• Sometimes this looks like a rescue operation.  Salim becomes a christian and undergoes persecution {more often because of our missteps than his own}.  Our responses: fully believing that the American dream is synonymous with the gospel, we reject the notion that this persecution is legitimate or can be used for the kingdom.  We just want it to stop.  We look for ways to bring him out of the country.  How does this look to the locals?  Christianity is a western religion.  Missionaries are the religious wing of the CIA.  The CIA topples your government and then the missionaries brainwash women, children, and other outcasts.  To become Christian is to become American/western.  To become Christian is to forsake family, tribe, nation, and heritage.  Just look at Salim.  He became a Christian with those white missionaries, and now he has left for America-traitor.  
• Sometimes extraction looks like prejudice.  Are Arab believers reaching the Muslim majority at home?  not typically.  Christians have been severely persecuted and discriminated against.  Proselytizing Muslims is a big no no, one that will get you imprisoned or worse.  So one day Ahmed becomes a believer.  What are his options?  There is the expat oilfield workers church.  This would be a certain death sentence.  Need plan B: the Arab believers church.  These are people who have "grown up" as Christians and come from a Christian background.  It is almost as much an political and ethnic grouping as it is a religious one.  Look at their state ID and it says "Christian."  This looks like a better plan to Ahmed.  He goes there, amid their cautious and skeptical glances.  What must he do?  He must take a christian name and get rid of his "Muslim" name.  He must shave his beard and maybe get the traditional cross tattoo on the inside of his wrist.  He can no longer wear any traditional Islamic clothes.  What do you think the reaction of Ahmed's father will be when he says "abuni, I am no longer a Muslim.  I am a Christian.  I have changed my name to Matthias."  His father will probably beat him, kick him out of the house, that is if he does not turn him over to the authorities for reeducation or to be placed in a mental hospital till his "illness" is over.  He is ostracized from family and friends {the family clan is the basis of every aspect of life in the Arab world: job, marriage, protection, everything.}  Because he is blacklisted, he looses his job.  His wife, who is not yet a believer, is careful not to tell her parents about Ahmed, ops, I mean Matthias' conversion lest they force a divorce and he loose his family.  The landlord has kicked him out of his flat.  Completely wasted and ruined, he goes back to the church.  What is their response?  They just might be willing to take him in and help for a while.  But as soon as the authorities catch wind of what has happened they will turn him out on his own.  They don't want any more persecution and certainly not on behalf of one who used to be a Muslim.  If he is jailed, they cannot/will not help.  What are his options?  One, Christian or Muslim will give him a real job or a place to live.  If he is single, none of the Christians will allow him to marry his daughter since his State ID will always say "Muslim" and their children will technically be Muslim too, even though they are really believers.  Should he leave the country?  What other option does he have?  He has successfully been extracted from culture, and family, and economics, and every other area of life since he was forced out of his family and natural network.  The saddest part of all is that the gospel will not flow back through his former circle of family and friends.  How would this situation have been different if he had continued to be a part of his culture?  What if He had kept his birth name and traditional dress?  What if he hadn't presented his new beliefs in such a caustic, disrespectful way to his father?  Persecution in these contexts is inevitable.  Had he not been extracted from his context the persecution may not have been as severe and might not have come till later.  But the main point is that if he had not been extracted, he would have been able to advance the gospel through his circle.  Extracted, he was merely a victim to himself, and a liability to everyone else.  {the truth of the matter, is that the Arab church is just as culturally and politically extracted as he was.  That is, they were not actually living in the normal context for their part of the world.}
  

So how on earth are independent baptists at all like that?

There is a church I grew up in that fits the following description:  They were KJV only.  The women wore long dresses, had long hair, and typically, no make up.  Female dress was, according to the pastor, to be "Lots, Loose, Long, and Ladylike." The men were expected to have short hair, no earrings or tattoos.  Beards were permissible; shorts were frowned upon.  There was no mixed swimming and even no youth group.  Tv was heavily discouraged and heavily preached against.  Dating was not allowed.  Secular music was condemned as was praise and worship and any other contemporary music.  Contemporary music for them was the Gaithers and Steve Green--yes they were just that far out of touch.  College was discouraged.  BJU was too liberal for most {yes I said liberal!} and PCC was even to liberal for some.  When I went to SEBTS, many in the church broke fellowship with me {cause we all know how liberal Paige Patterson is...}.  All of this was done in the name of "holiness."  Their view was that everything in the world was evil intrinsically.  There were not any elements of culture which were neutral.  Church was viewed as the safe place, safe from all the evils and contaminants of the world.  There essentially wasn't any outreach into the community.  Some people, of their own initiative, actually did share the gospel.  But for too many of them, sharing the gospel was translated into some kind of denouncement of the evil of culture through the explanation of our "high standards" to some poor lost person who was at the wrong place at the wrong time.  There was a testimony hour where people could share what God was doing in their lives or share a witnessing story, etc.  Here are some of the examples {there are many stories which were genuine, these are just some which illustrate their extracted point of view}:    

• One lady talked about an encounter with a young woman in wall-mart.  Allegedly, this young lady wasn't properly dressed {remember proper for these folks meant no holes in the elbows or knees...}.  The woman took great joy in telling us how she explained modesty to this young lady.  This was her taking a stand for "truth."  
• More stories than I can count about political discussions, elections, candidates, etc, being proclaimed as "truth."
• There were many a successful "stand for Christ" when objectionable music was played at a restaurant.  The suffering saint would walk up to the manager to lodge a complaint about the music.  The manager would turn the music off.  Evil has now been averted...
• On one occasion, one of my neighbors, a teenage girl who was lost, actually came with us.  Her skirt was a little to short {we all know how defrauding knees can be}.  You would have thought she carried a plague.  Everyone avoided her; no one spoke to her.  She was LOST!  But that was just too bad for her.  

Ministry in this church centered around providing a safe place for like minded families to fellowship.  They were more than happy for outsiders to come, so long as they would clean up enough first.  The preaching centered around 5 or so topics {KJV only, No TV, Music, Modesty, Faith from Heb 11}.  These were on a continual loop with only a rare deviation to discuss discipline or divorce or creation or something like that.  All of these sermons were topical in nature, and, if you haven't guessed, proof-texted with scripture taken grossly out of context   Needless to say, whenever we went to evangelize those poor sinners out there, we were viewed with much suspicion and the Kingdom was rarely served. 

These two examples are very obvious.  No one reading this is thinking "yes, that is the way it ought to be!"  But in the next post, I will bring this closer to home and try to add some definition to extraction.

In the mean time, koolaid anyone?