• Cultural Gravity (Part 2)

    August 5, 2009

    In my last post, I tried to unpack a basic understanding of what I was calling cultural gravity and said that I wanted to offer a few thoughts on what this has to do with missional churches.

    In general my thoughts flow from the main idea that missional churches are those whose basic ecclesiology and structure are predicated on the reality of cultural gravity.  To say it another way, given the post-Christendom framework of missional churches, they tend to think of “Christianity” & “church” not as a part of culture, but rather as an alternative culture. This being the case, missional churches…

    1. emphasize spiritual formation.    Sin is never the result of simple and immediate decisions – it grows out of the experiences, paradigms, and structures that make up the worlds we live in.  The cosmic significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection notwithstanding, sin is most powerfully overcome not by making individual decisions, but in faithful devotion to the way of Jesus – the entrance into a new world of cultural gravity.

    2. are inherently incarnational. There are those who would maintain that the church should be both attractional and missional.  If they are really astute they attempt to correlate this to the biblical notions of centripetal mission (the world being attracted to the people of God) and centrifugal mission (the people of God going forth in the world embodying and proclaiming the gospel) – thereby causing all those who deeply care about the true nature of missional ecclesiology to cringe, tear there clothes, and gnash their teeth for 2 reasons.

    A) Attractional churches are not practicing centripetal mission.  Mimicking culture and slapping a Christian label on it, pandering to the wants and whims of a chosen demographic, making people as comfortable as possible so that they can “hear and respond to the gospel,” etc. are not examples of centripetal  mission, but they are nearly universal practices of those who seek to defend attractional approaches to ecclesiology and mission.

    The centripetal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with God so blessing his people for their covenant faithfulness that others take note and want to participate.

    B) Being missional is not a counterpart to being attractional.  It’s not a tactic.  We don’t seek to be attractional to effectively reach one segment of the population and missional to reach another.  To be missional is much deeper, more inclusive, and theologically holistic than this pop understanding.

    The centrifugal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with the people of God seeking to love and bless the world around them – to bring light where there in darkness, healing where there is brokenness, and peace where there is discord.

    Centripetal and centrifugal mission are not two things to be held together in a both/and sort of way.  They are two effects of a sole commitment to being incarnationally faithful to participating in the Missio Dei.

    What has all this to do with cultural gravity?  Missional churches seek to embody a cultural gravity predicated on a biblical vision of God’s Kingdom that emanates out as it transforms peoples lives.

    3. have an affinity for multi-culturalism.  Having an understanding of and appreciation for cultural gravity is not threatening to missional churches, but embraced as an opportunity for growth and even conversion.  Missional churches find mono-culturalism unfortunate, limiting, and generally boring.  They will seek to be as cross-cultural as possible given their context and will do what they can to facilitate cross-cultural experiences as a vital aspect of spiritual formation.

    Just a few thoughts on the matter.  More than open for additions, clarifications, or push-back.

    Related Posts with Thumbnails
    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in: christendom, church, culture, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theology

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Recent Comments

  • Stewart said...

    1

    JR,
    In the light of a previous comments I posted on your blog, please know that I’m not being sarcastic. :)    Seriously!

    Push back: “Sin …. grows out of of the experiences, paradigms, and structures that make up the worlds we live in.” I’m not sure I can agree with this without you explaining further. In my mind, our sinful nature has caused the experiences, paradigms, and structures that make up the world, not necessarily grown out of it. However, I could see how the cause then feeds off of the product – kinda like a perpetual machine. Maybe I’m seeing this too simply.

    Clarification (needed): Can you give me the examples you had in mind from scripture that indicate “…God so blessing his people for their covenant faithfulness that others take note and want to participate.” I’m not arguing the point…yet.

    Additions (or subtractions?): Point # one, first sentance: “of”. (sorry, could help myself)

    Love ya man!!

    08/6/09 8:28 AM | Comment Link

  • JR Rozko said...

    2

    Hey Stew.  Regarding sin, I definitely think it’s a chicken and egg sort of issue.  Even if you go back to the story of the garden of Eden, sin entered the world how?  Was it by what humans did or the presence of a cunning serpent?

    Scriptural points: Gen 12:1-3, numerous places through Exodus and Deuteronomy, Isaiah 49 & 60, Jesus’ entire ministry, Acts 2, etc.  These are some passages that give us snapshots of a larger biblical/theological idea that can’t be fully understood from prooftexting.  It is more of a hermeneutical paradigm – a way to read Scripture given a narrative theology.  Hope that makes sense.

    “of” deleted. ;)

    08/6/09 8:48 AM | Comment Link

  • Josh Garrington said...

    3

    JR,

    This post came at a good time. I was just reading Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” last night. He has a whole chapter that emphasises the three roles of Jesus (Prophet: to point out sin; Priest: to love and offer grace; King: to ‘own’ all your life – physical and non).
    One thing he points out is the effects when churches place emphasis on one or the other points (i.e. all King & Prophet w/ no Priest = Fundamentalism).
    Do you think that Missional church places too much empasis on Priest and King, somewhat neglecting Prophet? That is the impression I’ve gotten from my (admittedly limited) reading.
    I’m not pointing fingers, I think the Salvation Army tends to forget about both Prophet and King sometimes, only remembering Priest.
    Just curious as to how you’d respond to that.

    08/6/09 11:32 AM | Comment Link

  • JR Rozko said...

    4

    Hmmm that’s really funny. I would say if anything the truly missional church takes a very prophetic role. You don’t have to dig very deep in my blog to learn that I have some big problems with Driscoll both in terms of his theology and ecclesiology and to define the role of a prophet simply as one who points out sin is far too reductionistic. Throughout Scripture prophets are those who call the people of God to covenant faithfulness – a broader definition of sin I suppose. This is precisely the role I see the missional church playing in the West – sounding a call to the way in which we have veered off course by way of our capitulation to modernity in general and Christendom specifically and calling us back to a more faithful way of being the body of Christ. For my part, I find that a missional ecclesiology holds Driscoll’s trichotomy together pretty well, but does so by casting a more holistic vision of God’s triune nature.

    08/6/09 12:56 PM | Comment Link

  • Josh Garrington said...

    5

    Thanks for the input. I’ve never really thought explicitly about the missional church’s interaction with the established church. Most of my reading has tended to focus on how the missional church interacts with culture. I’ll have to do more research on this. Any book/blog/other material recommendations?

    I would tend to disagree with Driscoll on many issues as well, but I’ve recently started really enjoying doing more reading of people from other traditions. I find that those disagreements actually help me see more clearly where we agree. I also appreciate seeing the different perspective. It makes me think.

    I do enjoy Driscoll’s writing style though.

    Oh, I also like to read other view points because, to be honest, there just aren’t as many good, interesting, well spoken Wesleyan theologians/pastors doing much writing.

    08/7/09 8:43 AM | Comment Link

  • JR Rozko said...

    6

    Missional Church edited by Darrell Guder is a great place to start if you haven’t read that.  Lesslie Newbigin is also a major authorial name in terms of missional ecclesiology.  The book that kind of “started it all” for me was “The Shaping of Things to Come” by Alan Hirsch and Mike Frost.

    Look forward to the day you can fill that void in the Wesleyan church man!

    08/7/09 8:48 AM | Comment Link

  • Josh Garrington said...

    7

    “The Shaping of Things to Come” I’ve read (Jamie gave it to me). It’s packed pretty full, and I read it over a span that included having a 9 month pregnant wife which turned into a newborn, so I was a bit sleep deprived and I probably missed about half of it and should read it again. I’ll have to look up the other two.

    08/7/09 10:38 AM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)