• Archive of "salvation" Category

    The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Missionary Leaders

    December 5, 2011 // No Comments »

    As part of their forum on, “The Future of the Seminary,” the 3rd of 4 articles that I’ve contributed to, Ministers are Mobilizers, Not Managers,  went up the other day.  You can find the previous articles both here at lifeasmission as well as over at Patheos…

    Shaping Students w/ the Character and Competency of Jesus (lifeasmission | Patheos)

    Missionary Pastors for a Missionary God (lifeasmission | Patheos)

    Again, this is some edited content from a more comprehensive white paper that I worked on.  You can find the whole paper here as a resource at thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com.  Hope to see some helpful conversation emerge there, here, and over at Patheos as well.

    In terms of our particular contribution to this forum, we began by suggesting that while we passionately affirm the important role that seminaries play educationally, from a Kingdom perspective, the more important ‘accrediting factor’ is their ability to graduate students who have increasingly taken on both the character and competency of Jesus.   Given those aims and the ways in which our systems of theological education have been corrupted by the (non-missional) assumptions and characteristics of Christendom, we suggested that the central task before us is identifying educational principles guided by a theological vision of the missio Dei as it relates to both the Gospel and the Church that can help us re-imagine and re-shape our processes of theological formation.

    In our second post we sought to outline the central features of the first of three of these educational principles, that of being praxeological.   This praxeological orientation to theological education would result in the cultivation of reflective practitioners – leaders for whom the practice of mission and ministry and critical theological and missiological reflection always go hand-in-hand.

    Here, we’d like to provide a sketch of a second educational principle, again drawn from the life and ministry of Jesus, that we feel must inform our processes of theological formation, that of being mobilizational – geared toward the training of missionary leaders.

    One of the most disastrous effects of Christendom upon our systems of theological education has been the unhelpful assumption that the Church does and should exist at the center of our society.   Under this vision, seminaries have equipped leaders who would excel at managing and maintaining this system.   However, as the missio Dei and its implications for the Gospel and the Church come back into focus in Post-Christendom, we submit that our systems of theological education must be re-imagined for the purposes of training missionary leaders.  These will be leaders whose concern and skill-set revolve not around managing churches as part of a culture believed to be “Christian,” or even further, around church growth, but around mobilizing the people of God for participation in God’s mission in the world.  We submit that a truly mobilizational system of theological education will be, among other things, affordable, accessible, designed to prepare leaders as cultural pioneers, and judged on its ability to cultivate leaders who are competent to make disciples and mobilize others for faithful participation in God’s mission in the world.

    Affordable

    Unless you happen to live in a certain place, going to seminary requires the time and expense of uprooting your life and moving to another location.  In addition, the vast majority of seminary students are completely on their own to figure out how to pay for a seminary education.  A staggering number of students carry an enormous amount of debt for years, if not decades, following the completion of their program.   Not only is this problematic because of the current costs of seminary education, but increasingly, attaining a seminary degree does not translate into a proportional ability to get any job, let alone one that will alleviate students of their debt.   Moreover, because seminary degree programs remain, in large part, shaped by the assumptions of Christendom, students may quickly discover they are ill equipped to faithfully engage with the practical realities of ministry in Post-Christendom.  In order to be truly mobilizational, it is incumbent on us to re-imagine systems of theological education that are vastly more financially sustainable.

    Accessible

    Lack of proximity to the kinds of formational education that we are talking about isn’t just an affordability problem; it’s also an accessibility problem.  While we applaud the efforts of the increasing number of seminaries that value distance and
    distributed learning opportunities, we would suggest much more innovation is required.  Increasingly, seminaries need to embody in themselves the kind of character they should be instilling in their students.  In other words, just as we need to mobilize leaders, we also need to imagine what it might mean to mobilize theological education itself.  Institutions of theological education that are truly mobilizational will happily release power and control as they give their time and energy to initiatives that make quality theological education more accessible even if they don’t directly benefit.  The future of theological education belongs to those groups and institutions who care more for the work of God’s Kingdom than they do their own.

    Prepare Cultural Pioneers

    The ecclesial vision of Christendom provided for a system of theological education that mainly had in view the creation of Christian leaders who might well be described as managers or custodians of the church at the center of culture.  But, with the significant shaking occurring as we move from Christendom to Post-Christendom, the maps we previously used for theological education prove unhelpful and misleading.  In direct juxtaposition to a Christendom-shaped reality, a missional understanding of God and the Church compel us to give our time and attention to the equipping of missionary leaders capable of pioneering in a world without maps.  This will require the re-imagining of structures and programs that are designed to impart to students, missionary, as opposed to managerial, skill-sets.

    Cultivate Disciple-Makers and Mobilizers

    A final aspect of theological education that is mobilizational is the central importance of equipping leaders to be disciple-makers and mobilizers of God’s people for mission.  However, a particular person might be individually gifted, their ability to leverage that giftedness in concert with the biblically unifying commission to “go and make disciples of all nations,” is a fundamental marker of their fit for Kingdom ministry.  Said another way, we suggest that a profound understanding of one’s giftedness and a correspondingly profound track record of the exercise of that giftedness as a means of making disciples and mobilizing people and communities for mission ought to be seen as a basic requirement for the completion of any seminary program.

    In short, as the Church is increasingly pushed to the margins of society, it has (we have!) the opportunity to rediscover the missional nature of God, the Gospel, and the Church that was eclipsed within Christendom.   Among other things called for by this rediscovery is the complete restructuring of our systems of theological education as we seek to equip leaders who can serve the Church out of missionary rather than managerial perspectives and skill-sets.   We offer additional thoughts along these lines in the full paper, available here and check out the video and other resources at thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com.

    Posted in 3DM, anabaptist, bi-vocational, christendom, church, church planting, culture, discipleship, God, gospel, Jesus, kingdom, missiology, missional, missional theology, post-christendom, salvation, spiritual gifts, theological education, theology, western culture

    If the Missional Movement Fails So Does Discipleship

    September 22, 2011 // 12 Comments »

    In the last week or so, a few blog posts have caught my attention, driven me to some reflection, and incline me to go ahead and try to offer my some clarifying thoughts that I hope will further some important conversations.

    The first posts were from my friend Mike Breen – 2 posts on “Why the Missional Movement Will Fail” (Part 1, Part 2).

    (ht: churchleaders.com for the image)

    Essentially, what these posts are suggesting is that discipleship is the engine (which is either in desperate need of repair or lacking entirely) that ought to be driving the vehicle of our (missional) churches.

    Beautiful.  Couldn’t possibly agree more.

    Here’s what surfaced as a clarifying point for me as I though about this though.

    The criticism offered in these posts really only applies to the people who don’t really understand “missional” in the first place – people who think it’s a tack on to existing church structures and programs. These are people who wrongly and unhelpfully interpret “missional” as merely being more outward focused or placing greater emphasis on doing mission activities.  These have become the classic mistakes of those who mean to co-opt missional language and principles as “the next big thing” that people will show interest in – a new church product for bored or disinterested church people.  Their focus isn’t refining their theological perspectives and living fully into the implications of doing so, it’s merely adding or shifting an external point of focus, and so the point, and opportunity, is missed.

    Missional, for those who take the time to really delve into it, is a biblical and theological paradigm predicated on a vision of God as a missionary God, which has deep implications for how we understand, among other things, the Gospel and the Church.  In fact, it is this theological vision that actually serves to restore discipleship to its rightful place at the center of our ecclesiologies and (as I have argued before), our soteriology.

    Mike’s assertion, I believe, is only properly addressed to those plagued by dichotomous thinking – discipleship is one thing and being missional is another.  I think that some confusion over just this fact surfaces when Mike’s writes, in his 2nd post,

    To be a disciple is to be a missionary.

    But then follows it by saying,

    Jesus made disciples and he sent them out as missionaries while discipling them.

    There first sentence rightfully conveys that the point of discipleship is being on mission with God and that being on mission with God is the context and “stuff” of discipleship, but the next sentence devolves into the notion of discipleship as one thing and participation in mission another.  This way of thinking persists only for so long as we misunderstand what is really at the heart of the missional movement and I think the language of Mike’s argument here waffles here not because he’s confused, but because the conversation about what the missional movement is all about can be confusing.

    From a missional perspective, the Gospel is first and foremost a call to follow Jesus as his disciples and the Church is rightly though of as a community of disciples on mission with God.  It’s not that discipleship is one thing and “being missional” another – two things that we must seek to hold together with the whole AND mentality that has gained some popularity recently.  Instead, and I suppose this is my real point in offering this clarifying thought, it is the full and proper understanding of “missional” that is actually our greatest ally in terms of providing theological and ecclesiological visions that help us see and understand the centrality of discipleship. 

    So, to play on Mike’s metaphor, if (missional) churches are propelled by the engine of discipleship, it is missional theology that builds, fuels, and maintains the performance of that engine.

    For that reason, I’ll continue to throw my lot in with my brothers and sisters who’ve given themselves to advancing the missional movement!

    The other post was by Ed Stetzer on the whole, “Can Megachurches be Missional?” debate.  He still thinks they can and I still think they can’t.  But, as I’ve thought some more on this I’ve had some clarifying thoughts that I’d love some feedback on.  I’ll save those for another post though.

    Posted in 3DM, church, discipleship, missiology, missional, missional theology, salvation, theology

    My (Ana)baptism

    September 7, 2011 // 19 Comments »

    Wrote this post for the blog of the good people behind the Anabaptist Missional Project.

    I’m an Anabaptist.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not Mennonite, Hutterite, Brethren, or Amish and my name is Rozko for Pete’s sake!, but I’m an Anabaptist nonetheless.  I may have been baptized in an Episcopalian church when I was a baby, baptized again in a Church of Christ in high school when my faith became my own, ordained in the Christian Church tradition, and I may be part of a church community that is part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination and work for an American Baptist seminary, but I’m an Anabaptist nonetheless.

    “How’s that work exactly?” you ask.  Good question.  In fact, it’s the question behind this post which is itself the result of a conversation I had with my good friend Dave Stutzman (he’s my Anabaptist passport for those of you skeptics out there ;)

    Well, here’s my brief answer.  It works because I’m one of thousands of seminary-trained people between the ages of 25 and 35 who have been orphaned by the Christendom-shaped theology and ecclesiology that raised us.  Like many, many others, left to fend for ourselves among the cultural wilderness that is Post-Christendom, Anabaptism has provided me with the theological and ecclesiological shelter and nourishment that I needed to sustain and guide me as I’ve sought to make sense of the world and my personal and ministerial place in it. 

    To be a bit more specific, as Christianity has moved (been pushed?) from the center to the margins of our society, by and large, the responses of the Church have come in two types:

    1) Fight – here I have in mind the typical right-wing Christian response of scraping and clawing through powerful maneuvering and campaigning to “take back America for God” in order to regain a place of power and privilege believed to be, if not rightfully ours, God’s ultimate aim for his people.

    2) Ignore – here, there is either a complete lack of awareness (especially in the South) of the growing reality of Post-Christendom or an apathetic attitude toward what is simply dismissed as an inevitability.

    Anabaptism, I believe, presents a third way, a posture more faithful to a biblical (at least through the lenses of Anabaptist theology & ecclesiology) vision of what it means to be the people of God living under the reign of God in the midst of a world that, while fallen, remains deeply loved and addressed by God.  It was this humble and hopeful vision that drew me in.

    My initial touch points with Anabaptism came through a handful of professors at Fuller Theological Seminary such as Wilbert Shenk (anyone else think Wilbert needs to start a blog already?!), Nancey Murphy, and Glen Stassen (though there’s a palpable Anabaptist current throughout much of the school) and some time at Pasadena Mennonite Church.  These opened me up to the world of Anabaptist theology and (missional) ecclesiology, which has worked to powerfully shape both my identity and the contours of my life.

    Anabaptist theology has had a profound impact on my thinking and practice with regard to, among many other things, missional church, politics, preaching, theological education, and the Gospel.  In fact, it was these touch points and their consequent exposure to the unique features of Anabaptism that inclined me to further study with Wilbert Shenk and James Krabill as part of DMiss cohort at Fuller focused on Anabaptist Perspectives in Missional Ecclesiology.

    Interestingly, the one thing that my exposure to Anabaptism didn’t do, and I suppose this might be the real point of the post since it seemed to be one of the things Dave and I talked most about in our conversation, was incline me to seek out and join a (traditionally thought of) Anabaptist congregation.  I think there are 3 primary reasons for this.

    1) There are only a couple “denominationally-Anabaptist” congregations near me and they are all incredibly introverted and insular – a startling reality in light of the fact that the inherently missional dimension of all Anabaptist theology was one of the things I initially found so freeing.

    2) I have experienced and continue to understand Anabaptism as a theological and ecclesiological paradigm that defies denominational hegemony.  This of course relates to the first point, but personally, inasmuch as I have come to see Anabaptism as a theological (as opposed to denominational) tradition, I actually feel like I would be close to betraying my Anabaptist convictions to not seek to live them out in whatever other contexts it seems God has and is directing me.

    3) Lastly, I am surrounded by people who share my story – people who, while having no official exposure to or experience with traditionally thought of Anabaptist congregations, have discovered, through any number of different means (books, blogs, classes, friends, conferences, etc.), that Anabaptism is the theological tradition that best expresses their core convictions. Thus, I am far more inclined band together with these folks to see the Anabaptist vision carried forth and lived out across an array of denominational and other contexts rather than I am to isolate myself to one of the few traditionally recognized contexts.

    The point I suppose is this, there is a large and growing population of Christians who resonate with Anabaptist theology and ecclesiology.  It sure would be awesome if those who have been part of historically Anabaptist traditions were leading the way on this, but as of yet, that just doesn’t seem to be the case.  I don’t claim to have any divine insight or wisdom on this, but I think this much should be apparent: as Christendom continues to crumble, as denominational identity comes to mean less and less, and as more and more Christians/ministers have to figure out how to make sense of the world and their relationship to God and God’s work in it, there is a HUGE opportunity for those who espouse Anabaptist ideals to speak up and lead the way.  I represent a group of people who would gladly welcome the guidance!

    Posted in anabaptist, chicago, christendom, culture, discipleship, DMiss, Fuller Seminary, gospel, kingdom, missiology, missional, missional theology, Northern Seminary, politics, post-christendom, preaching/teaching, salvation, spiritual formation, theological education, theology, western culture

    Northern Seminary & 3DM: Discipleship Oriented Theological Education

    August 4, 2011 // 5 Comments »

    It’s interesting how things come together. I’ve been cultivating a growing interest in the future of theological education, especially under the direction of missional approaches to theology and ecclesiology since about the time I started into my own seminary experience, almost seven years ago now. Shortly thereafter, through a handful of professors and some involvement in Pasadena Mennonite Church, I was introduced to the Anabaptist tradition and its unique approach to theology and ecclesiology. I was especially taken with the way in which, for them, discipleship wasn’t something extraneous to “being saved,” but was the way in which we fully receive and participate in the good news of God’s salvation. Personally then, I’ve got these two passions, missional approaches to theological education and the centrality of discipleship for how we understand and practice being the Church.

    Working at Northern Seminary, a school that is radically committed to exploring the best ways to come alongside the Church and Christian ministries to equip men and women for service and leadership in an increasingly Post-Christian context, sometimes affords me the opportunity to bring these two areas of passion together. This is especially true as I am in Pawley’s Island, SC working with my pal Doug Paul and other members of the 3DM team as we develop a partnership that will 1) Make it possible for participants in 3DM Learning Communities to earn seminary credit for the work they do over the two years of that journey and 2) Bring discipleship front and center as the focus of earning an Certificate, MA, MDiv, or DMin from a seminary.

    Northern, in my opinion, has gotten quite good at creating partnership-driven programs that afford students the opportunity to craft degree programs that are both rooted in concrete ministry contexts and directly related to the area of Christian ministry and leadership that God has called them to. This partnership with 3DM is no exception. Over the course of two years, 3DM guides pastors and leaders through not just the ideas of creating a discipling culture, multiplying missional leaders, launching missional communities, and establishing centers of mission, but the nuts and bolts of those endeavors as well. This is what makes them so unique. They are not just content providers, they serve as mentors and coaches through two years of implementing these ideas. The nature and fruit of this process is more than enough to make someone scratch their head when comparing it to traditional models of theological education, which are almost always class based rather than ministry based. This partnership is a deliberate attempt to begin to rectify this shortcoming by creating a definitive bond between theological reflection and ministry experience with a view toward spiritual formation.

    Crafting syllabi and shaping the contours of these various degree programs is just a part of what I’ll be spending my time on while I’m down here with the good people of 3DM We’re also working on a couple side projects that I think will add some value to the conversations and initiatives related to the reshaping of theological education and the place and practice of discipleship in the Church.

    Posted in 3DM, anabaptist, christendom, church, discipleship, Fuller Seminary, leadership, missional, missional theology, Northern Seminary, post-christendom, salvation, spiritual formation, theological education, theology

    “Going to Church” Is Not A Reality I Want For My Daughter

    July 26, 2011 // 6 Comments »

    I am one of those people who happens to believe in the importance of words.  While it’s a good thing to have a broad vocabulary, that’s not what I mean.  I mean that I think words are powerful.  Words aren’t just symbols and they certainly aren’t neutral.  Words actually DO things when we use them or hear them.

    Ever been called an idiot?

    Ever made a verbal promise?

    Ever double-dog-dared someone to do something?

    Yes?  Then you get what I mean.  Words are powerful tools.  I would even go so far as to say that words contribute to the shaping of our realities.  Just ask any teenager whose parent has told them on a consistent basis for years that they’re worthless.

    This is why I have abandoned the language of “going to church.”  This language reinforces a false reality.  A reality in which church is understood to be a place or an event rather than a Kingdom community or family of disciples.  I would submit that the idea of “going to church” is a chief hallmark of cultural Christianity, the sort of thing that, while having a ring of sincerity to it, actually reshapes our imaginations and our reality in ways counter to the biblical narrative and the purposes of God.  So, a few weeks ago, as Amy and I prepared to take our daughter to a gathering of our church community, she and I had one of our first father-daughter chats.

    I began to speak the kind of words to my daughter that I want her to grow up hearing – words that I want to shape her into the sort of person capable envisioning and receiving the story into which she has been born and invited – words that I hope will instill in her the sort of sorrowful/sick feeling that her father gets when he hears people relegate the Church to something we merely “go to.”

    I said to her,

    Daughter, you are a part of our family and our family is part of a very special group of people.  This group of people has a long, long history, filled with incredible stories that you will get to hear as you get older.  But here’s what you need to know.  God loves this world – everyone and everything in it.  He loves it more than we can even possibly imagine.  He loves it so much that he actually gave himself up for it – can you believe that?!  He did.  But lots of things are wrong.  Not everything is quite the way that it is supposed to be.  But don’t worry, God is at work.  He will see to it that in the end, all things will be made right again.  And guess what, God has invited us to join him on this mission.  He wants us to be a part of it with him as his people.  With God’s help we try to live out God’s dream for the world.  And because God’s own son, Jesus, did this better than anyone else ever did, we always try to follow his example.  That means that in many ways, the way we live is very different from the ways that other people live.  In fact, and this is difficult for me to say to you because I love you so much, it means that the more you live your life for God, the more likely it is that some people will not like you, maybe even hurt you like they did Jesus.  Even still…

    Like Jesus, we talk to God and listen as he speaks to us rather than living life on our own terms.

    Like Jesus, when people do mean and bad things, we offer forgiveness rather than hold grudges or try to get even.

    Like Jesus, when people are hurt or in need, we offer to help rather than let them suffer or assume that it’s their own fault.

    Like Jesus, we go out of our way to be friends with people who don’t like or make fun of rather than ignore them or do the same.

    Like Jesus, we give our money and things to people who need them even if they can’t pay us back rather than keeping everything for ourselves.

    Like Jesus, we will lay our lives down for our enemies rather than try to injure or destroy them.

    And that’s just the beginning!  These are just some of the ways that we get to enjoy God’s dream for the world.

    Now listen, there’s a special name for people who live this way together, they are called “Church.”  They are the people who have been called out of the ways of the way the world is, in order to live out God’s dream for the way the world should be and will be someday.  Some people think that Church is some thing that you go to, like going to a movie or a restaurant, only religious.  But that’s not what it is, not at all!  I know you won’t really understand all this quite yet, but the Church is a group of people who embody a whole new world!  Nothing you ever do will be more important than being part of this people and adventure.  Now, let’s go meet some of the people we’re on this mission with.

    The first of many more conversations I hope to have with my precious daughter along these lines.

    Posted in Amy, christendom, church, culture, discipleship, God, gospel, Jesus, kingdom, LOV, love, narrative theology, parenting, reconciliation, salvation, spiritual formation, stories, theology, truth

    The Place of Salvation in the Missional (Church) Conversation

    July 22, 2011 // 19 Comments »

    You have probably heard someone say at some point something along the lines of , “If you want to know a man’s heart or what his priorities are, take a look at his checkbook.”  The implication is that despite what we might say about our heart and priorities, how we live will always provide the true window into that reality.  We are what we do, not what we say.

    I think this same logic applies to the Church.  Though it might be an unfamiliar frame of reference for us, I don’t think many would balk at the suggestion that our ecclesiologies – the way we understand and practice being the Church – are a direct reflection of how we understand the good news of God’s salvation.  I’m not merely saying that this should by the case or that we need to aspire more to this.  I’m saying that by definition, this always is the case.  As a man’s spending habits will give you insight into what he really cares about, so too will the life and practices of church communities give you insight into how they understand the good news of God’s salvation.

    This may seem simple enough, but it’s a paradigm that I would suggest gets little to no traction amidst all the chatter over the trouble in which the Church in Western culture finds itself.  There are two ways to address the issue of someone whose stated priorities and actual spending patterns don’t match up.  The first is to ask him to work harder on spending in line with what he says is important to him.  Though it has come in many different forms and packages, I think this has been our basic approach to the plight of the Church in Western culture (purpose-driven, mission-driven, gospel-driven, house church, cell church, simple church, etc., etc.).  The second way to address the issue goes deeper; it takes a look at the man’s spending patterns and rather than saying, “These need to change,” it asks, “What does this tell us about what your priorities really are?”

    I propose that, rightly understood, this is where the ultimate importance and value of the missional conversation lies – not by first suggesting a new paradigm for understanding the nature and life of the Church, but in offering visions of the gospel and salvation that are rooted in a missional understanding of God (missional theology) and a missional reading of Scripture (missional hermeneutics), which then lead naturally to a missional understanding of the Church (missional ecclesiology).  I don’t mean to be over-linear here.  There is definitely a reciprocal relationship between beliefs and behavior, I merely want to point out the side of that relationship that I think has largely gone ignored.

    I have some good friends doing some great work through the ministry of 3DM.  A couple of them have become fond of saying, “The Church doesn’t so much have a leadership problem or a missional problem, the Church has a discipleship problem.”  In a sense, I couldn’t possibly agree with this sentiment more.  But, as I offered by way of a comment on a great blog post by Mike Breen the other day in which he was asking why more churches don’t spend as much time innovating their approaches to discipleship as they do technology, I think the underlying reason that this problem exists is on account of a flawed understanding of salvation.  As I said there,

    As long as the gospel remains something that we primarily need to “believe” in the cognitive sense, then it actually makes perfect sense to spend the bulk of your time and energy on innovating technologically because the bottom line is ‘reaching’ [see a post I offered on this a few years ago] as many people as possible. Discipleship, in this vision, is optional, auxiliary to what it means to “be saved.” My sense is that it is only when people begin embrace the reality of the gospel as an invitation into a way of life (the Kingdom of God), and salvation as a way of describing the nature of life in the Kingdom, that they begin to understand the ‘biblical logic’ that leads to the shaping of an ecclesiology in which discipleship and innovative approaches to discipleship will begin to be of primary importance.

    So, if I might sum up.  I feel like I see enormous amounts of time and energy being invested in trying to help people revisit how they understand and practice being the Church.  Fantastic!  But, let’s be honest, so long as people cling to (what I would term) Christendom-shaped conceptions of the gospel, primarily understood as something (theory of the atonement?) to which I give intellectual assent, as opposed to an invitation into a new reality that reshapes the entirely of my life, and salvation, primarily understood as getting into Heaven after I die, as opposed to my participation in the saving work that God is doing right here and now, we aren’t really getting to the heart of the matter.

    I wonder if we’re ready for this conversation?  I mean, this is treading on pretty sacred ground, right?  We’re more than ok tweaking our language about the nature of the church or even jimmying a bit with our church programs and structures.  And while it’s one thing to talk about God as a missionary God (lots of people have hopped on board with that), it’s quite another to start talking about the implications of God being a missionary God for how we understand the nature of that God’s good news and that God’s salvation. Harder conversation, but I’m increasingly convinced that it’s the one we need to give more attention to fostering if the Church in Western culture is to respond faithfully to not just the situation we find ourselves in, but more importantly, to God and the ways in which God is at work in our midst.

    Posted in 3DM, christendom, church, discipleship, gospel, kingdom, missional, missional theology, salvation, theology, truth, western culture

    « Previous Entries