NR Thoughts

If you haven't already read Greg's entry on Neo-Restoration and Bobby's parody thereof, do so. Get a move on. What are you waiting for?

As I said in response to Greg's post, I am inclined to say that there is validity in trying to restore something of the NT church, even though that doesn't mean restoring their patterns of practice. I'll admit I'm still a bit fuzzy on what that might be. One reason I'm convinced that it's worth searching for is that God decided to give us Acts and the NT epistles. Our goal of emulating Jesus (and that is our goal, is it not?) does not exclude emulating the early church. If it did, the NT would need only the Gospels. Rather, the example of the NT church helps us to know how to emulate Jesus. It's analogous to 1 Cor. 11:1.

I appreciate Mark's comment to Greg's post. I think he hit the nail on the head. I really have no idea what hermeneutic to aim for. Someone help us out. I know a few things that need to change, but I don't have a coherent understanding of what needs to replace them.

Here are a few thoughts on practicalities. In other words, these thought won't help us arrive at a better hermeneutic, but rather will help us frame it as we seek to put it into practice.

• A Neo-Restoration hermeneutic needs to be packaged simply. A complex ivory tower solution will do little to help real churches, unless we work on a completely top-down denominational hierarchy. The Church of Christ focus on the priesthood of all believers, which I think is largely a healthy focus, demands that this hermeneutic be available to all. Command, example, and inference may have many weaknesses, but one strength is that it is simple to say, simple to understand, and (relatively) simple to execute. The ordinary guy on the pew can use it as a tool to figure out what the Bible means to his situation. Whatever replaces it will have to be similarly accessible.


• We must realize that Churches of Christ are not homogeneous. Rural traditional churches still constitute a majority of the movement, while large suburban churches gain more and more impetus toward general evangelicalism. The middle ground is being stretched dangerously thin. Many progressive congregations have already given up on the old hermeneutic, without thoughtfully replacing it. It will be tempting for us (i.e. future ministers) to lead this left wing of churches to a better hermeneutic, abandoning the right wing in the process. I'm not interested in being a part of that kind of move. Our challenge will be to help the entire movement come to a more solid hermeneutical foundation. Is not unity a key goal in this whole question?


• Speaking of unity, a NR movement is inadequate if it can't see further than the Churches of Christ. Isa. 49:6 is completely appropriate. Salvation to the ends of the earth is vital. But let's realize that restoring Israel and Judah is also no small task - it encompasses many more denominations than just the Churches of Christ. I understand that God has placed us in this fellowship right now, but if our goal is simply to bless the current Churches of Christ, we contribute to a sectarian mindset. I appreciate the example of the earliest RM leaders who strove to win anyone that would listen, even whole congregations, regardless of denominational affiliation.

Okay, those are some of my thoughts for now.

The Angolablog Returns

Just want to welcome Nathan back to the dance floor.

Nathan's blog

Round 1: McGavran v. Garrison

Well I finished The Bridges of God by Donald McGavran a few days ago. Fairly easy read. His basic thesis is that significant Christian expansion will occur not through one-by-one conversions but through people movements, where bunches of people are influenced by the conversions of their relatives.

To a large extent, the phenomenon that McGavran is describing is the same phenomenon that David Garrison describes in Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World. They focus on different aspects, and they attribute the massive expansion of these movements to slightly different causes, but they end up making similar suggestions.

But here's the rub. When it comes to distribution of personnel, McGavran and Garrison give opposite recommmendations.

McGavran: "If you see a people movement starting, throw as many missionaries as you can at it! People movements fail because they don't have enough missionaries to sustain them."

Garrison: "If you see a people movement starting, stay out of it! Church planting movements fail because too many outsiders come in and crowd out the indigenous initiative."

So who is right? Are people movements (or church planting movements) most likely to start in a place with many or few missionaries? And once they start, should churches send missionaries to foster the growth, or should they stay out of the way?

What do you think?

And of course, I ask this question not as an abstract missiological principle, but because I want to know what is best for Angola.

Hebrews is difficult, okay?

Just so you know, translating the Greek text of Hebrews is a pain.
Vocab, sentence structure, idioms, ellipses - take your pick, they're
all hard. And once you finally get a workable translation, you still
don't really know what it's trying to say. We're in chapter 12. Take the
exegesis of verse 24, for example. "The blood of sprinkling that speaks
better than Abel." What in the world does that mean? Or the theology
that lies behind verses 16 and 17, talking about Esau giving up his
birthright and not being able to get a blessing no matter how he wept
for it.

Okay, I'll quit whining now. Despite all the difficulty and the many
hours of work and the paper cuts from flipping pages in BDAG, I love it. It's a wonderful feeling when the translation finally hits you.
Wonderful. I just wish it would hit me sooner.

So Angola...

It's a big country (twice the size of Texas) in southwest Africa. Long war, finally peace, lots of rebuilding to do, and a key time of receptivity to the gospel. If you really want to know more, there's more info on our mission team's site, www.angolateam.org.

Today I ran across a news article which describes Angola's economic progress in glowing terms. It sounds like good news. Sounds like the country is moving further and further from war. But I wonder what the more complete story is. Is Angola's economy stabilizing and growing, or does all the growth belong to foreign companies seeking their fortune in Angola? The country has a long history of economic slavery to other nations (500 years). Is this simply a variation on a theme, a remix for a new generation of radio?

And if Angolan firms are also gaining a more solid footing, are they doing so to the benefit or at the expense of the Angolan populace? This article notes,

Many new buildings are being erected, mainly in the commercial centre of Luanda, where oil and financial sector companies are establishing offices.

But another news article gives a different perspective on the same growth phenomenon:

Police arrived at 07:00 and began tearing down homes in Cambamba 1 and 2 neighbourhoods [in Luanda]. More than three hundred families have been made homeless.... The houses were apparently torn down to make way for new buildings.

I pray that Angola's political and economic leaders are doing what needs to be done to set the country on firm enough footing to help the majority population meet their basic needs. Big business growth doesn't seem to be an indicator of such.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against big businesses. Nor do I think the hope of Angola's future lies in economic progress. Angola's hope lies in the Lord, period. As best I can tell, the Lord takes a keen interest in the sufferings of His creation. He has definitely noticed the Angolan people, and He is working to rectify their situation. Whether he uses economics, politics, or missionaries, He will continue to redeem Angola from its dark past - physically, relationally, emotionally, spiritually.

A tip o' th' hat to Bobby

I'd like to share my testimony: I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Bobby the blogangelist (p. b. u. h.). What a mentor he is for me in this brave new world where all are empowered to let their foolishness stream forth. I've got some foolishness of my own to add to the hobo stew; if you don't like the way it tastes, I guess Bobby is to blame. But then again, he's to blame for Bob and Greg too.

By the way, I mean that bit about campfires and bridges. Two things dear to my heart. From my childhood in Africa surface cherished memories of the starlit southern hemisphere, a majestic midnight blue canvas enveloping a world of adventure, danger, and peace. The night air alive with the sounds of insects, jackals, lions, owls. The nearby bushes concealing who knows what. And the light of the campfire radiating on the faces of those who love God's creation. I learned to listen to God there. I still long for those times. Grad school just isn't quite the same.

And bridges. Connections. I'm constantly pondering how to make new connections. How to connect people with Christ. (Ever read Bridges of God by Donald McGavran? I'm checking it out right now.) How to maintain bridges among Churches of Christ, left right and center. How to build bridges between Churches of Christ and other denominations. What types of bridges need to be built between America and Africa. How to build bridges of African Christians from other countries into Angola. How development may serve as integral parts of bridges among Angolan Christians. How seminary students like me can bridge the gap to normal life, normal people.

Campfires and bridges. My prayer is that both will be an honor to God. It is Him for whom I exist. I hope that's true for you too.