The Shift

My blog has become obsolete. Direct your mild interest to www.gregandmeg.net.

Thoughts on Strategy II

I'm continuing this series as something of an explanation of our house church strategy. The first step of forming a strategy is to get informed, so these posts are representative of the information (and its interpretation) we are bringing to our decision-making. Let me overview some general categories for various contextual concerns that converge in our strategizing:

(1) Family oriented culture
(2) Communally oriented society
(3) Low-income demographic
(4) Post-Catholic milieu
(5) Uneducated population

My first post belongs under the post-Catholic discussion, being that we are talking there about the cultural baggage of the temple mentality. There are other topics that will fit under the post-Catholic rubric as well. I am going to deal here with the way the house church model connects with the family orientation of Arequipeños.

It seems rather facile to point out that a house church model is in tune with a culture that is (broadly speaking) family-oriented. Yet, obviousness should not deter us from stating that this is the case. Peruvians are "family-oriented" in the sense that Latin American culture is generally (so I am treading cautiously). I do not have specific data or even anecdotes to illustrate this reality. My experience with a great variety of Latin American countries substantiates the claim for me, but I struggle with how to convey what "family-oriented" means. My wife would say that she has a very "close" family, and I know of many Americans (read: U.S. folks) that might make that claim, but our sense of "closeness" does not exactly give insight into the Latin American value that I am designating as "family orientation."

I am not suggesting that there is no universal sense of familial affection among all cultures of humanity. I really have no idea whether there is, but I would be willing to grant that there is for the sake of argument. The idea is not that Latin Americans love their families more than other less family-oriented cultures. It has to do with the way that one's family frames the experience of life. To what extent is identity embedded in a family or household, and to what extent can decisions and experiences occur without reference to the family? Even in close American families, the individual adult makes decisions and experiences life relatively autonomously. We would tend to consider decisions of faith, for example, personal and not subject ultimately to the whole family (though families of particular conviction may exert strong criticism). The point is not so much whether the family thinks it has a say, however, but the extent to which the individual makes a decision in reference to family.

Likewise, Americans tend to operate in terms of "immediate family-orientation." Therefore, while this might just as legitimately be family-orientation, an important handle on the cultural difference I am discussing is the Latin American (thus Peruvian) orientation to extended family. Therefore, it may provide some insight for an American to imagine his or her extended family as a reference point in life on par with immediate family. The question is not simply, "How will this affect my spouse and children?" It is, "How will this affect the family?" The question "Who are we as a family?" references an identity that goes beyond my wife and children.

A couple of caveats. Naturally, this is not without exception; as in every society there are shades and degrees. Also, in Arequipa, for example, there are many who migrate into the city, dislocating themselves from their extended family. Their family orientation does not cease to exist, however, because my discussion of the extended family was only for the purpose of getting at the cultural dynamic, not of delimiting it. Please share any thoughts, experiences, or anecdotes you have that would illustrate family orientation. There are many cultures throughout the world that would qualify to one degree or another.

The house church model realizes the family metaphor in a more significant way than larger churches are able. The household is the relationship web throughout which the gospel spreads, and the church finds its most natural home in the houses of these families. Furthermore, in traditionally resistant people groups, "family-based conversion patterns" are more likely to emerge, because natural social units are prone to make faith deliberations communally. This is so in socially Catholic contexts as well. Social pressures are considerable for the individual, though the family as a whole may more easily make a counter-cultural faith decision. The house is the best place to foster these patterns.

On the other hand, some will inevitably make faith decisions that ostracize them from family. Combined with the fact that even whole family units that convert in a culturally Catholic context will be socially marginalized, the family metaphor for God's people serves another vital function: it incorporates believers into a new household and provides a new identity. Thus, some of the cultural assumptions of the first century world regarding family are reflected in the NT and resonate with Latin American culture.

First Peter is particularly poignant in this regard. The situation of its original readers in Asia Minor seems to be social ostracism rather than physical persecution. John Elliott has argued this convincingly in A Home for the Homeless, pointing out that the much of the letter is given to addressing the believers' "sojourn" (1:17; paroikia; note the oikos root in this and following words) and identity as "sojourners" (2:11; paroikous; arguably the most pivotal verse of the letter). Peter's solution to this reality in their lives is basically to emphasize how God is building them into a spiritual household (2:5; oikodomeisthe, oikos). Of course, there is more complexity than this simple outline suggests, but the basics are there. Our strategy implements our belief that church "done" in houses is the best way contextually to foster the experience of being built into God's household.

Our vision statement reads: God's family celebrating and serving in Arequipa.

Family is our controlling metaphor as we attempt to enflesh the gospel in Arequipa, and we hope to use the Peruvian household setting strategically in that endeavor.

The American Fantasy

There was time when the so-called American Dream morphed into a disturbing sort of materialism and selfishness--a picket fence and a three car garage, a yearly vacation and a fat 401k. So missionaries are thought to be fanatical or hyper-spiritual because leaving these things is virtually unthinkable. We are just unsure whether it is possible to live with other priorities, other motivations, much less be happy doing it. I suppose the American Dream might, even in its most ideal state, never have been innocent, so to speak. But in some sense it did transform from "making it" into making lots of it or bust. That has been the evolution of a culture that found affluence. I think the next step in that evolution is already well under way. To be clear, I am talking here about values, not realities. I have appreciated the song "Rockstar" by Nickelback as it has caricatured what I am calling the American Fantasy.

Rockstar

I'm through with standin' in line
To clubs I'll never get in
It's like the bottom of the ninth
And I'm never gonna win
This life hasn't turned out
Quite the way I want it to be
(Tell me what you want)

I want a brand new house
On an episode of Cribs
And a bathroom I can play baseball in
And a king size tub big enough
For ten plus me
(Yea, So what you need)

I need a credit card that's got no limit
And a big black jet with a bedroom in it
Gonna join the mile high club
At thirty-seven thousand feet
--(Been there done that)--

I want a new tour bus full of old guitars
My own star on Hollywood Boulevard
Somewhere between Cher and
James Dean is fine for me
(So how you gonna do it?)

I'm gonna trade this life for fortune and fame
I'd even cut my hair and change my name

[CHORUS]
'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars and
Live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's
Gonna wind up there
Every Playboy bunny
With her bleach blonde hair
And well...

Hey, hey, I wanna be a rockstar
Hey, hey, I wanna be a rockstar

I wanna be great like Elvis without the tassels
Hire eight body guards that love to beat up ********
Sign a couple autographs
So I can eat my meals for free
(I'll have the quesadilla, on the house)

I'm gonna dress my ***
With the latest fashion
Get a front door key to the Playboy mansion

Gonna date a centerfold that loves to
Blow my money for me
(So how you gonna do it?)

I'm gonna trade this life
For fortune and fame
I'd even cut my hair
And change my name

'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars and
Live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's
Gonna wind up there
Every Playboy bunny
With her bleach blonde hair
And we'll hide out in the private rooms
With the latest dictionary of
Today's who's who
They'll get you anything
with that evil smile
Everybody's got a
Drug dealer on speed dial, well
Hey, hey, I wanna be a rockstar

I'm gonna sing those songs
That offend the censors
Gonna pop my pills
From a Pez dispenser
Get washed-up singers writing all my songs
Lip sync 'em every night so I don't get 'em wrong

Well we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's
Gonna wind up there
Every Playboy bunny
With her bleach blond hair
And we'll hide out in the private rooms
With the latest dictionary of
Today's who's who
They'll get you anything
with that evil smile
Everybody's got a
Drug dealer on speed dial,well

Hey, hey, I wanna be a rockstar
Hey, hey, I wanna be a rockstar

I love this bit of honesty from a very rockstar band. It's conceivable that they are seriously endorsing such aspirations as the Don't Eat Diet, but it seems to me to be dripping with irony. This is what people want, though. This has, somehow, become the ideal state. Although, of course, many would assume that it's just not possible for them, we are talking about values. This is the fantasy. You can see the escalation from a shiny house and an easy retirement to flippant wealth and decadence.

My favorite line, though, is the first one of the chorus: "I'm gonna trade this life for fortune and fame." Straightforward and accurate. When I hear these words I cannot resist Jesus' words ringing in my head after them.

"For what will a man be benefited if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life. Or what will a man give in exchange for his life?"

In a way I guess its a better answer to the question to trade life for the Fantasy rather than the Dream, lest we feel cheated in the end. For the Dream seems not to be worth it by comparison. But then, Jesus' point was that there never will be anything that is worth it. We are always settling if we do not choose life, and it is a very poor settlement at best.

What are you trading your life for?

I'm it...I guess.

Here are the rules. 1)Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves. (2) People who are tagged need to write a post on their own blog (about their eight things) and post these rules. (3) At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. (4) Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

(1) I would normally consider getting tagged on par with 99% of emails beginning with "Fwd:"--subject to immediate deletion with prejudice. But my wife is the boss of me.
(2) I am an avid Dungeons and Dragons player. It is, hands down, my favorite pass-time, though I'll take a good fantasy novel if I can't find anyone to play with.
(3) I find nothing so satisfying as my wife's cooking.
(4) I'm a caffeine addict, and I like it. That (good) coffee is so scrumptious is a major bonus.
(5) Oddly, two of my very favorite movies are westerns--Lonesome Dove and Tombstone--although typically I go for anything in the epic history genre (Robin Hood [yes, even with Costner], Braveheart, Three Musketeers, Gladiator, etc.).
(6) I dislike people who watched Lord of the Rings without reading the books and then consider themselves fans of Tolkien. We had a countdown calendar for the premier of FotR for over a year.
(7) Although my name is Gregory Eugene, I did avoid being Elbert Eugene III. By the way, Elbert the First was called Peewee. Gregory is my mother's maiden name. My whole family calls me Gregory rather than Greg.
(8) I like to stay up after everyone goes to bed, because I am that introverted.


Unfortunately, I don't have eight people to tag that have blogs. If you're a HUGSR blogger, consider yourself eligible.

Thoughts on Strategy I

Well, let's talk shop a bit. I've got lots of things puzzling me about people's perceptions of our mission team's strategy. I figure I can break it up into more than one discussion, so let's start with the basics.

Team Arequipa is going to begin with a "house church" model of church planting. Now, there is lot's of terminology floating around out there in the ether of church planting jargon, and too often no one is sure what anyone else means. So let me clarify a bit. We intend to "do church" in homes. We will begin in our own, and after bringing people to faith, move to their homes. The size of a church will be determined to a large extent by the size of a house or its meeting facilities. Interestingly, Arequipa is sunny about 340 day of the year, and there is lot of outside space available to poor people with tiny houses. So don't bust my chops over practicalities! We'll make do, and we certainly weren't choosing this strategy because our converts will have big abodes. Churches that grow too large will multiply (it's not PC to say "split") and so grows the Kingdom.

So why have we chosen this model? Well, there are lots of reasons, and I suppose each of those might make a post. Every post will have to do with Latin American and, more specifically, Peruvian culture, and every one will be missiologically oriented. For this first one, I want to talk about the general issue often raised--at least to this point--concerning the Latin American perception of "church."

Let me say that I am not an expert on Latin American culture, and although I can boast a missions degree form my glorious alma mater, I am neither over-qualified in missiology. I have actively endeavored to understand both, though, and that's where I'm coming from.

It might be fair to say that the vast majority of difficult questions in the mission field are a matter of navigating the fine line between enculturation and accomodation. In any given situation, some will argue for what is "contextually appropriate." Sensitivity to cultural context is the basis for sound missiology as we know it. In that same situation, others will argue for a seemingly less culturally appropriate option on the basis of some other governing principle. The former claims to be incarnational and the latter claims to be prophetic. The prophetic missionary accuses the incarnational missionary of accomodating people instead of teaching them truth, and the incarnational missionary accuses the prophetic missionary of being boorish and ethnocentric. Thank God Jesus was both incarnational and prophetic. (That was intended to be a massive understatement, in case you didn't catch it.) We know a good mix is possible, if we can avoid the polarizaiton.

So, here's the scenario. Those of you who have been clenching in hope of a practical example, feel free to relax. Latin America (LA) as a whole is a Roman Catholic culture, if one may be so audacious as to lump that many nations culturally. There is an amazing homogeneity, though, and it is in fact due to the Catholic church more than anything. Ninety percent of LA would claim adhesion to the Roman Catholic church, though it is a commonplace among Protestants to follow this up with a sentence using the world "nominal" at least once. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that we are going to a place in which everyone has firmly fixed notions about what "church" looks like. The particular point of interest for this post is that church happens in a temple. As big a temple as possible, in the middle of everything if possible. Separated from temple, the Christian religion is unidentifiable for many and repulsive to no few.

The questions begin, then. We have become well accustomed to large, prominent buildings in the U.S. CofC, so there is no incompatibility there. We also have the resources as sending churches to acquire property and build largely, prominently, and centrally. It makes sense to us, and we can do it. So why wouldn't we? Particularly if it removes a barrier that might impede a cultural Catholic's journey to faith. We should meet people where they are when possible, right?

I will spend a lot of keystrokes in future posts explaining why I think such a procedure is erroneous, but here I will mention just one. It is bad strategy because it is a default methodology. We do not know how to plant any other kind of church in LA. Bizarrely, our house church strategy has actually been accused of failure to enculturate. I contend the opposite--which is yet to be demonstrated--but I also contend that the methodology nearly always employed in LA by CofC missionaries is in fact the failure on that count.

All this depends of how one measures success of course. I do not deny that we are able to build a building downtown in nearly any LA city and fill it. But most any minister would admit that the markers of success will manifest in the long run and often in intangible ways. Moreover, we have yet to witness a real movement of churches in LA using the building model. There have been greater and lesser successes numerically, and Brazil is often held up as proof that the model works. Yet, I can testify that churches throughout a number of countries in South America eventually disappear or plateau at an average of 30 members. Of course, this is a very complex phenomenon, but I already said there will be a lot more posts. In any event, this is not even numerical success (sending churches' favorite kind), much less the other kinds of success that I value more highly.

My most essential point, though, is that in this case, we have not only carried an American church model with big buildings and big bucks to developing countries. We have also managed to call it "contextually appropriate," which means we have failed to see that enculturation must also entail challenging aspects of culture.
Understanding them, but challenging them. This is certainly so when the culture is bound up with a particular understanding of the Christian faith. We do no Latin American a favor by accomodating the templo mentality. We do the Kingdom no favor either. Rather, this is an instance in which preconceptions must be deconstructed. In order to understand the theologically and experientially profound meaning of "church" as God intended it, the best policy is to disassociate it from the temple. A sermon on "being the church" preached in a shiny Protestant temple isn't going to cut it.

One particularly baffling aspect of this discussion is where we are coming from as the CofC. Let me give a shout out here to AVB, "U Can't Go 2 Church," What's Your Tag Say?. You formed my young theology and my cracking adolescent vocals. Anyway, there are two things that make a house church model particularly Restorationist in the CofC sense of the word. Most obviously, that was the way it all began. That's tongue-in-cheek of course, but strange nonetheless. It happens to be one of those forms that has both sociological and theological impulses driving it. Under the rug it goes, though. Secondly, as AVB would remind us, we are churches that value saying what we mean and meaning what we say. Why allow misperceptions to govern our Latin American churches' view of church (Because it governs our own?). And let me add that it does in those churches where we have merely taught that the people of God are the church rather than demonstrating it. I consistently hear CofC Latinos refer to and see them treat the building as sacred space. To whatever extent U.S. missionaries are responsible, we have not done church in a way that allows cultural Catholics to have a fundamental paradigm shift--a change in worldview--regarding church. My belief is that a house church model might facilitate such a shift.

A little insight from Qumran

The Dead Sea Scrolls have taught us a lot about Jewish theology around the time of the NT. This bit of insight is just slightly more interesting than most. I believe you'll agree.

4Q521
[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will
stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)

You can tell the text is fragmentary, as most of the DS Scrolls are. So we have to put things together a little bit, but I think it is clear what that last phrase is telling us about the Messiah.

My House of Cards

Here's a post I started months ago and came back to numerous times but never actually wrote; just typed the title and left it. I figure I'm more objective in retrospect anyway. I've got two classes left before completing becoming a Master of Divinity. Although I think Doctor of Philosophy sounds totally lofty, I have to say that Master of Divinity actually sounds like a more impressive claim. I mean, just listen to it. Hello, I'm Greg, and I have mastered divinity. Well, anyway, it's been a crazy three years. The M.Div. is an 84 hour program, which typically takes 4 years or more at 9 hours a semester. I've gone as quickly as I could, which meant some 12 hour semesters and 6 hours each summer. That's somewhat suicidal in itself, but manageable if you're studious and do nothing else. I was foolish enough, however, to work part time in ministry with the Hispanic church here in Memphis. So, I've had many moments of near-despair. There are only so many hours in the day, and even when you don't sleep for any of those, sometimes there just isn't enough time if you've overcommitted. Now, I won't go into all the motivations for engaging in such insanity--as it was my choice--but let's just say that I judged it to be the best course available. There has been a great deal of learning, as well there ought to be for the price! But there has been just as many life-lessons as academic ones. In particular, I've learned a lot about how to deal with the best course being a painful, less-than-ideal one. In case there are any total numbskulls stumbling across this blog, let me advise that starting marriage with a 12 hour semester and a new ministry job is bad business.

To be very transparent--and what's the point of blogging otherwise, right?--I have second-guessed my decisions many times. It seems that whenever something is hard, and you intend to do it for Kingdom reasons, there is inevitably doubt about whether motivations are pure (enough), whether it's hard because God's in disagreement, whether God's in agreement and just wants you to learn a lesson about not being dependent, etc. The reason I'm not supplying my motivations is that I don't intend you, the reader, to evaluate our family decisions. Like I said, I've done second-guessing aplenty, and if there was a time for seeking advice, it's long past. If you have a gem of wisdom to impart, try to catch me on the front end of the next kamikaze dive. In any event, I've definitely learned that it is always more complicated than the simple answer I would prefer.

Getting to my main point, I can also affirm that, whatever else God was doing through this experience, he was teaching me humility. I hear people joke about praying for patience and then finding themselves in frustrating experiences only to conclude that God was giving them practice. This has been something like that, I think, because I have prayed much and for many years for humility. Arrogance and pride are cancers to leadership, and I have long since come to recognize myself as a high-risk case on those counts. God has graciously given me many gifts, yet I imagine he often rolls his eyes at my self-satisfied and condescending attitude. It's one of those sad-funny ironies. So, you can imagine it's bad medicine for me to meet whatever standard I have set for myself without something to check my pride. You can imagine it's much the worse if the odds are against me and I succeed anyway. I am an academician. My progress in the academy is the fruit of both God-given ability and a labor of love. So I tend to excel even when taking more than a full load. It's no help when classmates shake their heads in disbelief upon learning that I've been taking 12 hours and still showing up to class prepared. So God gave me a few more cards to add to my house. And it came crashing down. My GPA suffered at times as I struggled to keep all my plates spinning. Deadlines came and went as my perfectionist self dragged into professors' offices to ask for grace. Many things I intended to do well were substandard, and other things simply never got done. Constantly plagued by the intention to pursue a terminal degree in the future, the desire for the respect of my profs., and the desire to learn as much as possible, I always strove for excellence. The current dean of the grad. school, however, is quite open about the fact that the M.Div. program was, for him, about learning that sometimes it is impossible to succeed. Whereas I thought that was nonsense when I started the program, I am in agreement now. Is that humility?