Missional Othodoxy by Gary Tyra

7/29/2019 Missional Othodoxy by Gary Tyra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/missional-othodoxy-by-gary-tyra 1/46

Theology and MinisTry in aPosT-ChrisTian ConTexT

gary Tyra

a MissionalorThodoxy



http://www.christianbook.com/missional-orthodoxy-theology-ministry-christian-context/gary-tyra/9780830828210/pd/828213?product_redirect=1&Ntt=828213&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

http://www.amazon.com/Missional-Orthodoxy-Theology-Ministry-Post-Christian/dp/0830828214/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380126875&sr=8-2&keywords=a+missional+orthodoxy

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2821



A MissionAlorthodoxytheology And Ministry in A

Post-ChristiAn Context

gAry tyrA

Copyrighted Material. www.ivpress.com/permissions



InterVarsity Press

P.O. Box 400, Downers Grove, IL 6055-46

World Wide Web: www.ivpress.com

Email: [email protected]

©03 by Gary yra

All rights reserved. No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without written permission rom

InterVarsity Press.

InterVarsity Press® is the book-publishing division o InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA® , a movement o

students and aculty active on campus at hundreds o universities, colleges and schools o nursing in the United States

o America, and a member movement o the International Fellowship o Evangelical Students. For inormation about

local and regional activities, write Public Relations Dept., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, 6400 Schroeder

Rd., P.O. Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707-7895, or visit the IVCF website at www.intervarsity.org.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken rom THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW

INTERNATIONAL VERSION® , NIV® Copyright © 973, 978, 984, 0 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission.

All rights reserved worldwide.

While all stories in this book are true, some names and identiying inormation in this book have been changed to

protect the privacy o the individuals involved.

Cover design: David Fassett

Interior design: Beth Hagenberg

Image: © Marcus Lindström/iStockphoto

ISBN 978-0-8308-8-0 (print)

ISBN 978-0-8308-6485-0 (digital)

Printed in the United States o America ∞

InterVarsity Press is committed to protecting the environment and to the responsible use o natural resources. As a member o Green Press Initiative we use recycled paper whenever possible. o learnmore about the Green Press Initiative, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record or this book is available rom the Library o Congress.

P 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Y 3 30 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3




ConTenTs

Abbev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ackwegme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART ONE: The Foundation of a Missional Orthodoxy

Neee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A heology Both Missional and Orthodox

Ou Cue My Cex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Searching or the Right Response

Excuu: e Lbe/EmegeOvecec Re Aeve I . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART TWO: The Forging of a Missional Orthodoxy

Reve Pep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o the Bible

Ge G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o God

5 L Lmb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o Christ

6 Evgem, Ec Equppg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o the Holy Spirit

e Nee New Humy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o Human Beings

8 Ecpe Exmpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o Salvation




Nce Necey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o the Church

Nw N Ye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oward a Missionally Orthodox Doctrine o the Final hings

Ccu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Nme Subjec Iex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scpue Iex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8




PArt one

Th fuati amiial orthxy




1

needed

A Thlgy bth miial a orthx

i bc peme bk C egy u be

m, cug w G up e w ug S

Jeu C e Hy Sp. Mg Cpe Wg

ee “m ju e g e Bbe

ppe k bu, y b me ugey me. M , muc-bue pe, ‘w ’ bu.’”2 A bbcy me

egy c ep bu cue cu m.

Hweve, eve me bc e wy egy u be m-

e my ue G.3 Accg me e be

egc m, m ju meg G e, w e

. Tee “ege G” “eve w e y

e.”

Iee, y G e e S e Sp e

Craig Van Gelder and Dwight J. Zscheile, Te Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping rends

and Shaping the Conversation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 11), pp. -.See Christopher J. H. Wright, Te Mission o God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ), p. .See the chapter “Our God Is a Missionary God” in John Stott, Te Contemporary Christian

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1), pp. 1-, as cited in Wright, Mission o God, p.

4n. See also See Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, pp. , -, ; John G. Flett,

Te Witness o God: Te rinity,“Missio Dei,” Karl Barth, and the Nature o Christian Community

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1), pp. 4-, , -44; David J. Bosch, ransorming Mission: Para-digm Shifs in Teology o Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis , 11), p. 4.

George R. Hunsberger, “Proposals or a Missional Hermeneutic: Mapping the Conversation”

(January , ), http://gocn.org/resources/articles/proposals-missional-hermeneutic-

mapping-conversation. See also Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, pp. -; Flett,

Witness o God, p. .




2 A Missional Orthodo

w ceve pupe, bu ge, ppe, W e

cuc we.5

T bev “G G m” w “e e cm-muy e w” pcpe m— be-

v e e w becme kw e m

cve—u emeuy ec e egc eev.6

T w I me we I y egy u be m

ue. Iee, bbc pcc eg uece by e

m cve, I ugge the goal o any so-called missional

theology should be to help communities o believers participate in God’smissional purposes by contextualizing the Christian message or their par-

ticular cultural locations toward the goal o representing the reign or

kingdom o God within them. Pu eey, ce e pupe e

cuc u be pcpe w G up cmmuy

e meey vg mee w u ee e

membe, e pupe egy u be ep e c

cuc ebe membe, b cpey vuy, be e

pepe G— , u wee C kgm

e me, egb, wkpce e cmmuy we.7

A e, weve, C egy e wu G’

m m wy juce e we

Flett, Witness o God, p. 4. See also Bosch, ransorming Mission, p. ; Ross Hastings, Mis-

sional God, Missional Church: Hope or Re-Evangelizing the West (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Aca-

demic, 1), pp. -.Michael Barram, “Te Bible, Mission, and Social Location: oward a Missional Hermeneutic,”

Interpretation 1 (January ): 4. See also Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, pp.

-.Darrell Guder writes: “Te primary task o a missional hermeneutic [i.e., missional theology]

then is to provide a particular congregation the ormation it needs to be able both to live out its

gathered lie and its scattered lie aithully.” Darrell Guder, “Missional Hermeneutics: Te Mis-

sional Vocation o the Congregation,” Mission Focus: Annual Review 1 (): 1. Yet another

way o grounding Christian ministry in the nature o God is more theological than exegetical in

nature. Tis approach ocuses on the rinity’s interpersonal relationships. According to this line

o missional thinking, “the church is called to ‘echo’ in time the communion that is God’s lie in

eternity: she is ‘called to be a being o persons-in-relation which receives [her] character as com-munion by virtue o [her] relation to God and so is enabled to reect something o that being in

the world.’” Flett, Witness o God, p. . Citations are rom Colin Gunton, Te Promise o rinitar-

ian Teology, nd ed. (London: & Clark, ), p. 1. Tus, in addition to a ocus on the

sending nature o God, a missional theology might also seek to tease out the implications o

God’s communal nature or the missional endeavor, as well as or the traditional theological loci.




Needed 27

C peee Scpue. W epec e me pby,

egy ee mpy ecuge cuc membe e

cvc pve em w bbc upp e u-gc pcce, v ee g e, c be cee m-

. Nee egy m wc ecgze ,

gve e cexu ue egzg,8 evey gee

eg mu cvee w e bbc ex e wy

be e by e Sp w eewe, v ecexuz e

gpe mege w be cmpeg e gee gve pe-

cfc me eec expe, we e pcu ex-e egu que pe.

Hweve, w eg e e pby (g juce

e we C peee Scpue), equy mp

ecgze ee cuc eece bewee contextualizing e

gpe cempy my cex accommodating, as-

similating conorming e gpe cuu c, eg e

vey eece e C mege mke me pbe c-

cepbe pe e pevg zege. I becue e pby

bk eek mpy m theology, bu m or-

thodoxy we— cmpeg pee e C

e , we g juce e pcce my cexuz

mee u by e pe Pu (1 C 9:20-22), py ee e

bbc ex ce e ce eue e

(Jue 3). T, ue, w egy b m-

x bu.

Bu e’ be ce, e xy peee ee pge not -

ee uc ce ebg evgec ey

(.e., w ge be ce evgec w e ) e-

bg e’ m cee (.e., w ey g m-

my w ). Re, e e ee pee

missional orthodoxy— v e C , pecey

becue eek be u b e bbc ex e m-

See Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New estament: Patterns or Teology and Ministry

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ), p. ; Bruce J. Nicholls, Contextualization: A

Teology o Gospel and Culture (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1), pp. -, -4.





k, c be ue by e Sp m ebe m

ue uue e p C’ we u

me pce.9 Te pmy pupe e bk e eC cmmuy ug ue w uc m -

xy mg k ke.0

Christian OrthOdOxy and the swing

Of the PrOverbial Pendulum

T egc pjec me ecey by e c e y

C bee fe w ccu c wg e pvebpeuum. Ove e ye, C eg ve ee ve-

ec bck m e exeme egc pepecve e

e: m e /cevve e pgeve/be

e bck g. pu mpy: vecec ppe!

Hweve, g eecy w veec vecec

we ve w wg uee by e Pece Eccee:

I g gp e e e g e e.

Weve e G w v exeme. (Ecce 7:1)

Keepg ge vce m, mj egc cvey

mpc w we evgec egge m m-

y cee e vey C orthodoxy “g bee .”

I ee uc g, , w cmpe, w u

uc cegy pme, p-C cuue?Sme e que cuey beg ebe bck w

eg ue e:

With respect to the need or a missional theology to be aithul to the biblical text, see Darrell

Guder’s encouragement in Be My Witnesses: Te Church’s Mission, Message and Messengers

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1), p. .Troughout this book, and especially in the nal two chapters, is discussion o how missional

orthodoxy (right belie) and missional orthopraxy (right practice) work together to comprise

what is occasionally reerred to here as a missionally aithul vision o the Christian aith.Teologians Roger Olson and D. A. Carson also reer to the theological overreactions produced

by the swing o this proverbial pendulum. See Roger Olson, Te Mosaic o Christian Belie:

wenty Centuries o Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, ), p. ; and

Donald A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

), p. 4.




Needed 29

• I w pe believes mp G, y w e e

behaves?2

• Su m my cue emp ep pepe beevece g— embce ce ce eve m e

Scpue ve bee wey e by C ug e

ceue?3

• I ee uc g C gm—bbc ce e

uve, -egbe, buey cuc e C ?

• I ee uc g C gm, ce eve

m Scpue cegy, y me? I y me,

wc e, wy ee?

• Hw mp we u be k ec “gy”

bu ce eem cue C gm pe e?

w egee mg e ce cmpe C gm

m ppe bee w eg e C ce?

For a brie, cogent discussion o why many churches eager to reach “postmodern truth-seekers”

are known to demonstrate an “antipathy toward doctrine,” see Mark DeVine, “Can the Church

Emerge Without or with Only the Nicene Creed” in Evangelicals and Nicene Faith, ed. imothy

George (Grand Rapids: Baker, 11), pp. 11-. See also Brian McLaren’s discussion o doc-

trine as an “imperial product” that needs to be “deconstructed” in Why Did Jesus, Moses, the

Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World (New York:

Jericho Books, 1), pp. 11-.I have in mind here universally armed doctrines such as those included in the Nicen-

Constantinopolitan Creed. In support o this, Scot McKnight has written: “I now see the creeds,

especially the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed,as undamental to the aith o all Christians.” See Scot McKnight, Te King Jesus Gospel: Te

Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 11), p. . Tat said, I wish to em-

phasize rom the outset o this work my agreement with the view that the legitimacy o any

creed is dependent on its compatibility with the Bible (see DeVine, “Can the Church Emerge?”

p. 11). Tus, the purpose o this work is not to call or a aithulness to the creeds but to the

Scriptures that gave rise to the creeds.It is not uncommon or theologians to assert that “orthodoxy itsel is the lens through which we

see theology.” See Scot McKnight, “Review: Brian McLaren’s ‘A New Kind o Christianity,’”

Christianity oday, February , 1, www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1/march/..html.

See also Mark Galli, “Proo o a Good God: ‘Crucied Under Pontius Pilate,’” Christianity oday,

April , 1, www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1/april/crucied-under-pilate.html, or an ex-ample o how an element o the Nicene Creed, precisely because it is grounded in Scripture, can

prove useul in a discussion o a thorny theological problem. See also how Van Gelder and

Zscheile arm the act that the doctrine o the rinity “is now being reasserted increasingly as

the ramework within which other doctrines are explored and explained” (Van Gelder and

Zscheile, Missional Church, p. 1).





• Hw C xy be peee cegy p-

me, p-C cey e be uu uc

u-cm?5 I pbe pme uc g “g bee”wu g emg, e, “gmc” e vce?

O mu we ee e ee embce “xy” c-

cmmg u cuu cex e up ucg

xy ?

A ee que ve ppe b e e pecum,

m e g e e, m cevve pe-

pecve e muc me pgeve be. Tu, meC eem ugge cuc e’ v beeve

gy bu ce ey ee peee e Bbe. Oe

C cue believing e p Cy ;

w we behave w umey me, ege u bee.

Aw me ue ee w exeme p e peu-

um’ c w cupe e. Seve ye g, we I w yug

p w ewy cmpee M.Dv. egee, I eeg e-cue w yug m w ye cmpee egc

euc e (ppey v) emy. T em, ju

cupe ye yuge I, w e egb e

w eey pe my we P me. I w bvu

ex- egb me u, we cey ppece

ep e mewe wm e pue u ve. He

wu e pek wy emy, cg w muce ke w u meeg m. Fy, e y ve. U-

uey, u u be e ppy expeece my egb

m.

S g e ey wy my me, e f w u e

yug em’ mu me e que: “Hw cu yu g

emy wee e pe ve uc w vew Scpue?”

Tug I w me e upe by e bup, pemc

ue quey, I w ccee my egb—e em-

’ e—w cke, ccee k ce we.

See DeVine, “Can the Church Emerge?” p. 1.




Needed 31

S, I vey cmy ee epy I ue w y p-

e w pee w vew Scpue.

Te ke e e k ce me my yuggue w buyg . Iee, e we e e by e

ee w ye cu gue m emy eepe

egc bkupcy wu cmg wy m e expeece w

eby w vew Scpue.

Ag, yg mke pece e ke my egb, I mpy ,

“We, e me pu yu wy: I ve e L Jeu ju yu .”

He bck, “I ub ! Bee, Mm Jev’ Wecu y e me g.”

kg e ck, bu becmg geuey ue p,

I , “N, I c ue yu b u wee w up eme

ey wu e up cey w ec e.”

“N, ey wu’!” e ppe.

I e ke, “Hw wu ey e?”

He expe my eme wu be mg y eeece

pcu ce pecu . My e-

pe w p u I w m w ce. “Bu e

yu uggeg pecu ce pee egc g-

fcce?” I ke. (I e w, I que wee e me

ugge e embce pcu ce cuc

pe’ expeece v.)

H epy w uequvc: “Abuey!” e .

Immeey, I wee bck, “We, ’ e ce, e eve

J Cv w ve.” I ume wu be gfc

yug cucm--g we w ugy

e e egc wk e ge Pe Reme.

He me mpy, “We, we mke wce Cv.”

Te mpc w ce. He w yg eec ee

xy w uc J Cv mg be ge excep

g e pcu ce ue, bu me. I w eue e cce e ve!

Tug I cge e ubjec e ke my ex- egb,

e e e cve w bvuy e. A I ec, we eve





e e ey wy my me. I e, e ,

wu be cu me “c up” w mee w ju -

e I y pee efce vew Scpue, bu becue I beg pcu ecce cmmuy (

ee e ce e e by ), I w bee v

we?6

I wu eveuy g we bk e pc Pm

umem (.e., gmm, jugmem, epm, ec.)

evgec cuce.7 Expeece uc e exp wy.

Bu y e e e y. I e e egy cue Iec evey emee C be uvey, I mke ue

my my-bu ue ec ccy w we pecum

egc epe e cuu zege cuey execg

uge uece e Wee w. Tee epe ge m vey

cevve, ume ppc, e wk me P-

e eg we uece mg me evgec eem be

gg gu.8 I bk Te Heart o Christianity, Mcu Bg

by c “ee” v e C (wc m

gey cme be evgecm

C umem) w w e c e “emegg” v

pgm.9 Accg Bg’ emegg pgm, e C e

u cu “beevg” bu “bevg” -

Teologian E. J. Carnell once reerred to Christian undamentalism as “orthodoxy gone cultic”because o the manner in which its adherents eel the need to go to the mat over doctrines the

Bible does not heavily emphasize, and because o their commitment to separate rom those who

do not agree with their doctrinal idealism. E. J. Carnell, Te Case or Orthodox Teology (Phila-

delphia: Westminster Press, 1), p. 11, as cited in Roger E. Olson, “A Postconservative Evan-

gelical Response [to Fundamentalism]” in Four Views on the Spectrum o Evangelicalism, ed.

Stanley N. Gundry, Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

11), pp. , .Gary yra, Deeating Pharisaism: Recovering Jesus’ Disciple-Making Method (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, ).For example, in his review o Brian McLaren’s A New Kind o Christianity, Scot McKnight draws

parallels between some o McLaren’s theological conclusions and those held by Marcus Borg(see McKnight, “Review”).

Borg, HC xi. See also Borg, SC 1-11, 1-; and Borg and Wright, MJ 1-1. However, even

though I will use the term emerging to describe Borg’s vision, I recognize that his version o the

emerging paradigm cannot be equated with the theological perspectives o all those who con-

sider themselves part o the emerging church movement.




Needed 33

e.20 Iee, Bg py cc e wy e ee ve

e C cue muc e ee beeve ce g

be ue. He e up cque w pe ve w.Te y e e w cve e ce w

wm g ex m pe. I e cue e cve,

e wm me e eme: “I’m muc me eee Bu-

m Sufm I m Cy.” We Bg ke e wy,

e : “Becue ey’e bu wy e, Cy

bu beevg.” Accg Bg, e cue, “I ’ k bee

me ey muc vg pu p wg wy.”2

Cmmeg excge, Bg ge expe me e-

e y w wm’ eme, meg e c

e eme eec e m cmm ueg e w

“” me Wee Cy: me g

ce e “bee,” “beevg” e eme be ue, wee

c bbc ecg ce gm. Iee, ue-

g ce e ee pgm. M pepe y, e cuc ue , ke ge C me

beevg e C bee be ue.22

Bg e w p c bewee Cy e “e”

Cy e “e,” uggeg we c ee be e

e e bu, cue, e e we u ce.23 Accg

pfc u e emegg ve Cy e p-

mg, e cce my C ug e ge beevegy bu w G , w e up , w e ee

em e pepe e cee pey muc c ce

mg e p w Cy bu.

w e e e. w vey ee wy kg bu w

e e e Cy. Wc p u we embce? I

wc ec u we e?

W we ve bee u alse antithesis—e e w eg

Borg, HC 4-41; see also Borg, SC 11-4. Borg, HC .Ibid. See also Borg, GWNK ; and Borg, SC 11, 14.Borg, HC .





e me we y ve w p m wc ce.2

Te ey we ee uc g ue e (

ee- ue w y w pbe epe), e -ee bu. T epecy ue cu uug e-

g pc wee g py e bewee cevve

be ex e cc w cve e’ p vew by

peeg ccue e ppg pepecve eem wk

we. Depe e ecu ec e cy, m pu

bewee ce cevve be (wee egu p-

c) w eve— “we” e e e e muc bee jb epg e me pecey

becue eek meue, uce , ece, epbe

me. We e pe w ecgze e e eue

pey by ucg w e exeme p e e!

S, cce e que C xy, ye, ee

ype C umem (.e., mm-pucg

ceem cem) empze cec ce

mg cuy , becue gce, w e beve e

me g e gve me e e “g” ce

e bee. A, ye, ee C bem eem

vce egu evm wc w e beeve

mme g e e cee ee bee beg

ebe by em wk me ju, ume, evmey u-

be w. B ee exeme p e pbemc. Te

g ew, weve, , Eccee 7:1 em u, we

ve ce bewee ee w exeme vew. A eve

vey ebe e xy xy , ee

e ve be humble me, modest cpe aithul

b e ex e k. T e m mege bk: We

ve pey e e; ee uc g

missional orthodoxy .

Also reerred to as a “alse dichotomy.” Note that my ocus on the phenomenon o a alse an-

tithesis parallels Roger Olson’s use o the phrases “unnecessary biurcations,” “alse alterna-

tives” and “absolute antithesis” (see Olson, Mosaic o Christian Belie , pp. , ). Note also

D. A. Carson’s use o the phrases “manipulative antithesis,” “absolute antithesis” and “alse an-

tithesis” in Becoming Conversant, pp. 4, , 1, 11, 4.




Needed 3

the need fOr a missiOnal OrthOdOxy

I ee w eve me evgec e e we wg e

peuum by gg umbe, me, my u xy c uc cmpeg eve b fgg u-

mem -ccmmg bem, me w.

kg u cue m e pe Pu, we evgec ve wy

bee bu e m. Bu Pu’ m pcce w cex-

uze e my e gpe epeg e ccuu

c y gve my c, 1 C 9:20-22

mke ce: e Jew I becme ke Jew, w e Jew. e ue e w I

becme ke e ue e w (ug I mye m ue e w),

w e ue e w. e vg e w I becme

ke e vg e w (ug I m ee m G’ w bu m

ue C’ w), w e vg e w. e wek I

becme wek, w e wek. I ve becme g pepe

by pbe me I mg ve me.

A e, m ppc my bu cexu-

z— bu kg e que: W e Hy Sp up

my c w c we, m cmmuy

me by e Sp m,25 cpee w ? Teee, I

ugge e Bbe’ emp e cexuz e gpe

vuy me m epe me k u cue

my cex. I cumbe cempy evgec cucee membe e be exegete (.e., eek uy u-

e) e my cex ey mg e e pepe

vg wkg w em cmpeg pee e

C mege.

O cue, ’ e g ckwege e bbc c c-

exuze eque m epe. Bu eve pe e

que: Wy missional orthodoxy? Te we cuc quey eve m wee e c , gve e pcu u

See Darrell L. Guder, Te Continuing Conversion o the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ),

pp. , 14.





cue my cex u cmmme juce Jue 3,

ju y k cexuz w . I cpe w we w

ke k me u cexuz p. Hee e cuw be me e my-cex pcu eem

me ce k m epe.

Te post-Christian dynamic. A e c e e cee

e We e py becmg me me p-C,

pep eve -C, e e. T w

p-C e epecy peve mg (ug by

me me ) e membe e emegg gee. A ece Los Angeles imes ce ce bu evey-fve pece

Amec bewee e ge egee wey-e w ce

emeve “pu bu egu.”26 My ee m

yug u c be cee p-C e ee ey

pe me p expeece C cuce. Iee, ccg

eec cuce by e B Gup epe Dv K-

m’ bk You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the

Church . . . and Rethinking Faith, ey ee u evey fve yug

C (fy-e pece) cec ee pemey

exee pe me m cuc e e ge fee.27

I Christianity oday ce e “Te Leve: Yug Dube

Ex e Cuc,” u Dew Dyck we, “Amg yug u e

U.S., cg e eeg mj kg pce away m C-

y. A u epe eque we exme e exu k

ueve me e que bu wy.”28 Dyck e m

me e eg c wc, we ke gee, eve

Phillip Clayton, “Letting Doubters in the Door,” Los Angeles imes, March , 1, http://ar

ticles.latimes.com/1/mar//opinion/la-oe-clayton-emergingchurch-1. Trough-

out this work I will make reerence to the post-Christian realities at work in America. Support

or the idea that these same realities are at work in Canada can be ound in Ann-Margret

Hovespian, “Quebec: Canada’s Prodigal Province,” Christianity oday, April , 1, www

.christianitytoday.com/ct/1/may/quebec-prodigal-province.html.Te Barna Group, “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church,” September , 11, www

.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church. See also

David Kinnaman, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church . . . and Rethinking

Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 11).Drew Dyck, “Te Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church,” Christianity oday, November 1,

1, www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1/november/.4.html.




Needed 37

eme e ey e p-C ymc:

Amg e fg eee 2009 m e Amec Regu Ie-

fc Suvey (ARIS) . . . e pecege Amec cmg “ e-

g” m ube bu w ece, cmbg m .1 pece

1990 1 pece 200. Te e w’ cfe e eg. Te

mkg “ eg,” ce e “Ne,” me up e y gup ve

gw evey e, m e ecu Ne e cevve Bbe

Be. Te Ne wee m umeu mg e yug: wppg 22

pece 1- 29-ye- cme eg, up m 11 pece

1990. Te uy u 73 pece Ne cme m egu

me; pece wee ecbe by e uy “e-cve.” . . .

Oe uvey eu ve bee gmme. A e My 2009 Pew Fum

Reg Pubc Le, p pc ce Rbe Pum

Dv Cmpbe peee eec m e bk American Grace, e-

ee m. Tey epe “yug Amec e ppg u

eg mg e fve x me e c e (30 40

pece ve eg y, veu 10 pece gee g).” . . .

Tee bee cepg p cuc vveme. Ac-cg Re Reec, ppxmey 70 pece Amec yu

p u cuc bewee e ge 1 22. Te B Gup e-

me 0 pece e ee e cuc w be “egge”

by e me ey e 29.29

Obvuy, uc c ce e ee pee uue

evgec cuc ee egge me eu eec.30 A

mee w wk w emgpc ey evey y, I e ecce e g m yug u, e pce

e pycgc vu epe eve, pe me

Ibid.In support o this assertion, New estament scholar James Brownson writes: “wo realities are

readily apparent to Christians as they examine the present situation o Christianity in its North

American context: First, the increasing marginalization in North American culture o Chris-

tian aith in general and o the Christian church in particular must call orth rom Christians a

resh vision or what it means to be a Christian and to be the Christian church in our post-Christian setting. Second, Christians also believe that the Christian aith oers good news and

hope or our situation, good news that must be lived out and proclaimed with courage and

wisdom.” James Brownson, “Speaking the ruth in Love: Elements o a Missional Hermeneu-

tic,” February , 11, http://imissional.org/wp-content/uploads/1//Elements-o-a-

Missional-Hermeneutic-Brownson.pd (p. 4).





me wy m u ey e ce pcpe gwg

up (.e., e cuc).3 I e, weve, my ee m

yug u g p eve m puy, ee-y ejecg e u cm c Cy e pce. I

cu ju y w yug m w, ug bu

gue m C uvey, ue e cuc e

Cy e expeece . Iee, yug m w gew

up cuc w y p-C, bu -C we!

Te que : Wy? Wy e ee my pepe vg u

u w, ug puy ugy, eveee ce emeve“ve” Cy “e” w e cuc?

Conservative Christianity’s image problem. Tug me c-

gc eec uggee we Amec evgec ,

c, ve mge pbem e ,32 my pe expeece c-

emc eec ce ewe.33 A me e y vce

expeg cce. Te me p me Dv Km’

unChristian: What a New Generation Really Tinks about Christianity

. . . and Why It Matters. O e b ee-ye uy cue

“me ze y epeeve uvey (eecg u-

evew)” ee evew w “ epeeve

mpe xee- wey-e-ye ,” g w evew

“ue p cuc ee,”3 Km e e -

wg ubg ccu:

Ou eec w my e ue Cy, epe-cy yuge u, ve e u e C , eeem

e eye C we qucky g mg ue.

Tey m e em eecu be g up we ey

e u C, ey ejec Jeu becue ey ee ejece by

C.35

For some excellent advice about what churches can do to be proactive about mitigating this

problem, see Kinnaman, You Lost Me. See Bradley E. Wright, “Americans Like Evangelicals Afer All,” Christianity oday, August ,

11, www.christianitytoday.com/ct/11/august/americans-do-like-evangelicals.html.See chapter three o yra, Deeating Pharisaism.David Kinnaman, unChristian: What a New Generation Really Tinks About Christianity . . . and

Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker, ), p. 1.Ibid., p. 11.




Needed 39

Pu ecue w e ve g uece w

pe k Cy. I c, we cvee e-f

ue, ege ge, me ey “ve b expeece cuc w C gve em egve mge Jeu

C.” T epee ey fy m u ee

cuy—cug bu e m yug ue—w m

ey ve gfc em pu bggge m p expe-

ece w -ce C we. Cuc ee e uwe

ue. Amg p Pe cuce, ee-que

ey e ecue pepe we egve expeece cee mj

be e pee Jeu.36

Sy, ey ue , Km pu , “Cy

mge pbem”37—e wc g umbe c bue

e c ee muc Pm umem wk

w my evgec cuce.38 e egee

my membe e emegg gee ce uc ue

c egm, jugmem, epm, gmm, pugm

ypcy w cevve cuce, evgec w

Ibid., pp. 1-.Ibid., p. 11.Other works that argue that there yet remains in evangelicalism a strong vestige o some o the

negative aspects o Christian undamentalism (dogmatism, legalism, judgmentalism, separat-

ism, pugilism, etc.) include: Robert Webber, Common Roots: A Call to Evangelical Maturity

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1), pp. , 4; Donald Bloesch, Te Evangelical Renaissance,

1- (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1); Donald Bloesch, Te Future o Evangelical Christianity

(Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard Publishers, 1), pp. -; Donald Dayton, Discover-

ing an Evangelical Heritage (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1), pp. 1-; Joel Carpen-ter, Revive Us Again: Te Reawakening o American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxord Univer-

sity Press, 1), pp. -; Christian Smith, American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Triving

(Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1), p. 14; Stanley Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evan-

gelical Teology in a Post-Teological Era (Grand Rapids: Baker, ), pp. 1-1, 1-4; Richard

Mouw, Te Smell o Sawdust (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ), pp. 4-; Eddie Gibbs and

Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures

(Grand Rapids: Baker, ), pp. -; Roger Olson, Reormed and Always Reorming: Te

Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Teology (Grand Rapids: Baker, ), p. ; Dan Kim-

ball, Tey Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights rom Emerging Generations (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, ); and Kinnaman, You Lost Me. Furthermore, the ollowing works all speak o

the deleterious eects o a Christian Pharisaism in particular at work in the lives o too many conservative Christians and churches: John Fischer, 12 Steps or the Recovering Pharisee (Like

Me) (Minneapolis: Bethany, ); om Hovestol, Extreme Righteousness: Seeing Ourselves in the

Pharisees (Chicago: Moody, 1), pp. 1, , 4; Kathleen Kern, We Are the Pharisees (Scott-

dale, PA: Herald Press, 1), pp. 1-11. imothy Keller, Te Reason or God: Belie in an Age

o Skepticism (New York: Dutton, ), pp. , -, 1-.





cegy f emeve eeg ey e wmmg upem

ey egge my cexuz.

Te impact of postmodernity. Fueme, ug I m cvce me pec e ve pmem cuy cee p-

pue m my (I’ ve me y bu

e), ue me me Amec u (eve my

evgec cuc membe) e eg w embce ee

egc cmmme e vewe eme e p-

me pepecve—epemgc evm, m evm

egu evm.A e k gey vempyg g, I ugge we k

pmem e vew kwege e w wc

we ve e eu cultural linguistic constructivism.39 T , c-

cg e pme pepecve, we ey expeece e

w (ey u) ; we expeece u pecep e

w. Ou epecve ueg ey u (u w-

vew) ve be cuce (ece e em constructivism). Fu-

eme, e ey ugge e m wvew c

ppe wu cgve mewk— cec ccep

cege ebe u pce u ee pecep e w

u u u ee w pecep kwege. Pme

ey ec u cme by cgve mewk v -

guge (ece e em linguistic).0 Hweve, pmem,

e ccep cege we e up ug cuc u kwege

e w e u. Tey ex e e w, y u

u me cuc . F exmpe, ce e cegy

“e.” I e e w ee uc g “e,” y e eve,

my wc mc e cegc e ex u

e. A we, e w we ue ecbe e w ey

I am indebted to Jim Fidelibus or this helpul way o summarizing the heart o the postmodern

understanding o worldviews; see his “Being o Many Minds: Te Postmodern Impact upon

Psychotherapy” in Te Death o ruth, ed. Dennis McCallum (Minneapolis: Bethany House,1), pp. 14-4.

Put simply, the idea here is that the same rules o grammar within a language that enable its

speakers to orm meaningul sentences also enable its speakers to orm a meaningul view o

the world. Or, to put it in even stronger terms, the rules o grammar at work in a language actu-

ally govern the manner in which its speakers orm their view o the world.




Needed 41

cec w e w, ey ju p e w. W e b-

y u wc we g meg. Tee me-

pyc cec bewee w ( y guge) w g-fe. Tu, gue, u uppe “kwege” e w

cuy ee pge w pg e w, eve

ey mkg cc w ey e. Te hard pme c-

e e cumuve eec ppc gume uc

ee e cvc u wvew e g me -

uy guc cuc. We e, pek, mpe w

guge— guge cme u v e cuue wc we ee (ece e em cultural ). Te end result o a “hard” post modernism

is a thoroughgoing perspectivalism that relativizes truth to each cultural

group and, ultimately, to each individual worldview constructor.

Nw, ce bve, e pme pepecve ge

puce ee egc cmmme wc pee ce pbem

embcg c C xy.

• Epistemological relativism e e ce cuue ucw reality ey , wvew (ug cuu ce-

) e equy v eee e cuue’ ke ey

u be cee y me ccue uve

y e.

• Moral relativism e e ju e cuue uc w

e “u” bu ey, e cuue uc w e “u”

bu morality ee. Evey cuue w my pe membe, e cuue’ ueg my

u be cee y me ccue uve

y e.

• Religious relativism e e ju e cuue’ ke

ey my y me ccue y e, e

Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke are careul to point out that not all postmoderns are philo-sophical relativists; see their Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Teology in a Postmodern Context

(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, ), p. 1. Tis is why many scholars make a dis-

tinction between “hard” and “sof” postmodernism. For example, see Millard Erickson, Post-

modernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge o Postmodernism (Grand Rapids:

Baker Books, 1), p. 1; and Carson, Becoming Conversant, p. 14.





me ue we cme spirituality; eg ( ug

cuu ce) e equy v e eg me

“ue” vfc y e.I e ke vce egee egy be be fgue

u gve cevve Cy’ cue mge pbem, u

cuue’ ceg embce ee ee egc cmmme

eve uge bce “bue uu” my ppc by

evgec me pce.

W me ee g m my

cegy pme, p-C cex, u meme!2 N eg cu e cvcg wk e Hy

Sp, I w ugge any presentation o the gospel evocative o an

arrogant, sel-righteous, strident version o Christian orthodoxy is going to

have trouble even being heard by the members o our post-Christian

culture, especially those rom the emerging generations. Te yug m I

eee ee, w ug vg bee e e cuc w

pee vue -C pepecve, ebekg ce p.

the nature Of a missiOnal OrthOdOxy

Ee cpe I uggee w eee u pce

me xy ve be humble modest we

aithul b e ex e k. Tug cpe w w pve

exee cu wy m xy e best evepbe egc epe u cue my cex, I w

f exp wy xy ve be aithul b e ex

e k ee be humble modest we. Hee I w

pee be bu mp cu e c ee

be me bewee e m emegg cuc mveme.

Why a humble orthodoxy. I ve ey eeve mke ce

Brownson makes essentially the same point: “At the same time, that truth o the gospel—i in-deed it is the gospel’s truth—is always spoken in love. It is never spoken or the purpose o

political advancement or domination, but in the hope that each person and community might

discover its true voice and its own distinctive experience o ull humanity as the gospel takes

root in resh and diverse ways. How we speak is as important to our missional vocation as what

we speak” (Brownson, “Speaking the ruth,” p. ).




Needed 43

y xy cce pvg cmpeg

u cegy pme, p-C evme, umbe

e g e manner o presentation eque.3 I my pvege ec cupe cue ec emee m my u-

vey’ ce cucuum. ecg ee cue pve me w e

ppuy mpc e ve ue m vu mj w e

vu pce e pu juey. Fky, eve ug I wk

C uvey, me e ue I ve c ec e-

mee cme m C me, ey ce em-

eve C-we. Te e g ey my ue ve cmm, weve, ege wee ey e e pu juey,

e uece pmey e ve.

e egee e yug pepe I ec w ec y e cve

e ebe wk e cuue ge, I ee embee

pu w ee bev mg m ueg

w be cuc my u p-C cex. F,

ppe me e e m puge eec pme

ug e membe u cey, epecy e w beg

e emegg gee, e ugy, g, c-

ecve pee u cm. Sec, weve, my m

e yug u p-C Amec, we muc uece

by pmem, e ue, -ce epemgc ev-

. T, my yug u e We, epe e uece

pmey, cuy m beg meg ue,

(1) e e mkg e u cm eem umbe, cee wg

gue e emggue,5 (2) ey ve e beeve

David Bosch writes regarding the impact o the emergence o postmodernity on mission:

“Tere is no longer any room or the massive armations o aith which characterized the mis-

sionary enterprise o earlier times, only or a chastened and humble witness to the ultimacy o

God in Jesus Christ” (Bosch, ransorming Mission, p. 4).Ross Hastings observes: “It seems that most ordinary people in Western society would be un-

able to articulate a coherent postmodern way o thinking and being, but may best be described

as holding ragmented belie systems” (Hastings, Missional God, p. ).Perhaps the ollowing observation made by Robert Schreiter with respect to how “truth” is as-

sessed in cultures where meaning is a matter o social judgment is applicable in our own min-

istry context. Schreiter writes: “Propositional truth might be seen as a necessary but not su-

cient condition or establishing intercultural truth. Many peoples o the world have that sense

already. Tey will not believe what strangers say until they see how strangers live.” See Robert J.





ug e excge ey mg cve meg au-

thentic, transcendent, real .

T emp e mpce umy my ueye u cme upe. Te Bbe peg w pge

c ue umy y w G6 bu

w e beeve7 e ue e cmmuy we.8

Spekg pgmcy w, my ce we u keep

bbc emp umy m we we cme c e

pge wee e pe Pu ecuge ee be e

bu vg e ve uc wy be my beefce eme (e.g., C 4:-; 1 Te 4:11-12; 1 m 3:7),

we pe Pee’ we-kw my ex: “Bu yu e

evee C L. Awy be pepe gve we eveye

w k yu gve e e e pe yu ve. But do this

with gentleness and respect ” (1 Pe 3:1, emp e). A ye, bee

we mve , I ee e ee mke ce e c exece u-

my u my ppc e me mee my

pgmm. I gue egc wee uy

eve we C, we e ce ve u ve servants

( ) b reality u neighbors.

I m cpg me ug cu eme e

excuu ppee e ex cpe we I e ee ev

reality we mu cuy keep m u mu

e u e ey; mu equve e

ey. Tu e ey w wy excee u by cue . We

w, e ppe cece Mce Py em u, wy

kw me we c e.9 T wy we e ev ey, -

empg eve bee bee by u we w

Schreiter, Te New Catholicity: Teology Between the Global and the Local (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis

Books, 1), pp. 41-4.For example, Chron :14; Is :; Dan 1:1; Mic :; Zeph :; Jas 4:, 1; 1 Pet :.For example, Eph 4:; Phil :; Col :1; 1 Pet :; :.For example, it :; Jas :1. Tough my ocus in this section is on the need or a horizontal,

presentational humility toward other human beings, it should be acknowledged that a missional

orthodoxy also requires a vertical, conessional humility beore God (see DeVine, “Can the

Church Emerge?” pp. 1-).Michael Polanyi, Te acit Dimension (Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1), p. 4.




Needed 4

ee. Te k egy epemgy ( ueg w

we cque kwege) I vce wk em we p

e pue e eg ee, egge gg gue, c- ve, ec w ey we umby w ey me

u e vce ve.50 Teee, ey pppe u

egge pubc egzg ugy, g me we

pee mpeccbe eecu mey e egc e-

e wk e w.5

A ev u neighbors, we e ce m bcy epec

em (1 Pe 2:17). T vve eg em, cg em, egg ueve upe em. I me eve mkg ue

cecve, ceu, mpuve me, eve we cme e

ec we uze u ec w em.52 C umy

( wm) eque we gve e e m eek f

e ve u ce em. Tu we mu be pe we

me e, ecgzg ey c ep cfece.

Eve we cme meg mp meg e

gpe, we mu e e e me wy we wu w be ee

(ee M 7:12). We m u wu wy w e e u e

u, we wu pe cu be e wy ee cecve

ceceg. Sce e wy we wu w e u be

u, we e bge by C e e u e ju

e me me.

ke e ue umy ye ep ue, I w mke e-

eece ee e ccep hospitality reciprocity, wc e

pyg cegy gfc e e m cve. A

m eg Luke 10:1-12 (wee Jeu gve my uc-

e evey-w cpe e u e m) ye e m-

y pcpe emp ge e ype ep w

p-C ecey eque cexuz e

David Bosch reers to the need or humility and sel-criticism in his discussion o a modiedrealism in ransorming Mission, pp. -.

See George R. Hunsberger, “Te Missional Voice and Posture o Public Teologizing,” Missiol-

ogy 4, no. 1 (): , as cited in Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, p. 14. See also

Bosch, ransorming Mission, pp. 1-1.See Hastings, Missional God, p. 11.





gpe,53 we y w py e e, bu e-

que we. Cmmeg pge, m u Cg

V Gee Dwg Zcee e “e cpe wee eeeepy e ve e Sm’ cuue. Hpy m

ee evee— eg py to e ge bu eekg e

py o e ge, w e vueby mpe.”5 Tey

g mke e mp p :

Reyg e py e cmmuy wc yu ve bee

e—epecy e cy vuebe wy Jeu cmm e

cpe —cge e em e my ecue. . . .Weve yu e e wy g e pece, eg, p-

cmg e g ew e kgm e ep

ecpcy, muuy, vueby.55

I mp e w G me k m u-

my u eg S e w cmpeey epee

e py e um ce. I we e me e exmpe

C meg e mege e kgm u w, wc me wge u p ge up ce pe

w e w e ke u. Tee my be me we we e e by

e Sp umby k e ge wm we g me

me u me wy f (c. Lk 19:1-9; J 4:4-42)!56

A ye, ug e muu py my

mg be, e ymc ecpcy ge eve ue. N vem-

py, bu my pcpe ugge we ve e membe “ge” cuue e e Scpue w u, we my f u

w ueg em mpce by e expeece. Oce g,

V Gee Zcee exp:

Reg e Scpue w pepe e e pcu cex c

be eeg expeece e e m we e w e

Chapter two will provide a more in-depth discussion o what is involved in an “adequate” con-textualization o the gospel or ours or any ministry context.

Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, p. 1.Ibid., p. 1.See Gary yra, Te Holy Spirit in Mission: Prophetic Speech and Action in Christian Witness

(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 11), pp. 1-1, 1-1.




Needed 47

ew e . Te Sp wk mg u ee ecue.

Fm pepecve, we u cpe eg meg bu e

gpe m e cuue e. Te W e Sp pve ecc eeme cege ycem ccmm, wc e

wy ge, e c-cuu ecue. Ye e W e Sp

mke pbe e ecpcy pe u eew.57

My w my expeece be we k ecpcy.

Ove e ye my ueg w e Jeu y cue

ey g ew G’ w bee ke ew, eepe eve

eu my eg weg w e k que wcew eve -C ve bug me e bbc ex. I

ve gw my w wk w C eu cveg,

uyg pyg w e, eve e w wee ye p-

eg beeve.

Te bm e be cu m py

ecpcy e y ke pce, ue

geue e peee umy eque. Meve, we

w u pee e gpe be u b e bbc

ex e m k, we mpy mu keep m my pevu

bev ee g m my ce-

gy pme, p-C cex, u me me!58

Why a modest orthodoxy. Te eme expee bve w-

g, e e e y e mege me we. Te em

evangelicalism ce e e e mveme cvc

egg e mpce beevg e gpe mege, e evangel

(ee Rm 1:; G :; Ep 2:-10; 1 Te 1:3; J 2:20-22).

I bk A New Kind o Christianity, B McLe e c-

que evgec emp beevg p w cm.

He we: “Weve e f jugme w be, e, w vve

G . . . cg u b ce bee ke puc beg

Van Gelder and Zscheile, pp. 14-. See also David Bosch’s discussion o the concept o “in-terculturation” in Bosch, ransorming Mission, pp. 4-.

acit support or the idea o a humble orthodoxy can be ound in Miroslav Vol ’s helpul and

accessible discussion o what is involved in sharing wisdom (giving witness) well in our con-

temporary ministry context. See Miroslav Vol, A Public Faith: How Followers o Christ Should

Serve the Common Good (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 11), pp. -11.





ce e gcey cecku.”59 Te p ke. Hweve, e

u , pep ue e c e e umy’ F

w c bee e beece (Ge 3:1-4), ee emy bbc pge cee ugu e Bbe wc ce

w mp G um beg believe,60

e ee b me e exe u (e.g., ee P

7:22). Te Geek veb pisteuō (“I beeve”) ppe vu m

e Gpe J e ey-eg me. Ney e p-

ge e u Gpe wc ecuge bee C (

me) e mege ue ey mpy bee ce ppcceg m, wc u puce e cpcy exe

u. T epecy e ce w epec e m pge

mew ce beevg Jeu w e c pcg e’

e pp e e S G,6 uc :

“Ye, L,” e epe, “I beeve yu e e Me, e S

G, w cme e w.” (J 11:27)

Bu ee e we yu my beeve Jeu e Me, e

S G, by beevg yu my ve e me. (J 20:31)

S, ve , I e ee C xy (g

bee) , ccg e New eme Scpue, u be con-

tended or (Jue 3) e distorted (Ac 20:30), suppressed (Rm

1:1), exchanged (Rm 1:2), rejected (Rm 2:; 1:14), not agreed to (1

m :3-), not acknowledged (2 m 3:7), opposed (2 m 3:), wandered

away rom (2 m 2:1; J. :19) turned away rom (2 m 4:4). Fu-

eme, e New eme ce ee by

ecg— e ce ce— mp, cuc e

C , mu be cuy pcme, me, e-

ee gue. F ce, my uc u,

e pe Pu ce ecey bue ee e

McLaren, NKC 4.For example, see Gen 1:; Ps :1-, -; 1:4-; Mk 1:1-1; Jn :14-1, 1, ; :4;

:; Rom :; 4:1-4, -1, 1-; 1:-1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal :, ; Eph 1:1-; 1 Tess :1;

4:-1; 1 im 4:1-; Heb 1:-; 1 Pet :-; 1 Jn :1.For more on this, see George E. Ladd, A Teology o the New estament (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1), pp. -.




Needed 49

c cuc by wge “ fmy e u-

wy mege bee ug, e c ecuge e by

u ce eue e w ppe ” ( 1:9). Iee, Puge ex u me, yg: “Yu, weve, mu ec w

pppe u ce” ( 2:1).62

Tu, e que : De e Bbe upp e e C

gm— e ce , becue ey cue e e e

C mege, eeve gmc eee? Re, e ppe

que : Wc e my ce eve m Scpue eeve

gmc u? F e Bbe ee me bee c-e wc bbc c eg c adiaphora (.e., -

ee pube me) pecey becue e’ p em

cc e expeece v (e.g., ee Rm 14). Te ecg-

e New eme e mke c bewee c-

e gm e me ugge a missional orthodoxy that is

modest rather than overreaching in terms o its scope63 will ocus on those

ew doctrines which the Bible itsel insists are crucial to the experience o

salvation. be eve me pecfc, I m uggeg ee e u

egcy cuc bee cue C gm pecey

becue ey e e vey e bbc Cy:

. Jeu b G um

. Jeu’ e e c pee g gfcce6

. Jeu e by m e gve

. Jeu w L 65

Tee e, cue, e bbc ce e bc

Other passages that exhort toward a doctrinal aithulness include Jn :1-; 1 Cor 11:;

Tess :1; 1 im :; 4:, 1, 1; :-1; im 1:1-14; :1-1; :14-1; 4:-, ; it 1:-14;

:1-; 1 Jn :-; and Jn 1:-11.In a similar vein, Darrell Guder reers to the need to “approach with modesty the task o gospel

denition” (Be My Witnesses, pp. -).For a discussion o why the doctrine o Christ’s atoning death should be considered an element

o Christian dogma despite the act that it is not a ormal article in the Nicene Creed, see

DeVine, “Can the Church Emerge?” pp. 1-.On (1), see Jn :1; 1 Jn :, 11-1; Jn 1:-; on (), see 1 Cor 1:1-; 1 Jn :; 4:1; on (),

see Rom 1:-1; 1 Cor 1:1-; and on (4), see Rom 1:-1; 14:-1; 1 Cor 1:; Phil :-11;

Heb :1, 1.





eve m ee u (e.g., e vg b, Jeu’ mce, e eu

C, e f jugme). Tee e bee e mp

u be cue u pecg ecg. gee, eece f u bbcy me v e C .

Hweve, ce ee e bbc pge wc expcy ce

bee ee cy ce cuc v, I ugge

we cue em e bee we cegze

C gm.66 Oce g, e ge ee bee u me

xy meey efe, bu e pe: m-

xy , pecey becue umbe me we u b e bbc ex e m k, c be

ue by e Sp m cue my u p-C pee

ke e k e cm C.67 My cce u

ueg C gm ge bey e expc c

Scpue beeve ju ew g e be ve, we w ve-

ec beg ce w ec e ve uc g e

pece mg Jeu’ eu, e ppe wy gve cuc, e

At the end o the day, all our o the theologians contributing to the book Four Views on the

Spectrum o Evangelicalism end up suggesting that evangelicals need to remain aithul to his-

toric Christian orthodoxy. Tey dier on (1) the emphasis they place on the importance o

adhering to doctrines considered dogma; () those doctrines they put orward as Christian

dogma; and () how this dogma is to be determined since evangelicalism lacks a magisterium

(i.e., an ocial dogma-determining body whose pronouncements are binding on all evangeli-

cals). See Stanley N. Gundry, Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen, eds., Four Views on the

Spectrum o Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 11). Over against the views put or-

ward by the our contributors to this work, I want to suggest that an understanding o Christian

dogma that is biblically aithul and that does not require some sort o evangelical magisteriumwill maintain that some doctrines should be considered dogma simply and precisely because

the Bible itsel indicates that embracing them (in terms o both mental assent and existential

trust) is critical to the experience o Christian salvation.In anticipation o the criticism that what I am proposing is simply Christian undamentalism

in a new dress, I contend that besides the act that the list o christological doctrines presented

here diers rom the “undamentals” presented in the booklet series published between 11

and 11 that gave the movement its name (see Christian Smith, American Evangelicalism: Em-

battled and Triving [Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1], p. ), there is another crucial

dierence. Reerring to the “ve ‘undamentals’ o American conservative Protestant aith,”

Robert Schreiter reminds us that “the inerrancy o Scripture, the virginal conception o Jesus,

substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection o Jesus, and his bodily return in the SecondComing—were chosen not because they summed up the essence o the Christian aith but be-

cause they most contradicted modernist sensibility. Te reconstruction o ‘true aith’ in unda-

mentalism chooses selected items to serve as boundary markers o who is in and who is out”

(Schreiter, New Catholicity, p. 1). As I have endeavored to make clear, this is not goal o the

orthodoxy presented in this work.




Needed 1

ue ve eec, . I , evey e e

e, we mu eve be gu g e um eecy

w be c.68 A e me me, I beeve pbe ve juce Jue 3 wu empg c e C

mege. Te key m u ueg gm e c-

e wc e Scpue emeve empze beg cuc

C v.69 Tu, we I m wg mke e ugge

little umem eve u ye, I m ju wg

c wgee my uepu e eecy mg

me C ee e ee g e m with other Christians ve evey ce eve m e Bbe.70 T w I me we

I ugge m xy w be me e ve-

ecg em cpe.

the differenCe between missiOnal and emerging

Sme ee my be weg p w e emegg

cuc mveme f e pcue. Ae , e ee

e emegg cuc mveme me e gpe e wy

See the discussion, “Sin as Control,” in Guder, Continuing Conversion, pp. 4-, , , .I want to go on record, i only by way o ootnote, asserting that the soteriological criterion I am

putting orward as that which constitutes Christian dogma is not necessarily rooted in the idea

that the Christian gospel is all about the saving o individual souls, nor does it necessarily pro-

duce such a view. Both Scot McKnight and Darrell Guder argue passionately against such a

gospel reductionism. At the same time, it is worth noting that both McKnight and Guder, in

their own ways, argue that the heart o the Christian gospel centers in the same christological

doctrines that I mention. For his part, McKnight grounds the our Gospels in something hereers to as the “apostolic gospel,” especially as it is articulated in 1 Corinthians 1:- with

Paul’s very clear and concise re-presentation o several key christological doctrines. See Mc-

Knight, King Jesus Gospel, pp. 4-, 1, 4-, -, -1. Likewise, Darrell Guder states that

the apostle Paul “may have dened the gospel in its most succinct orm with the words ‘Christ

died or our sins in accordance with the scriptures’ (1 Cor 1:). . . . Te apostolic assertion in

1 Corinthians that ‘Jesus’ death or our sins and his resurrection by God constitute the center o

the gospel o Christ” (Guder, Continuing Conversion, pp. 4-41). “Te incarnation, death, resur-

rection, and ascension o our Lord are the central events o salvation history . . . the content o

the gospel” (Guder, Be My Witnesses, p. 14). Both o these opponents o a gospel reductionism

seem to agree that there is a doctrinal core to the Christian kerygma that centers in the our

christological doctrines the Bible portrays as crucial to the experience o Christian salvation.o be air, undamentalist theologian Kevin Bauder asserts that there is a dierence between

undamentalism and the undamentalist movement, and that there is more than one kind o

undamentalism, not all versions o which maniest the tendency toward overactive dogma-

tism. See Kevin . Bauder, “Fundamentalism,” in Gundry, Naselli and Hansen, Four Views on

the Spectrum, pp. 4-4.





pve cmpeg pme, p-C cw? I ee

c be me bewee e emegg cuc mveme

e me be “emegg pgm” Mcu Bg? I , we ey ee missional xy? H’ e ce generous

xy ey bee me? Ae’ m emegg e

me g?

Fm e ue, I w cmme ye w, u cce

ec u p-C pee, eev cexuze e C

gpe cmpeg me wu mg e c-

cuu ebe wk cempy cuue. Te u my ee emegg cuce w ju , be w

pec cu e membe e emegg gee.

Fueme, I w be eve e my membe e

emegg cuc mveme w w ub e e e

Mcu Bg’ emegg v e C e eecve

e egc pepecve. A e e e emegg mveme

ee cexuze e gpe k mcy mpce by

postmodernism pcu. I e uve wk, Emerging

Churches, Ee Gbb Ry Bge efe emegg cuce

“cmmue pcce e wy Jeu w postmodern

cuue.”7 Tug Bg mke e cm emegg pgm

puc “Cy’ ecue w e me pme

w,”72 m beve pce m quey e Pe

be cmp, peg w -upeuc ump e

me me pme e.73 Te wy Bg -

ce emegg v Cy w me Pem

y eve ece cegz.7

Bu eve u weg bu me e e que

pe bve. Specfcy, eveye e emegg mveme

wu w Bg epeeve pkem, e emegg

Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, p. 44 (emphasis added).Borg, HC xii.For example, see Scot McKnight, “Review”; and Gary Dorrien, “American Liberal Teology:

Crisis, Irony, Decline, Renewal, Ambiguity,” Cross Currents , no. 4, www.crosscurrents.org/

dorrien.htm (accessed September , 1).Borg, HC xii, -, 1, 44, , , , 14, 1, 1, 1, 1.




Needed 3

mveme mke by cmmme my pme

cuue, w ee ee bk cue missional or-

thodoxy ? Ag, e’ m emegg e me g?Seve mp bev ee ee w que ee

be me ee.

Tere is more than one way to be missional. Te f pbem w

equg “m” w “emegg” ke ccu

ee me e wy cceve m my. V

Gee Zcee ee w mj eve mge

emege e m-wee ceuy:Tee eve ecumec evgec mge e vey

muc wk w e cuc y, wee ec mveme cue

expe g eve upc w e e. Te ecumec p-

pc eek e pmy ge egc ueg

m, epecy e m e ue G, evg my ev-

gec ccee evgem beg ue . Te ev-

gec ppc eek e pmy beyg e Ge Cm-

m eeby cue epecy Cgy um

beece, evg my ecumec ccee c gpe

beg cmpme. Te uc e m cuc cve-

, g w ee ve, epe pve me bgg,

w ecumec becmg me we evgem’ e e -

cu evgec begg ecceve m g e

m e ue G. 75

Tug que ugge e e cbu e m-

cuc cve bee me “bgg” bewee ecume-

c evgec, e c e u e ugge

eveye yg e m be pek w e vce -

ce by e mp pyg e vu “bce” cege m-

cve pe e bk pve.76 Accg

“mp,” e m ue gug e vu bce w

wee e missio Dei (G’ m) eg G e ue- “pecze” ee (.e., G wkg e w ug

Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, p. .Ibid., pp. 1-11, -.





e cuc) “geeze” ee (.e., G wkg e w

bey e cuc ug ecu y). F e p, e u,

pg “bg gee cy e m cuc cve,”77 ppe eg ee pepecve: “Te cuc pcpe

G’ cug ce eempve m.”78 Hweve,

ube c ye wg, e c cuey

ee me e wy beg m—w gfc e-

ece bewee em. Suc bev mke mpe equ

e m emegg mveme mpbe.

Neither is the emerging church movement monolithic. Sec, ju ee me e wy beg m, ee e

umeu ve w me be emegg. Hee e

ke-wy m Christianity oday ce pvcvey e “Fve

Sem e Emegg Cuc: Key Eeme e M C-

ve Mue Mveme e Cuc y.”79 Ac-

cg e ce’ u, New eme c Sc Mc-

Kg, ee y c be me bewee emegg

cuce e Emege mveme,80 bu bewee vu

ype emegg C eee pmy by e egee

wc pme wvew p-evgec ppc

egy embce.8

M u E Seze Dv Pum ve me e

p egme e emegg cuc e e me:

Ibid., pp. 1-14.Ibid., p. .See Scot McKnight, “Five Streams o the Emerging Church: Key Elements o the Most Contro-

versial and Misunderstood Movement in the Church oday,” Christianity oday, January ,

, www.christianitytoday.com/ct//ebruary/11..html.McKnight explains: “o prevent conusion, a distinction needs to be made between ‘emerging’

and ‘Emergent.’ Emerging is the wider, inormal, global, ecclesial (church-centered) ocus o

the movement, while Emergent is an ocial organization in the U.S. and the U.K.” Having

identied the organization as “Emergent Village,” McKnight goes on to oer the ollowing

stipulation: “While Emergent is the intellectual and philosophical network o the emerging

movement, it is a mistake to narrow all o emerging to the Emergent Village” (McKnight, “FiveStreams”).

McKnight oers that “the vast majority o emerging Christians are evangelical theologically.

But they are post-evangelical in at least two ways”: (1) they are suspicious o systematic theol-

ogy, wary o the idea that any one theology gets it absolutely right; () the question o who is

“in” and who is “out” pains them (McKnight, “Five Streams”).




Needed

W ce e “emegg cuc” ppe ve ke ee

ec. Oe k ke e me gpe e c m

cuc bu eek mke uebe e emegg cuue.A ec em ke e me gpe bu cue queg

ecucg muc e m cuc. We e

em me exeme ppc cue queg ev-

g e gpe e cuc. F e pupe cu

we w k ee ee k e Reev, Recuc,

Rev.82

Accg Seze Pum, pbe gu be-

wee emegg cuc ee be e egee wc ey -

vce ev e gpe e cuc. Suc y e

upp e ee w e emegg cuc

mveme mu vey ve me pey mp

me. I ue ee me e wy beg emegg,

ju ee me e wy beg m, w c mpe

equ e w mveme be pbe?

Mutual misgivings between members of the two movements. Be-

cue b e m emegg mveme e cmme

cexuz e y Jeu u cue p-C

cuue, ey ee wy ey mg be ce. Hweve,

bev w g membe b mveme ve

ge ec, expeg me eu cce egg e m-

y pcce e e ppg cmp.

F exmpe, e expeg ppec my e bue emegg cuce, m cuc vce A Rxbug

Sc Be ee e ee mke e wg c:

Te emege m em, weve, e ecey e

me g. My emege cuce eem be ew m c-

cuce ve e ee e egb e m-

ue e cuc. Te cuc g ug cuc

evce eve eev wy c ee egme -cey—e eeke evce beg e m pme m ec

Ed Stetzer and David Putnam, Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Mission-

ary in Your Community (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, ), p. 1.




A Missional Orthodo

me-c Bby Bme. Sme emege cuce e eg

e m cve, cg ew p e e u. Bu

e cegy emege e mg m e w -ee g.83

V Gee Zcee mke m bev we ey

expe cce —g w e cuc eew mveme

(190 1970), e cuc gw mveme (1970 190),

e cuc eecvee mveme (190 1990) e cuc

e mveme (1990 2000)—e emegg cuc mveme

(1990 2000) c uc ju e wy “ep ecuc em ucceu w cgg cex.”8 T pg-

mc emp egy ecque c, y ee m

expe, bey ue e p me emegg cuc ee

“e f e ey/ue e cuc bee eekg

e pupe/m.”85 Tee ( e) m u

f ubg we y ype cuc, wee evgec

emegg, evece peccup w my pgmm e expee me pu egc eec e ue

pupe e cuc.86

Te c bewee emegg m cuce w by

Seze Pum eec ee cce. Te m cque ee

w evgec m u eve me ( ) m e

emegg cuc w wge eve e my

See Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church: Why It Matters, How

to Become One (Grand Rapids: Baker, ) , pp. -4.Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, p. .Ibid., p. .At the heart o the missional movement is the premise that “what the church is must deeply

inorm what the church does” (Van Gelder and Zscheile, Missional Church, p. 4). O course

human beings act in mission, but it is crucial to understand that since God is the primary agent

in mission, the church is obligated to take its ministry cues rom him. Rather than doing things

and then hoping God will bless their activities, the church should be asking: What is God

doing, how would he have us participate with him in it? According to Van Gelder and Zscheile,

“Getting the sequence right is crucial or allowing God’s person and power to become ully operative within the lie and ministry o the church. Te sequence ows as ollows: Te church

is. Te church does what it is. Te church organizes what it does” (p. 4). Tis missional concern

regarding ministry agency seems to be grounded in the observation that churches that get the

just-stated sequence wrong have been too willing and able to serve their own agendas when

engaging in “mission” rather than attending to the purposes o God in the world.




Needed 7

mege me “m bbc egy.”87 Te

cce pbe vecexuze e gpe, pek,

e emegg cuue, eug my mege e ccuey eec e e G.

A ju pbe f pcp e m cmp

expeg cce ve e bee my bev emegg

cuc ee, e cvee ue. I we-kw bg p

e “D Kmb’ M Mgvg,” e emegg cuc

p u expee cce ve e ck cpe

mkg gg my m cuce. Kmb’ cque e-eve y u ec:

N g g I w pe w e cuc ee ge cy.

Oe m vce e gup e yuge pepe e

cy w be w ge, c cuce me by

pecg muc. W ee e ecgze, weve, w

yug pepe wee cmg cecuy c megcuc

e cy— ve. I wp evce ew u w pp/ck

muc pecg. Te cuc eme e yug pepe

wee C bee eg.

Ae upke vce e ue cuc me ee

me m cgue w e ey cuc. Bu cuc

e me pbem. Ae fee ye ’ mupe. I’ weu

cmmuy eve e mee, bu ee’ evece -

C begg w Jeu. I e me cy eve meg-

cuce e eeg cve cpe mue.I eze m evgem ke g me, ee cuce

e e wkg cu . We c’ expec gw veg.

Bu gve e upve ck ec, ee m cuce

u be w ccze e c cuce e mkg

meube mpc. N, I m umbe pe. I m eme

by w my cme w c. I c, I m b kepc.

Bu I m pe bu Jeu-ceee cpe beg me. A u-

pgy, I f my ge, c cuce, ey e.88

Stetzer and Putnam, Breaking the Missional Code, pp. 1-1.See Dan Kimball, “Dan Kimball’s Missional Misgivings,” December , , www.outour.com/

archives//1/dan_kimballs_mi.html. See also missional author Alan Hirsch’s sympathetic




A Missional Orthodo

S, f, ee me e wy beg m; ec,

ee e emegg cuc mveme mc; , muu

mgvg ex bewee membe e w mveme. Te cumu-ve ce ee ee bev u be uce pu e

e e e emegg m mveme e yymu.

S, I ve ye exp wy, ug I vew e emegg cuc

mveme ve cme e cmpe e gpe

cexuz eev, I beeve ee eug eece

bewee m emegg w bk pe u wy

w eee u pce me m xy u, umbe me e e mpy geeu.

the bOOk’s seCOndary PurPOse

A secondary pupe A Missional Orthodoxy bu me bge

bewee e evgec, m emegg cuc

mveme. I e pece, I ce my bee e e wc

ex bewee membe ee ee cmmue eem cee

vyg ueg e ue e C gpe w

cue eque pppe cexuz

cegy pme, p-C cuue. T bev

u my cee pe e m xy peee

wk c eve puce gee ee uy cegy

mg my membe ee gup. I ppe geeme w

cce ceu De Gue w, mkg ue -

m mep, we:

Ou egc mveme e be ke peuum, wgg m

e e e. A e exeme b e e w ue-

g e gpe, be epg e epbe, e b

cmpeeve me w ee mp em-

pe gee ceu e we gpe. Suc ceu

wu be mke by ume cc we by vey

me expe e we cuc expeece ecg.

but critical response to Kimball’s posting. Alan Hirsch, “Alan Hirsch’s Response to Dan Kim-

ball’s Missional Misgivings,” December 11, , www.outour.com/archives//1/dan

_kimballs_mi.html.




Needed 9

Uebe peuumke eecy , we mu e u

egc wk vew w we p muc ge we. We

mu vew u pcu wk cbu e ueg muc bgge gpe. We mu be vey ceu we e , g,

mg mecg e gpe by eucg e mgebe

m pcu egc ppc yem, pcu cu-

u, c, pc ee.89

A key cevg e k uy (bu umy) wc

Gue pek muu embce m xy ve

be umbe me, me cpe u b e ex e k. I m cvce ee wy cexuzg e

y Jeu e juce b 1 C 9:20-22 (e c

cexuze) Jue 3 (e ee ce eey e

ce evee e )!

w e, I we evangelical w e pe bb-

cy me missional ppc my. My pcp cve-

pe w be e emerging pgm pu w by e-

g Mcu Bg (pmy Te Heart o Christianity ) 90

emege u pvceu B McLe (pmy A Gen-

erous Orthodoxy ).9 Tug ce g wu be mke pu e

ege Bg McLe e me cegy, b ee

See Guder, Be My Witnesses, pp. -.Other works by Borg that will be reerred to in this book include Speaking Christian: Why Chris-

tian Words Have Lost Teir Meaning—and How Tey Can Be Restored (New York: HarperOne,

11); Meeting Jesus Again or the First ime: Te Historical Jesus and the Heart o Contemporary Faith (New York: HarperOne, 14); Te God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a

More Authentic Contemporary Faith (New York: HarperOne, 1); Reading the Bible Again or

the First ime (New York: Harper One, 1); and Marcus Borg and N. . Wright, Te Meaning

o Jesus: wo Visions (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1).Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 4). Please note that

since this work is currently available in both hardcover and paperback editions, and because

these editions dier in their pagination ormatting, I will cite two sets o page number reer-

ences. Te rst set reers to the hardcover edition; the second set, placed in brackets, reers to

the paperback. Other works by McLaren that will be reerenced include A New Kind o Christi-

anity: en Questions Tat Are ransorming the Faith (New York: HarperOne, 1) ; Everything

Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and Jesus’ Good News Collide (Nashville: TomasNelson, ); Te Secret Message o Jesus: Uncovering the ruth Tat Could Change Everything

(Nashville: Tomas Nelson, ); More Ready Tan You Realize (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

); A New Kind o Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1); and Why Did Jesus, Moses,

the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World (New

York: Jericho Books, 1).





ge we e w wy e e C cmmuy v

e C e me mp epec m e

e e by m evgec.I e vey f pgp e pece Te Heart o Christianity,

Bg ce pupe wg ecbe w vey -

ee v Cy—w ee we e que:

W e me be C? He ge ce: “I

bk, I ecbe w que ee we que. Te f

ee v Cy; e ec, emegg v.”92

F p, McLe mu e e ee “ew k Cy” “eveyg mu cge.”93 Bu

we Bg e be b me gw ppc, c-

kwegg pee e cc egc bem e

ce w me Pem ( g ky pp-

me ce cee c evgec), McLe

by w m muc me bcue “uce” e vu

egc p e ke.9 We ebee emp beg

e ce u pupe pvkg cve,95

e que. I mpy me-pe, cky ume

w e ccee e ve e C pu w

by me emege ee ke McLe e ceu ey ee

be w epec Jue 3.

be me pecfc, my ee e e ex bewee

e evgec emegg cuc mveme cep

w e c eece eu we emege ee ke B

McLe eem mke egc mve pe e pecbe by

be eg uc Mcu Bg.96 I ue, e cce

See Borg, HC xi.See McLaren, NKC; and McLaren, Everything Must Change.See McLaren, GO [].Ibid., pp. - [].For example, see Scot McKnight’s rank but air review o Brian McLaren’s New Kind o Christi-

anity. McKnight oers this concluding statement: “Alas, A New Kind o Christianity shows usthat Brian, though he is now thinking more systemically, has allen or an old school o thought.

I read this book careully, and I ound nothing new. It may be new or Brian, but it’s a rehash o

ideas that grew into ruition with Adol von Harnack and now nd iterations in olks like Har-

vey Cox and Marcus Borg. For me, Brian’s new kind o Christianity is quite old. And the prob-

lem is that it’s not old enough.” See Scot McKnight, “Review.” Other emergent leaders I associ-




Needed 1

me cmp e emege v ve, ke Bg, overcorrected

u cue p-C my cex, wg e peuum

wg b e ec ppe C umemw p ppxme mg bem.97

Tu, gve e ppuy McLe mg my emegg cuc

ee, eem me e e bewee e ev-

gec emegg cuc cmmue be eve, y pbe

pe bewee e emegg ege McLe Bg ee

be expe w e g eyg we wee ey ey

ex, we wee y eem ke ey . Wee eee cu pe puce gfc egc eece be-

wee e evgec emege mveme, e que

e : Must we actually choose between the so-called “earlier” and

“emerging” paradigms? Or is there a third alternative that, because it

strives to be aithul to both the text and the task, is something the Spirit o

mission can use to produce an even greater degree o missional aithulness

and ruitulness in our place and day?

Tug my be ve k , my pe e m -

xy peee ee w ee w my membe e -

evgec, m emegg cuc cmmue, mkg

pbe u ceve gee ee pu ecce

uy. T u c ebe u pu eve me u eege

cexuz e gpe c cuy uccee ecg u

p-C pee C cc jucue um y.

the methOd tO my message

I my e, eee, peuum-mg, bge-bug

wk ec w ee w ugu, ee ue p-

pe emegg pgm cue, ec—ug

ucc—me. Iee I w eve mu pce

cpe ee ug e yzg e egc pepecve

ate with McLaren in terms o the direction o their theological trajectories include Rob Bell,

Doug Pagitt, ony Jones and Peter Rollins.See the excursus at the end o chapter two o this work or an in-depth discussion o some pos-

sible reasons or what I am reerring to as the liberal/emergent overcorrection to our post-

Christian context.





my gue pe. Te g ee ye egge p-

emc pe e. Re, we mg e ee b u

pee u p-C pee cmpeg v e C g my be eee bewee e emegg v

ey e, my m pe , m eve e over-

corrections ec we pu w. My C, epecy

e w m vey cevve cuce, ve eve bee ex-

pe e wk eg we p eec e me be

e e peuum’ c. I bee my expeece ue

cuc membe m e emegg gee e ce gug vube expeece egge ceu uy e

p pu w by my w gue pe k me

eepy bbcy bu w ey beeve wy. I m peu

e mjy my ee w ee e me wy.

T , I w pue m e ue I ce my

e emegg pgm’ cque umem ( e epe-

mgc um ee )98 be v. F m

e ee cque mu be p me eu e. Tee ey

muc gmm, egm, jugmem, pugm, epm

gg evgec cuce!

A e me me, e pce mug e cque

C umem, me e pmg e emegg

v ve pu w me e ee eque ee

ce bewee ccue e ee () pepecve

wme pee e emegg vew. T me gume-

, we e eecve, ey e umey

epu me pmg m ue uue.

F e ppu ppe vecexuze C mege,

e e e y I m cvce e e

geuey vg C c expeece kgm.

A e e bc megc peme wk.

For example, see Dave omlinson, Te Post-Evangelical, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

), pp. -; John Franke, “Christian Faith and Postmodern Teory: Teology and the

Nonoundationalist urn,” in Christianity and the Postmodern urn: Six Views, ed. Myron B.

Penner (Grand Rapids: Brazos, ), pp. 1-1; McLaren, New Kind o Christian, pp. 4-;

McLaren, More Ready, p. 11.




Needed 3

Becue my cvc m xy c u

uc bge-bug eve e emegg, m

evgec ppce egy my, I ppe by wkg u wy ug e vu e ee (wc vvy

py e eccec p b e e egc pecum)

pu w by my w gue pe, we w be be kec e

ug cu bbcy my u eve.99

Te ex cpe w cu vu cexuz p

eme wy I beeve e e ce w m -

xy c puce e k m ue uueG ee eeve. I e pce, I w pee e ce e

cexuz ppce uze by my w gue pe e

up g e bbc m ue e.

Hweve, bee I ccue f cpe, I w uece

ce g w cuc evgec ( evgec

pcu) eck w e pby e cuu evy

wk e egzg b Bg McLe meg

evgec u py e . Tug we my e up eeg e

ee uge e egc ccu w gee fey

e bbc we, e me we c g me cuc

g w gg e e m u p-

C pee , eee, w me e exe ue e

bbcy and my u cexuz e gpe

w ee e e pve cmpeg.

Te u w ce ueve evgec ey

ee e w be me m emegg. I mg ep

we wee g bee ueg w uy eque p-

ppe cexuz e gpe vve. I w ju uc

eev we u u e w.

Tis dialectical approach is reminiscent o the one suggested by David Bosch who wrote: “It isonly with the orce eld o apparent opposites that we shall begin to approximate a way o the-

Missional Othodoxy by Gary Tyra

Documents

Transcript of Missional Othodoxy by Gary Tyra