Fear, the most basic and pervasive of human emotions, operates in two modes.  Fear of the first order manifests itself as a strong, unpleasant emotion caused by realized or anticipated danger or dread.  Whether rational or irrational, founded or unfounded, fear in this form is a terror, horror, or panic that captures us and puts everything into question.

Realized fear of a bully who with fists is threatening, the flashing lights of a police car in the rear-view mirror, or a pink slip arriving in the mail immediately arrests us, causing heart to race, stomach to knot, and sweat to appear.  Anticipated fear of being found out, losing our good reputation, becoming severely ill, or suddenly dying can seize us in similar ways.  Whether realized or anticipated, fear controls our lives – how much we will expose ourselves to others, whether we will venture new actions, and the extent to which we will give ourselves in love.  If you want to know who a person is at his or her core, just ask, What do you fear?

Fear, in another mode, expresses itself as reverence or awe.  This kind of fear can be calculated and reasoned.  We assess something or someone and then take the decision that he, she, or it is to be revered and worshiped.  Awe and wonder eventually result in veneration and praise.  This fear cannot be demanded or coerced but is offered.  As God reveals Himself as the Creator, Sustainer and Reconciler of all things, He elicits our fear.  This means that though He reveals Himself as awesome and amazing, reverence and awe (fear) can only be freely given to Him and not imposed by Him.  Because God wants worshipers who by choice fear Him, we are free to ignore or disparage and thus not fear Him.

For Barth, fear of the second mode outranks that of the first.  And he warns that fear of the first mode (terror) should not be abandon, unless fear of the first order (worship) is decidedly in place.  Unless we indeed fear God, there is plenty in the world to fear.

Two fears, terror and awe, stand alongside each other and yet in opposition.  The two are similar in feeling and emotion but different in their outcomes.  One comes upon and grips us as a terror in the night; the other comes as a revelation of wonder and greatness and causes us to bow and worship.  One forces its ways upon us and then captures us; the other awaits our free surrender.  One robs us of sleep, freedom, and life; the other grants us rest, hope, and love.  Both stand before us ready to define who we are; both shape the manner in which we live.

Real dangers lurk in the night, just around the corner … ready to surprise and capture us at any moment.  When we do not fear God, we stand in genuine danger of forfeiting all hope against the terrors of this life.

The task of dogmatics serves a purpose but not one independent from the Church and its proclamation. Dogmatics does not “imply a higher possibility of Christian life,” (85) as its existence is one of service. In this way, proclamation and dogmatics are connected – one as the content and the other as the guide or corrective. “Church proclamation and not dogmatics is immediate to God in the Church. Proclamation is essential, dogmatics is needed only for the sake of it. Dogmatics lives by it to the extent that it lives only in the Church” (87).

For Barth, proclamation outranks dogmatics, and thus, preaching is primary, even essential. This does not denigrate dogmatics or theology but prescribes to it an appropriate place, a guiding role. In my memory, Dr. Peter James Flamming exemplifies a striking and authentic mixture of these two.

Jim Flamming was my pastor during university days, performed my wedding, baptized my son, and pastored my family when we lived in Richmond, Virginia. I still recall phrases, in part or whole, that he spoke from the pulpit. These were spoken directly to me – as a struggling student seeking to discern God’s will, a new husband navigating marriage, and a seasoned missionary still trying to make sense of the world. In his human words, I heard divine Word.

Jim Flamming, Pastor Emeritus FBC, Richmond, VA

For Jim Flamming, preaching was not simply a spectacle or performance but proclamation of the Word of God. For sure, he had a unique approach, a keen mind and a wonderful delivery. But the difference was that his study, sermon construction, and technique served the preaching event and did not become the event.

My sense is that the Word of God came to me via Jim Flamming because his style, study, technique, and content came under the testing, criticism and judgment of God’s Word as revealed in Jesus Christ and in the Bible. In this way, he sought to faithfully point the Church to “God, revelation and faith.” Scripture exegesis and theological reflection informed and reformed the words he spoke. So, while I can certainly praise the skill and intellect of Jim Flamming, above all I acknowledge in him God’s grace and mercy to make concrete and knowable divine Word by way of profane, human words. And I am thankful for a person who recognized proclamation as above all witness to God’s revelation and preached toward this end.

Scripture can be exegeted and explained, and theology dissected and discussed, but neither task is meant to substitute for proclamation. At best, exegetical and theological work serve proclamation. When theology has an existence unto itself and independence from the Church, it tends to go awry. And likewise, when proclamation becomes detached from thorough exegetical and theological labor, it forfeits crucial insight and correction, and it sidesteps the judgment of God … becoming mere spectacle, show, opinion, bias, chatter – only human talk.

With certainty Barth believes in the primacy of the Word of God as made known to us through preaching, the sacraments, scripture, and ultimately in Jesus Christ.  And yet, he steadfastly maintains that God is free to reveal Himself however He wishes – even through a dead dog.  Our concern must be that no matter how He speaks, we are to humbly listen and obey.

Revelation, if and how it comes to us, is not the crucial question.  Rather, the question for you and me, whether we are a theologian, nurse, farmer, welder, or teacher, is will we or will we not obey.  For most of us, we have already heard too much and obeyed too little.  God speaks, and we do well to listen.  And above all we do well to respond with concrete obedience to what we have heard.

By the way … at this point, Barth is only opening his discussion, and thus, we can be sure he does not leave it to a dead dog to speak the Word of God.

Reading CD atop Pinnacle Mtn, Arkansas

Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 1 is a revision of Barth’s first offer of dogmatics.  The Doctrine of the Word of God, published in 1927, was the first volume of what was to be Christian Dogmatics in Outline.  In the Preface of the 1932 rewrite, Barth explains why he had “to begin again at the beginning, saying the same thing, but in a very different way” (xi).  He had done something of the same with his Romerbrief (1919, revised 1921), seeking to overturn nineteenth century theological liberalism.  In his own estimation, the first go at dogmatics had not gone far enough and was in need of a revision based upon what he had learned “both historically and materially” (xi) in the intervening years.

Among the changes, Barth mentions …

1. Church Dogmatics, I,1 is more expansive and thus contains only half the material of the single volume of the first edition.  Barth covers the same ground in two parts rather than one.  His aim is “to make more extensive soundings and lay broader foundations” (xii) in this fuller discussion.
2. Church Dogmatics includes the feature of “interposed sections in small print” in which Barth explores “biblio-theological presuppositions and the historico-dogmatic and polemical relations” (xii) of text in the larger type.  He suggests that these sections can be skipped, if one is not a ‘gourmet theologian’; and yet, treasures, not to be missed, lie in the smaller font.
3. Barth shifts from Christian to Church Dogmatics.  With the change, he commits himself “to show that from the very outset dogmatics is not a free science.  It is bound to the sphere of the Church, where alone it is possible and meaningful” (xiii).  As such, theology remains tied and responsible to the Church.
4. The revision is necessary in order to exclude what might appear as “a foundation, support, or justification in philosophical existentialism” (xiii).  He explains that the first edition opened the possibility of continuing along the path of German Liberal Theology leading to the “destruction of Protestant theology and the Protestant church.”  The revision is meant to expunge any conceivable grounds of continuation along this path.
5. Barth writes for the sake of the Evangelical Church – “The community in and for which I have written is that of the Church and not a community of theological endeavour” (xv).  He explains that there are programs, theologies, and fashions the Church must oppose, if it is to be the Church in the situation in which it finds itself.

Barth closes his Preface with a brief sketch of the six volumes that are to follow and the admission that it will take “many years to carry out the plan as now envisaged” (xvii).  From this resolute beginning, he labors for over thirty years addressing the Church as the Church with the concern that she not be less than the Church.

Dec. 1955, Source: Karl Barth Archive, Basel, photo by Maria Netter

As you and I anticipate a reading journey through Church Dogmatics in 2012, it would be helpful to know something of its author, Karl Barth (1886-1968).  Born in Basel, Switzerland, Barth spent the majority of his childhood in Berne where his father, Fritz Barth, was Professor of Church History and New Testament Exegesis.  At age 16, Barth decided to become a theologian and began his studies at Berne in 1904 (age 18).  In addition to Berne, he studied in Berlin, Tübingen, and Marburg.  In 1909 he served as an apprentice pastor in Geneva, and from 1911 to 1921 he was pastor of a small church in the village of Safenwil. While at Safenwil, he wrote his Epistle to the Romans (Der Römerbrief, 1919, rev. 1921) marking a decisive departure from the thought of his teachers (Adolf von Harnack, Wilhelm Herrmann) and German Protestant Liberal theology of the day.  As Professor of theology in Göttingen (1921-25), Münster (1925-30), and Bonn (1930-35), Barth offered an alternative theological vision for the church.  Because he was an outspoken critic of the Nazi party and refused to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, he was forced to leave Germany in 1935.  The Barmen Declaration (1934) of the German Confessing Church was chiefly the work of Barth.  Leaving Germany, he returned to Switzerland and became Professor in Basel (1935–62). Barth married Nelly Hoffmann in 1913 and had five children (four sons and a daughter).  He died in Basel on December 10, 1968.

As a husband, father, pastor, teacher, and dogmatician, Barth was certainly a flawed man but one upon whom a great gift was bestowed.  Above all, he was a man seeking to serve steadfastly the Church of his day with keen critique and theological vision.

Over the course of three decades, Barth methodologically detailed his theology in Church Dogmatics (Kirchliche Dogmatik).  Written and published between 1932 and 1967, and totaling thirteen volumes, six million words, Dogmatics remained unfinished at his death.  As one of the greatest theological work of all times and certainly the most significant theological statement for the 20th century, Church Dogmatics begs to be read.

And yet, reading this gigantic work is a gigantic undertaking.  The shelf-load of imposing volumes and theologically thick and wordy sentences can undo the intentions of the most capable reader.  Reading the Dogmatics requires dogged determination, resolve and perspective.  As I begin, only Volume I, Part 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, lies in my view.  The outline of these 489 pages is as follows:

EDITOR’S PREFACE
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION I, Part 1
§ 1. The Task of Dogmatics
§ 2. The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics

CHAPTER 1. THE WORD OF GOD AS THE CRITERION OF DOGMATICS
§ 3. Church Proclamation as the Material of Dogmatics
§ 4. The World of God in its Threefold Form
§ 5. The Nature of the Word of God
§ 6. The Knowability of the Word of God
§ 7. The Word of God, Dogma and Dogmatics

CHAPTER II. THE REVELATION OF GOD
PART I. THE TRIUNE GOD
§ 8. God in His Revelation
§ 9. The Triunity of God
§ 10. God the Father
§ 11. God the Son
§ 12. God the Spirit

Volume 1, Part 2, which takes up the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit, stands in the wings but out of sight, as do the other eleven tomes.

As with anything of value, there is no gain without pain, and thus it is with the Dogmatics.  If one reads only to reaffirm what one already knows, or to reinforce one’s prior convictions, or solely for inspiration, then Barth will surely disappoint.  Only as one pushes through page after page, does one catch the rhythm and sense of Barth’s method and language, emphasis and meaning.  So, take the first volume in hand, turn to the opening page, take a deep breath, and let the reading begin!

I lean toward her and confess.  “And who am I to teach a seminary class?  Who am I to act as though I am an example of Christian service, witness or piety?  Who am I to offer advice concerning marriage, ministry, missions, or life situations?  The answer to your questions and mine is the Spirit.”

While a discussion of the Holy Spirit could center on whether the gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues, are valid, our ultimate concern is whether the Spirit does in fact act in and through our lives.  And if he does, what does this mean for the way in which we are to live.  Who is Spirit and what does he do?

First, the Spirit is God.  Thus, what I might say about God, the Creator, and God, the Son, I must also say about God, the Spirit.  Each has distinction but in the end are expressions of the same God.  God, in his three-in-oneness, cannot, should not be parsed like a verb or diagramed like a sentence.  The ‘persons’ of the Godhead are not grandstanding competitors, vying for supremacy.  Rather, as Karl Barth explains, our “knowledge of God is still only an event enclosed in the mystery of the divine Trinity” (CD II/1, 181).  I, with Barth, do not understand God’s three-in-oneness.  But the mystery of the Trinity does not prevent me confessing that the Spirit is God.

Second, I have also learned from Karl Barth that our best understanding of God is in his revelation of himself.  Thus, I am able to know something of who the Spirit is, as I observe his activity.  Scripture tells me that the Spirit is the one who moves (Gen. 1.2), descends (Mt. 3.16; Mk 1.10; Jn 1.32), speaks (Mt. 10.1; Acts 8.29, 10.19), teaches (Jn 14.26), leads and guides (Lk 4.1; Acts 16.7), convicts of sin (Jn 16.8), gives life (Jn 6.63), provides comfort (Jn 14.14-26), sanctifies (Rom 15.16), gives power (Acts 1.8), bears witness of Jesus (Jn 15.26), and calls and sends out witnesses (Acts 13.2, 4).  His activity is broad, encompassing all of life, and thus far from passive or hidden.

Third, life remains one-dimensional and profane without the Spirit.  The biblical witness tells me the Spirit moves upon mundane historical happenings and frail, ordinary people, as he wishes and for his purposes.  The Spirit is the apocalyptic interruption of the stream of historical happenings.  As he interrupts, happenings and people are transformed.  While Christ is the historical incarnation of God with us, the Spirit is the ever-coming, apocalyptic encounter of the divine within time and space.  How and when this happens is beyond my understanding and certainly outside of my control.  Like the wind that blows where it will, so the Spirit moves and serves his purpose or mission.

Fourth, mission and ministry are not works the church just does.  Rather, as Lesslie Newbigin reminds us, mission “is something done by the Spirit, who is himself the witness, who changes both the world and the church, who always goes before the church in its missionary journey.”[1] The Spirit is the preacher, teacher, missionary, chaplain, student worker, and social worker – in both an eschatological and existential sense.  God, as the free and acting Spirit, creates, launches and enables the church for witness and service.  The church, according to Craig van Gelder, is the community created by the Spirit for the purposes of the Spirit.[2] Thus, if the church is to be the church, it must be founded, led, shaped and empowered by the Spirit.  If the church is to participate in the coming of the kingdom of God on earth, the reign of the Spirit must be inaugurated and established in her midst.

Fifth, the question should never be – How do I get more of the Spirit?  Or how do I get the Spirit to do what I want?  Rather, the question is always – Does the Spirit have or possess me?   Can the Spirit do with me as he wants?  Whatever I might say about faith in God or submission to God becomes reality in the work of the Spirit.  All things considered, the Spirit’s activity is about who is in control of ministry and life.  Either ministry is my ministry, life is my life, or ministry and life are the Spirit’s.

So, I confess that the Spirit is the potential for every act, the possibility in every reality.  If I preach a sermon, doing everything just right, but the Spirit does not speak in and through my words, gestures, face, and ideas, then it is just my sermon – well crafted, cute, even award-winning, but still just my sermon.  If I rush to the hospital room of a dying person, perform all the duties of pastoral care in a competent and professional manner, and yet the Spirit does not enter the room with me, in me, then I bring only skill and competency, not healing and comfort.  If I open my Bible, reading it with adroit exegetical prowess, and yet, the Spirit does not teach me, correct me, or reprove me, then the text is not a light to my feet, nor will it shine through me.  If I befriend and love my neighbor and in due time speak clearly and appropriately of my faith in Jesus Christ with skill and empathy, but am void of the Spirit’s witness, then friendship and love remain merely my friendship and my love, and thus, surely fall short of true love and fail to transform.

As I ask the Spirit to come upon me and then wait upon the Spirit to do his work, I thereby do more than merely rely on being cute, making people laugh, turning a phrase, acting like a pleasant person, working hard, or sounding smart.  These are not bad.  In fact, they are good – too good.  When I rely on these rather than the Spirit, then preaching, teaching, witnessing, writing, and ministering can rise to greatness but in the end remain one-dimensional and temporal in their effect.  When filled with the Spirit, these have the potential to be acts of grace and hope, divine expressions of love and mercy.

So, as you and I live our lives, we must not quench the Spirit with our pride and self-confidence, or with our insecurity and fear.  Rather, we are to be filled with the Spirit, walk by the Spirit, and bear the fruit of the Spirit.  Brains, looks, good intentions, and even a great education are not enough.  In fact, they are all a bit over-rated.  Instead, in the course of ministry and life, we are to ask the Spirit continually to convert us – our words, actions, and intentions – into the likeness of God.  Through the Spirit’s continual conversion, there is great liberty to preach, write, witness, parent, befriend, serve, converse, smile, befriend – to love.

2 Corinthians 3:17 reminds us – “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.  But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.”

[2] Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).

Will you join me in this journey?  Reading schedules for the Dogmatics exist (e.g., jrdkirk.com).  I like the suggestion of reading 15 pages a day.  At this rate, one can work their way through all 14 volumes in two years.  But even this leisurely pace sounds a bit too regimented.  I want to read everyday but only as much I want or need to read without a page number that might be too much or too little for a particular day, or that might interrupt Barth in the middle so some long and complicated section.  My plan is to read everyday (first thing in the morning) as far as I want.  I will log distance by the week rather than the day.  My goal is to get through about 125 pages a week.  (I do have other things to do!)

So, I invite you to join me.  Hopefully by making my intentions public and having some of you join me, I (we) will actually stay the course over the next 12 months.  By the way, a reprinted edition of Church Dogmatics is on sale for $129 at ChristianBook.com.  What a nice Christmas gift!

To the inhabitants of L’Aquila, life had appeared stable and safe, calm and certain, and yet forces in the depths of the earth were shifting in opposing directions and tension that had been building for some time suddenly erupted into a massive earthquake.  Surely they thought, ‘How could such a cataclysmic event happen in our town?’

Earthquakes result from seismic waves originating far beneath the surface in what is called the lithosphere.  These waves occur because slippage at fault lines or a fault plane and these eventually manifest themselves at the surface as an earthquake.  Stress builds at the point of slippage until it “breaks” or ruptures, releasing the stored energy that travels up and into the surface, causing tremors that split the earth, shake buildings and put people on their knees.  It may take years or decades for a shift in the lithosphere to manifest itself at the surface, and yet, the potential is there whether seen or not.

Giuliani, L’Aquila, and earthquakes – What could these possibly have to do with church and mission?  Plenty!  I see at least four parallels.

First, a quake is coming.  Oh, it may not be an actual earth-shaking kind of quake, such as ones we have witnessed recently in Japan, Italy, and Chile.  Rather it may be a cataclysmic quake of the physical, social, economic, or psychological variety.  We may think that everything is stable and calm in life, and yet, slippage is occurring deep beneath the surface and stress is building.  One day, when we least expect it, rupture will occur, and everything will be shaken, everyone will be brought to his or her knees.

History gives witness to the uncertainty of status and security – stable existence.  Science has not and cannot solve all environmental and medical problems; technology has not reconciled and united people of differing races and classes; no matter what political party is in power peace and posterity allude us, and no man or woman is able to escape death and decay.  We stand, individually and collectively, on a fault line, and the rupture of life in some form is our future – jobs will disappear, friends will betray, cancer will invade, loved ones will die, unity will disintegrate, despair will overwhelm.  Events on the surface might indicate otherwise but deep within the lithosphere slippage has already occurred and stress is building.

We might think because we are Americans, or have status in the community, or identify as Christians that we are immune to quakes.  But there is no immunity from, or inoculation against quakes.  They are no respecter of persons.  To think that we can avoid quakes is an illusion, a false hope.

There is nothing wrong with hoping to avoid quakes, and yet, this is not real hope.  Real hope begins in seeing government, money, religion, sports, structures of society, and possessions for what they are – necessary but tentative, worthy of our care, participation, and investment but not our lives.  Hope is real and able to withstand seismic destruction when centered in the person of Jesus Christ and focused on the eternal purposes.

Second, an alarm is being raised.  We must listen carefully to the Giampaolo Giulianis in our midst.  Mission experts are warning us that the foundation of church and missions has shifted to the point of breaking.  They are telling us that in order for us to be the people of God in the coming quakes there must be a radical change in our outlook and practices.  For example, David Smith traces the historical course of Western, modern missions and concludes that it “has lost its credibility and can no longer survive,” unless there is a drastic and fundamental change.[ii] Smith is not alone in his judgment.  Wilbert Shenk states that “re-visioning” must take place in the “Christendom assumptions and habits of mind” that continue to “determine the conceptual framework,” especially for those who participate in the church and global mission.[iii] Douglas Hall concludes that “presumption upon the past power and glory of Christendom is perhaps the greatest deterrent to faith’s real confession in our present historical context.”[iv] David Bosch warns of a crisis in missions due to “a fundamental paradigm shift, not only in mission or theology, but in the experience of the whole world.”[v] The crisis is due to “an inadequate foundation for mission and ambiguous missionary motives and aims” that “lead to an unsatisfactory missionary practice.”  He suggests that an alternative paradigm for mission must be constructed.  Hendrik Kraemer declares, “We do not stand at the end of mission.”  Rather, “we stand at the definite end of a specific period or era of mission, and the sooner we see this and accept this with all our heart, the better.  We are called to a new ‘pioneer task’ which will be more demanding and less romantic than the heroic deeds of the past missionary era.”[vi]

These missionaries, teachers, and friends of the church and mission, who have spent their entire lives reading the signs, have decided it is time to sound the alarm.  They are saying, if we do not respond to the mounting tensions, if we neglect the ‘pioneer task’, we will soon find ourselves sitting under the rubble of worn and antiquated mission structures and means without a witness.  Heeding their warnings means refusing to rely on the familiar, comfortable, or stable.  Instead we must look to what the Spirit is doing and listen for his directives toward new ways of witness and love.  The emergency situation brought on by quakes calls for different types of structures and alliances, adjustment of rules and principles, and radicalization of our forms of witness.

Third, mission happens in the midst of the quake.  Sitting in a prison cell in Philippi, Paul and Silas experienced “a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken” (Acts 16:26).  Seeing cell doors open and assuming that everyone had escaped, the jailer decided to kill himself rather than face the authorities.  Paul and Silas called out, “Do yourself no harm.  We are still here.”  The jailer “came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,” and asked, “Sirs what must I do be saved?”  From within the prison cell, witness was extended.  In the midst of the quake, hope was offered.  If all we do is promote and practice church and mission as the casual undertaking of respectable people, as if all is safe and sane, then we will wake up one day debilitated and victimized by the quake rather than able to offer hope and witness.  Quakes are the stuff of mission, just as the cross is the means of salvation.  Either we will flee the tremors, or we will offer hope in the midst of falling debris.

Fourth, tremors can already be felt.  We really don’t need the experts to tell us that the ground is shifting.  As I look at the landscape of church and mission, I see structures that I thought indestructible collapsing before my eyes, powerful and stately people have been brought low, and proven methodologies now looks irrelevant and silly.  We can either turn our faces from the obvious, ignore the signs of collapse, and act as if everything will be fine, or we can call the crisis by its proper name, affirm who God has called us to be, and create new and vibrant structures, alliances, and means for witness.  Even though the quake will with certainty erupt and surely change the entire landscape, isn’t it far better, more beneficial for the church and its mission, if we take preemptive action and not just sleep through the tremors?

Our vision for church and mission must undergo a thorough and continuous transformation.  Mission structures, evangelistic methods, church programs, and theological formulations that have provided surface solutions in the good times will be no match for the coming rupture.  As with the officials in L’Aquila, a state of stability and serenity can lull us into thinking we are secure and safe.  Instead of opposing, censuring or shunning those who disturb the serenity of the church with their exclamations that the mission edifice is starting to sway and buckle, we should embrace these agitators in order that we might together re-read the Scriptures concerning the mission of the triune God, pray earnestly for wisdom and insight, and humbly seek the Spirit’s guidance and power.

The question for each of us is quite simple: When the ground shakes will we be awake and ready – will we be the people of God?

[i] See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-prediction-giampaolo-giuliani.

[ii] David Smith, Mission After Christendom (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2003), 4.

[iii] Wilbert R Shenk, Write the Vision: The Church Renewed, 1st ed. (Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1995), 52.

[iv] Douglas John Hall, The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002), 3.

[v] David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 4, 5.

[vi] Kraemer cited in Bosch, Transforming Mission, 8.

All good and worthy activity can lapse into training people in how to exist for the sake of the church.  We can subtly communicate that one’s highest calling is to support the organizational objectives of the church, to show up at every church event, and to speak and behave in a churchly manner.  The objectives can become getting people into the church building and then teaching them our language, disconnecting them from old friends, reconnecting them to us, re-arranging their schedule around church events, and instructing them to give time, money and service to support the church.  In so doing, we risk reorienting their lives solely toward church, and thus, making them into churchly Christians.  In the end, they become ghettoized.

To ensure that means remains means and not become ends, we must continually ask – Does our activity lead toward the formation of character and the development of competencies that will move people toward faithful presence and clear witness in the world?  If we only teach people how to be morally good and to behave in church, then we have failed.  They must be formed in such a way that they can live – fully, faithfully live – in the world – at work, school, home, on the road, at the sporting event, on vacation, at the family reunion, at the funeral, in the hospital, during elections, in job loss, at news of cancer, in an earthquake, or in a national disaster.

In Letters and Papers from Prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer conceives of the Christian life as not lived toward religion but toward the world.  “The ‘religious act’ is always something partial; ‘faith’ is something whole, involving the whole of one’s life.  Jesus calls men, not to a new religion, but to life” (362).  Christianity for the sake of Christianity, holiness for the sake of holiness, and church for the sake of church are insufficient aims.  As Christ came for others, loved others, and suffered and died for others, we are called to do the same.  Christians, according to Bonhoeffer, “must live a ‘secular’ life and thereby share in God’s suffering. … It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life” (361).  To be alive in Christ is to be alive to the world; to give our lives to Christ is to give ourselves to the world.

Among actions that ghettoize Christians, two are probably most common.  First, we demonize culture, and thereby, encourage Christians to withdraw from the world.  When culture is named as the enemy, we explicitly communicate that people should oppose or fear ‘the culture’.  The truth is that the gospel cannot be separated from ‘the culture’, as it is always clothed in culture of some sort – language, technology, structures, music, processes, forms, etc.  Thus, the gospel happens in the stream of life, and must continually intersect with culture, speak into it, and become party to it (contextualization).  This is not the weakness of the gospel but its power.  The gospel must dress itself in ‘the culture’, or it is not present and at work.  And by being present and at work in the culture, gospel mends and restores culture to its higher purposes.  But by naming ‘the culture’ as the enemy, we merely urge people to join a ghettoized religious culture and rob the wider culture of the salt and light of the gospel.

Second, we segregate mission from evangelism.  We have made mission what groups of specialized, highly trained professionals do in Japan, Cambodia, or Peru (the world).  On the other hand, evangelism is what the rest of us do occasionally as part of our church obligation.  Thus, missionaries go to the world and become like the world to which they are called.  Church members go to church and go out from the church now and then to evangelize people into the church.

Divides between church and world, mission and evangelism are artificial and unfortunate.  There should not be two opposing cultures – church and world, two activities – mission and evangelism, or two kinds of people – missionaries and church members.  The church exists in and for the world.  Every Christ follower is meant to participate in God’s mission in and to the world.  Whenever the church exists for its own growth, its programs, and its success, the church looses sight of its essential purpose of forming and equipping Christ followers to be a faithful presence in and a clear witness to the world.

The aim of forming people toward the world has caused a group of pastors, missionaries, and educators to create a unique, church-based, world-focused learning experience called Panorama.  Panorama is forty plus web-based lessons designed to be facilitated in a local church setting.  The lessons address issues related to faithful presence and clear witness, such as approaching people of other faiths, cross-cultural living, contextualization of the gospel, language learning, teamwork, etc.  We believe these approaches and skills, once thought to be only necessary for missionaries in international settings, are essential for the formation of believers who live in such places as Waco, Tulsa, and Little Rock.

Panorama has been developed with three premises in mind: life transformation is the goal, facilitated group learning is the means, and reflective practice is the dynamic.  Therefore, those who facilitate Panorama in their local church must understand these aims and processes.  Thus far, approximately seventy people from twenty churches have participated in seven Facilitators Workshops.  I invite you to join us for the next workshop on April 13-14 at First Baptist Church, Woodway, Texas.  To learn more about Panorama and to register for the upcoming workshop, go to GCPN – Panorama,  or contact Remey Terrell at remey.terrell@fbca.org.

The presence of the church in the world must be more than its facilities or programs, and the witness of the church must be more than what is spoken from the pulpit or in a Sunday School class.  The church is those of us who have been captured by Jesus Christ and are continually being formed to live and speak in such a way that those with whom we work, play, eat, weep, celebrate, listen to music, view movies, drink coffee, and live life may see truth and experience love.  In this manner, we – the church – live toward a wider vista, join a greater mission.