Archivos de la categoría ‘3DM Discipulado’


by Ben Sternke

Post image for Do You Want to Learn How to Make Disciples?In our process of planting a network of missional communities, we’ve discovered that discipleship is an absolutely essential foundation to have in place if you want to see any fruit in terms of mission. Through our friends at 3DM, we’ve been learning how to build a discipling culture that is radically reproducible and leads to what Jesus called “fruit that lasts.”Through this process, here are a few things I have come to believe:

  • You can’t teach people into missional living, you have to disciple them into it, like Jesus did.
  • If you disciple people like Jesus did, it almost automatically leads to mission. It fundamentally changes the whole direction of people’s lives.
  • Making disciples is what Jesus told us to do. If you don’t know how to do this, your ministry won’t be producing kingdom fruit, no matter how “successful” you appear to be in terms of attendance at meetings or money in the bank.
  • You can’t take people where you’ve never been. If you’ve never been discipled into discipling people to disciple people, it is nearly impossible to create ex nihilo a community that can do that.
  • The church in the West is faltering because of a massive lack of intentional discipleship.

Which means that for you as a leader, the whole issue starts and ends with your own discipleship. Sadly, most of us have never been discipled into making disciples the way Jesus did.

If you find yourself in that boat, I want to make you aware of an opportunity.

In the next few weeks, I will be starting a few Coaching Huddles. They’ll be focused on helping you establish a discipling culture in your ministry context. We’ll be working with 3DM’s memorable and reproducible tools, practices, and skills for imitating the life and ministry of Jesus and discipling others to do the same. Each Huddle will have up to 5 people in it and we’ll meet for a period of 9-12 months. The Huddle will happen weekly on a conference call, and you will have access to me outside of the Huddle calls. (If there is enough interest in Fort Wayne, too, one of these Huddles could be local).

Many people are becoming more familiar with Huddles as they have been used by Mike Breen and 3DM, and this discipleship vehicle has produced some amazing fruit in my own life and many others that I know. Huddles are certainly not the only way to disciple people like Jesus, but they are the best vehicle I’ve come across for producing people that increasingly look more like Jesus and are able to do the things that Jesus did.

These Huddles come with a high commitment level:

  • You schedule other things around it. You get the most out of this if you commit to showing up every single week.
  • We take accountability seriously. At the conclusion of each Huddle you will be able to answer two questions: 1) What is God saying to me? 2) What am I going to do about it? There is no growth in the kingdom without action.
  • It will cost you financially. $100 a month, to be exact. I am doing this as a multi-vocational church planter, so your financial investment will not only help me feed my family, but it will go toward our mission of discipling people who can’t afford to invest financially and establishing missional communities in Fort Wayne and eventually all over the Midwest.
  • You will start a Huddle of your own. I’m assuming from the beginning that you’re going to grow a lot, both personally and in your ability to disciple people. Sometime during our 9-12 months together, you will be expected to start a Huddle of your own, because part of being a disciple of Christ is making disciples of Christ.

If that sounds like something you’re interested in, contact me ASAP and let me know why you’d like to be in one of these Huddles and what you’re hoping to get out of it.


Doug Paul

 

Before arriving to the central point of this post, allow me to recap some of the things I’ve been talking about in the past few months. As I see it, here are some of the enormous hurdles facing church planters as they are planting in the current landscape of things:

  • Many church planters are attempting to plant types of churches that are vastly different than any church they’ve seen or been a part of before. We use words like movemental, decentralized, discipleship-oriented, empowering, lightweight/low maintenance, gathering is a time to bring together the scattered pieces of the community so we can scatter again. The hurdle: Doing this requires a skillset that next to none of us have because there are next to no people who have done this and almost all of us have grown up in a different paradigm of church. Furthermore, even if we can find coaches who have done it, it’s still crazy hard because we’re trying to do something beyond our reigning paradigm that we’ve never experienced for any lasting period of time. It’s easy and fun to talk about the theory of all of this stuff. But at the end of the day, don’t we actually need to know how to do it? For instance, it’s one thing to read about a Missional Community or be coached by someone who’s led them…but I’d contend the learning curve is a Mount Everest of steep if you’re launching Missional Communities and you’ve never been in one yourself for at least a year where you’ve seen it start, grow, disciple people, see people come to faith and multiply. Church planting can be a volatile environment for learning something this hard when you’re starting from square one. Now I’m not suggesting it can’t be done without experiencing it first. Clearly every movement in history, at some point, did not exist. But I’m suggesting for a movement to grow and flourish it needs to be easily reproducible. This barrier of paradigm, training and experience is a monumental barrier to that flourishing on the wider scale of things.
  • I would contend that most church planters have never been discipled before. I have this running theory that the vast majority (I’d guesstimate it at 95%) of people age 40 and younger who grew up in the church have never been discipled in the way that the New Testament and every missional/discipling movement would qualify discipleship…and that includes pastors. There are two big problems here: First, Jesus cares first and foremost about our own discipleship. He cares more about us than he does about what we can do for his Kingdom. He doesn’t really need us to accomplish his purposes, though obviously he prefers it. Second, how are we going to be able to disciple someone if we’ve never been discipled yourself? We can’t take people to the places we haven’t been ourselves.
  • The financial stress cannot be overstated when you combine the two things above with the reality that church planters have to feed their families. Raising support, at least for most, isn’t a viable long term option. You can start the church that way, but eventually, most people’s support will dry up. Obviously bi-vocational is a great possibility, but to be honest, most church planters are trained to do one thing and one thing only: pastoring. That’s their skillset. So bi-vocational can be incredibly difficult (this is another post for another time, but we’ve started to work on some really exciting things for this). It’s difficult because it puts most bi-vocational planters in a position where the job has very little flexibility or pays peanuts (or both). This leaves church planters in a precarious position because they need the church to grow and prosper financially, which means they need more people…but in order to get more people they need to know how to disciple people (and they’ve never been discipled) and grow a new kind of church (which they’ve never really seen or been adequately trained to grow). That’s quite the Catch-22, isn’t?! Can you start to see how all of this puts church planters and their families on the precipice of a nervous breakdown? (not to mention a possible financial one)
It seems to me, from where I sit, that more and more church planters want to plant these kinds of churches; churches that can flourish in post-Christendom and embrace all of the ancient practices of discipleship and mission. We’re seeing that the future is found in a kind of return to the past. I would say many of them feel as if the Lord has spoken something deep inside of them to plant this kind of church. But for the reasons listed above, many will default back to the hierarchical, centralized, Sunday-centric attractional church model they know rather than sticking with it. And who can blame them? Their primary responsibility is to care for their own family! We cannot ask people to sacrifice their family on the altar of ministry. Clearly this isn’t what Jesus is after.In short, we need to address some of these massive gaps or we simply won’t be providing a way forward for scores and scores of church planters who long to be faithful, but need the means by which to do so. They need it financially, spiritually, relationally and from a training/experience perspective. 

In other words, we must radically re-imagine the way we are training and resourcing our church planters. In my next post I’ll throw out some of the practical ideas I’ve been kicking around with some people and where I believe all of this is going. Stay tuned.

 

http://dougpaulblog.com/


BEN STERNKE

Post image for Always Enough

Lately I have been reflecting on the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand (Mark 6:30-44), and I think it has a lot to say to those of us seeking to cultivate people and communities that can move out in discipleship and mission.

Anyone who has actually tried to do this stuff knows how difficult it is, how fraught with unanticipated challenges and constant feelings of inadequacy. It’s easy to think that no “progress” is being made, it isn’t moving fast enough, and maybe I don’t have what it takes to do this stuff in the first place. I have come to believe, though, that all of this is a necessary part of the training Jesus will take us through as we seek to join him in his mission. It’s the same training the first disciples went through in the feeding of the five thousand.

Like us, the disciples first saw a need: people were hungry. Jesus had been teaching all day and the disciples prudently suggest that because of the lateness of the day and the remoteness of the location, they ought to be dismissed to go to the surrounding villages to buy something to eat. They saw a need and attempted to fill it with their own ingenuity and street-smarts.

Jesus, however, gives them a bit of a shock with his own suggestion: “You give them something to eat.” The disciples are incredulous. “Do you have any idea how much it would cost to buy food for all these people? Are you really suggesting that we do that? Are you crazy?” They’re still attempting to solve the problem with their own abilities and intelligence, and they’re despairing because they realize there is no way they can do anything even remotely close to what Jesus is suggesting.

Jesus then asks them the question that gets to the heart of what he’s trying to teach them: “How many loaves do you have?” he asks, “Go and see.” The disciples answer, “Five–and two fish.” Jesus tells everyone to sit down on the grass, and I can imagine the disciples thinking, “He’s going to start a riot! How are we going to split this up to feed five thousand men?”

But Jesus simply takes the little sack lunch, looks up to heaven and gives thanks, breaks the loaves, and tells the disciples to start handing out food. The result is, in Mark’s understated prose: “They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish.”

Jesus always leads and commands us to do that which we could never accomplish in our own ability. You give them something to eat. Stretch out your hand. Take up your mat and walk. Heal those who are sick. Cleanse the lepers. Raise the dead. Make disciples of all peoples.

And when we come face-to-face with the impossibility of what we’re trying to do, and finally start to give up doing it in our own strength, Jesus says, “How many loaves do you have?” The disciples count them up and give them to Jesus. This is essential. They don’t give him a few of the loaves and keep a few for themselves, just in case. They giveeverything to Jesus, relinquishing the meager provisions they had, trusting Jesus to do something with them. The disciples wouldn’t get their loaves and fish back in the same form they gave them.

Jesus took what was offered, insufficient as it was, looked up to heaven and gave thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the people. It’s the same structure as the Eucharistic meal: taken, blessed, broken, given. That which was offered in trust is gathered up into the life of the kingdom, broken and distributed, and finally multiplied to meet the need, bringing dinner to five thousand families, plus leftovers!

Whatever you have is always enough when it is offered to Jesus completely, because God multiplies it to meet the need, however large.

So if you’re discouraged in the journey of cultivating communities of formation and mission, I implore you to resist the temptation to throw in the towel. The reason it’s hard is because we’re learning not to strive in our own strength. I also implore you to resist the temptation to, in frustration, engineer solutions birthed in your own ability or intelligence. Keep looking to Jesus and offering him what you have, however meager. Whatever you offer will be taken up into the life of the kingdom, broken and transformed by God’s power, and multiplied to meet needs you could never hope to meet in your own ability.

They’ll probably even be leftovers.


VERGE NETWORK

Many times it’s difficult to find practical ways to be a blessing in your workplace. Rapid pace, mounting deadlines, or co-worker conflict can often derail even the best of intentions to say and show the love of Jesus at work.

Recently, Josh Reeves posted some very practical ideas for blessing others in the workplace:

1. Instead of eating lunch alone, intentionally eat with other co-workers and learn their story.

2. Get to work early so you can spend some time praying for your co-workers and the day ahead.

3. Make it a daily priority to speak or write encouragement when someone does good work.

4. Bring extra snacks when you make your lunch to give away to others.

5. Bring breakfast (donuts, burritos, cereal, etc.) once a month for everyone in your department.

6. Organize a running/walking group in the before or after work.

7. Have your missional community/small group bring lunch to your workplace once a month.

8. Create a regular time to invite coworkers over or out for drinks.

9. Make a list of your co-workers birthdays and find a way to bless everyone on their birthday.

10. Organize and throw office parties as appropriate to your job.

11. Make every effort to avoid gossip in the office. Be a voice of thanksgiving not complaining.

12. Find others that live near you and create a car pool.

13. Offer to throw a shower for a co-worker who is having a baby.

14. Offer to cover for a co-worker who needs off for something.

15. Start a regular lunch out with co-workers (don’t be selective on the invites).

16. Organize a weekly/monthly pot luck to make lunch a bit more exciting.

17. Ask someone who others typically ignore if you can grab them a soda/coffee while you’re out.

18. Be the first person to greet and welcome new people.

19. Make every effort to know the names of co-workers and clients along with their families.

20. Visit coworkers when they are in the hospital.

21. Bring sodas or work appropriate drinks to keep in your break room for coworkers to enjoy. Know what your co-workers like.

22. Go out of your way to talk to your janitors and cleaning people who most people overlook.

23. Find out your co-workers favorite music and make a playlist that includes as much as you can (if suitable for work).

24. Invite your co-workers in to the service projects you are already involved in.

25. Start/join a city league team with your co-workers.

26. Organize a weekly co-working group for local entrepreneurs at a local coffee shop.

27. Start a small business that will bless your community and create space for mission.

28. Work hard to reconcile co-workers who are fighting with one another.

29. Keep small candy, gum, or little snacks around to offer to others during a long day.

30. Lead the charge in organizing others to help co-workers in need.

Be sure and check out the full article here.

Do you have some other ideas or ways that you’ve been missional at work? Let us know below in the Comments section!

Missional Tip: Pick one of these ideas and act on it this week. Let us know in the comments how it went!

[ HT: Zach Nielsen and Brad Andrews]

http://www.vergenetwork.org


by Mike Breen

One of the things we have to develop if we are to be missionaries to those around us is the ability to step back from our culture and observe it carefully and thoughtfully. We do this so we can best connect the Gospel of Jesus — of his available Kingdom — with the culture we live in. We also do it so we can be careful not to let toxic pieces of the culture we are seeking to redeem insinuate themselves into our worldview. That’s why we are told “be in the world, but not of it.” Being observers and exegeters of culture teach us how to “be not of it.”

Let me offer an example that, perhaps, will stir the pot.

If you read The Culture Code by Clotaire Rapaille (and if you’re serious about reaching the American culture, you need to read it), he talks about the culture of the United States. He says many things, but one thing he mentions is that part of the “code” of America is the culture of abundance. We don’t just buy what we need, we buy far above and beyond that. In fact, if you get down into the history of this country, you see that this is actually woven into the fabric of America since its’ inception. It’s absolutely fascinating.

So in this culture we find ourselves in, abundance is good.

But it goes further than that. We ascribe certain qualities and virtues to abundance — “success” or “value” or “meaning.” In American culture, a simple formula is this: The more money/stuff/friends/houses you have = the more successful/valuable/meaningful you are. It’s a simple formula and we probably see it all around us. People base their personal identity and value on the degree of abundance they are living into. We know this is destructive. All we have to do is look at our current financial system and see how unstable this is. Yet it’s all around us.

What’s interesting is how it is playing out in more subtle ways, insinuating itself into much of the world Christians inhabit. The sad reality is that churches/pastors live by the same simple formula: The more you have = the more successful/valuable/meaningful you are. In other words, the more people go to your church, the better you are as a pastor. The more people that show up on a Sunday morning, the more successful you are. We’ll even reward you with special perks to affirm you are special: The conference circuit. If your church gets big enough, we’ll stick you on a stage with the spotlight on you in front of thousands and thousands of your peers, who lean forward with baited breath, waiting to hear what you have to say.

The more people in your church = the more successful and influential you are. Or more simply, “Big = right.”

Here’s my question: Who says so?

Who in the world says that formula is right? Where in scripture can I find it written that people with the biggest churches are the most successful in the eyes of Jesus and his Kingdom? Now I’m not saying that big churches can’t be successful in the eyes of the Kingdom, I’m simply saying it’s not a given. I’m saying that just because you have a lot of people coming to your church doesn’t mean you’re actually preaching and living out the Gospel of Jesus. This formula we’ve accepted in our church culture is an adoption of the wider culture, not the culture of real Kingdom life. It has insinuated itself into our thinking and we must see how toxic it is. In fact, you would have a hard time convincing me that our enemy’s strategy isn’t to let a certain % of churches grow to reinforce this toxic and warped way of thinking. It pushes us away from true Kingdom success, so it’s not really a loss for him, is it?

Really hear what I’m saying. It’s not that big churches are bad. I’m not saying we shouldn’t want our churches to grow and see more and more people come to faith and be discipled. I pastored one of the largest churches in Europe. But I didn’t evaluate the success of our church on the size or % growth of our church attendance.

It’s about quality, not quantity. If I had to pick between a church of 50 people who were all disciples and Kingdom citizens or 5,000 people who went to my thing on Sunday but few were actual disciples…I’d take the smaller group every time. EVERY TIME. Because that is what Jesus valued most, it’s what I value most.

How many churches at the end of the year ask themselves, “Did we grow this year?” and use the answer to this question as a barometer of success or failure? Yes, of course we want our churches to grow and see more people come to faith. But that is in the Lord’s hands, not our own. Life in the Kingdom of God says that success is faithfulness. Period. Success is obedience. Success is doing what God has asked you to do and being faithful to him, letting him control outcomes. Daniel in the Old Testament refused to eat the food of the culture for fear of being contaminated. My friends, our churches and our minds are contaminated. The “world” has crept in and warped the way we see things.

The value of your ministry is not evaluated on how big it is and how fast it is growing, as if we were stockholders evaluating the growth of the shares we hold. Your ministry is successful if, and only if, you and your community are obedient to what God has asked you to do. Ask yourself this question: Are we being faithful?

There were times in Jesus’ ministry when he had more than 20,000 people coming to hear him speak, hanging on every syllable, wondering what he’d say or do next. This same man lost next to everyone, with even his closest friends leaving him. We see the same kind of journey for the Apostle Paul. Yet in the eyes of the Kingdom, both are “successful” because they were obedient.

Perhaps there is no better way to close this post than with the covenantal prayer that John Wesley would use and has become a guiding prayer in my own personal journey. May it comfort and disturb you:

I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.

And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thou art mine, and I am thine. So be it. And the covenant which I have made on earth, let it be ratified in heaven.

Amen.

 

http://mikebreen.wordpress.com


BY ALLAN BEVERE

Every church I have served has had a mission statement. I have assisted churches in developing mission statements. Some of those statements have been quite good, others are nothing more than idyllic preference-driven affirmations on how the church can continue to serve only itself. Since the church has a mission, having a mission statement seems quite logical.

But does the church need to develop a mission statement when Jesus has already given us one?

And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:18-20).

I know that when churches develop mission statements they mean well, but in doing so do they unintentionally suggest that they can improve upon the mission Jesus gave the church some two millennia ago? We are to go to all the nations in order to make disciples of Jesus Christ, and that mission has not changed. Perhaps we feel the need to have a second mission statement because we want to add our two cents, believing we have to have a say in what we should be doing as the church.

Now some might suggest that a mission statement gives more detail, fills out, Jesus’ marching orders he has given to the church. But the experts in mission statements insist that a good mission statement is short and to the point and easy to memorize, and a long mission statement is counter-productive and basically useless. What is shorter and more to the point than Jesus’ charge to make disciples of all nations?

No individual church needs to develop a mission statement. We’ve had one for two thousand years. What each church needs to do is to get to the task of keeping the charge we’ve already been given.

 

 

http://www.patheos.com


BEN STERNKE

The Inventor and His Useless Invention

A few days ago Mike Breen posted a series on his blog that essentially asked the question, “Why does most ‘innovation’ in the church revolve around technology instead of discipleship?” In other words, why do we spend so much intellectual and creative capital tinkering with technological niftyness instead of investing that capital in finding out how to make disciples well?

Most of the possible reasons he offered revolved around the fact that discipleship is difficult, and therefore left untried (like that great G.K. Chesteron quote, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”) While I think there’s an element of truth in that, I think that the real issue lies much deeper, and has to do with how our unspoken theological assumptions invariably guide our lives. And everyone has theological assumptions. You can’t live without them. But if they remain unexamined and un-articulated they could lead you to waste your life tinkering with things that don’t really matter in the long run.

My contention is this:

If we want to see a discipleship revolution take root in the North American church, we have to grapple with our inherited assumptions about what salvation is.

Until we really wrestle with this question and come to some solid answers, discipleship will not take root because it will always feel like an optional “add-on” to the “main thing,” some Christian bling for those who are into that kind of thing.

My friend JR Rozko articulated it really well with his comment on the first post in Mike’s series, andwrote a good post in his blog outlining the issue. I’ve also written about the issue a couple times (“Forgiveness Isn’t the Whole Gospel” and “The Gospel, Evangelism, and Discipleship”).

Essentially the issue is this: If salvation is merely agreeing with a few propositions so we can get into heaven when we die, if that’s what it’s really about, then of course all we’ll do is innovate new ways to attract people to hear that message and “say the prayer,” so to speak. Our goal defines the path our innovation takes.

But if salvation is something bigger, like participating in the life of God, joining with him in what he’s doing now (which I would argue is a far more biblical definition), then it makes perfect sense to make disciples of Jesus, because if we accept the invitation to live with God in his kingdom now, we very quickly learn that wedon’t know how to do that. Thus discipleship follows naturally from this, because Jesus knows how to do it, and he promises to teach us and empower us to do it.

If salvation is “signing the papers” so we secure blessing in heaven, then our goal will simply be to get more people to sign the papers, and thus our innovation will take a technological turn, because you get more informational bang for your buck that way. But if salvation is participating in what God is doing now, and our goal is initiating people into that kind of life, we will naturally utilize our creative and intellectual capital to innovate ways to more effectively make disciples. Again, our goal will define the path our innovation takes.

The problem is that many churches try to “add” discipleship to their already-existing programs and paradigms, without deeply examining their assumptions about salvation, which tragically lead them to invent tricky new ways to “get the word out” and remain impotent in their ability to make disciples. Like my friend Michael Rudzena said the other day, “Sometimes it isn’t the problem that needs troubleshooting, it’s the paradigm.”

If we really want to move churches toward building discipling cultures, we need to find ways to ask this deeper question about the nature of salvation. We need ways to confront the underlying assumptions that lead us away from discipleship. One idea I’ve wondered about is using parables. Jesus used them all the time to explode paradigms and turn things upside down.

What kinds of parables could we tell that would explode our paradigms of salvation?

http://bensternke.com



by BEN STERNKE

Post image for The Gospel, Evangelism, and Discipleship“Does the gospel I preach naturally lead to people becoming disciples of Jesus?” – Dallas Willard

Put another way: Is becoming a disciple of Jesus the natural way to say ‘Yes’ to the gospel I preach?

This question has been revolutionizing my understanding of the gospel, evangelism, and discipleship. For example, if we see the main message of the gospel as “Your sins can be forgiven,” it does not naturally lead to becoming a disciple of Jesus, because once you’ve got the “forgiveness contract” signed, discipleship seems like an optional extra-curricular activity for people who are into that kind of thing. Gospel-as-forgiveness is an anemic understanding of what the New Testament proclaims.

Here’s the way I am beginning to understand this, and the simple way we are going to be teaching our leaders at Christ Church to practice evangelism. Do you think this adequately captures things? What do you think?

THE GOSPEL
The Gospel is the good news that through Jesus Christ, life in the kingdom of God is available to anyone and everyone. The door has been kicked open by the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whoever wants to can come running in and find the good life in God’s kingdom.

EVANGELISM
Evangelism is the work of proclaiming this gospel; that is, announcing to people that a life in God’s kingdom is available to them right now, and inviting them to move into it by trusting Jesus.

DISCIPLESHIP
Discipleship then flows easily and naturally from this gospel, because theway we enter life in God’s kingdom now is by trusting Jesus. This doesn’t mean simply trusting him to let us into heaven when we die. It means we trust him for everything: our daily needs, abiding joy and peace, and power(through the Spirit) to do the things he said were good and right, to join with him in his action in the world.

Thus trust in and obedience to Jesus are what we are calling people to when we tell them the kingdom of God is available to them. Some will ignore the message, some will mock and attack it, but some will respond with a question like, “What must I do?” The answer is, “Trust Jesus. Join us as we seek to live in relationship and obedience to him. Join us as we seek to be involved in what He’s doing right now in the earth.”

All of this must be done in a relational context. That is, we will seek to establish presence in a context before we move into proclamation, and our proclamation will be conditioned and shaped by our context. If we discern that someone is open to the gospel, one easy way to invite people into the kingdom is to simply say, “I believe God is very close to you, he loves you, is available to you, and wants to work in your life. What would you like to ask him for?” From there you can simply pray with them about that issue, and then walk with them and see what happens.

This way we’re inviting people on a journey of trusting Jesus, where they can take small steps of faith and obedience in relationship to the actual issues of their lives, because these are probably the places the kingdom is seeking to break into their lives anyway.

What are your thoughts on this way of formulating these ideas and practicing evangelism?

 

http://bensternke.com


Escrito por Entrecristianos

Una conversación realizada por Gustavo Frederico con Natanael Disla y Anyul Rivas

La iglesia emergente —’Emerging Church’— es un movimiento que nació en el Reino Unido a principios de los 1990s como «movimiento de adoración alternativa» —’alternative worship’, con mucha reminiscencia de grupos como Taizé—, buscando repensar la liturgia en las iglesias tradicionales haciéndola más contextualizada con la época posmoderna que ya se estaba viviendo en Europa. En Estados Unidos, hacia mediados de la década, un grupo de líderes y pastores se reúnen en torno al grupo Especialidades Juveniles —’Youth Specialties’, una especie de ‘think thank’ de recursos juveniles eclesiásticos— y empiezan a buscar nuevas maneras de entender la fe cristiana y responder a los nuevos contextos posmodernos que ya se afincaban también en Norteamérica. Es allí donde el movimiento empieza a tomar forma como ‘Emerging Church’ y se forma el grupo Emergent Village como intento de articular esas iniciativas.

Gustavo Frederico: Natanael, ¿Qué seria el movimiento emergente en América Latina?

Natanael Disla: No podemos decir que exista un «movimiento emergente» en América Latina, al menos como se lo entiende en Estados Unidos actualmente. Cambios han estado proponiéndose por décadas en América Latina y el Caribe, pero estos no han calado a fondo en las iglesias y comunidades de fe.

Gustavo Frederico: ¿Cuáles serian algunos de esos cambios y cuáles serian sus causas?

Natanael Disla:

1. El ser humano como sujeto de la teología. La teología se la vio como «el estudio de Dios», sin tener en cuenta a la persona sujeto como productora de esa teología, ni mucho menos el contexto vital que determinaba esa teología. De ahí viene la preocupación desde América Latina y el Caribe por colocar al ser humano como sujeto de la teología… pues este tiene todo un bagaje de historia que se funde con su teología.

2..La acción y justicia social como clímax cíclico del quehacer teológico. El atrincheramiento de las iglesias evangélicas en la región y su dependencia de las sociedades misioneras a la hora de llevar a cabo la misión y la pastoral, llevó a ir más allá de satisfacer estéticamente las necesidades de las comunidades, tratando de hurgar en las causas estructurales que causaban esas necesidades, y tercero…

3. Inclusión de las individualidades excluidas. Se ha venido proponiendo no solamente que la iglesia tenga que ser «voz de los que no tienen voz», sino que esas voces «pasen al frente» sin distinciones de ninguna clase. No pretendo ser exhaustivo, pero creo que estos tres puntos nos dan una mirada general sobre los cambios que se han propuesto.

Gustavo Frederico: me gustaría de volver a algunos aspectos de esos 3 puntos, pero pregunto ahora a Anyul: ¿Qué entiendes por «movimiento emergente» en general?

Anyul Rivas: en general, diría que el movimiento emergente es un movimiento heterogéneo de cristianos dialogando con el mundo y la sociedad posmoderna, es el intento de ver el evangelio desde la posmodernidad y no la posmodernidad desde el evangelio moderno y cerrado.

Gustavo Frederico: ¿Cuáles serían algunas características de la posmodernidad en América Latina?

Anyul Rivas: creo que en primer lugar sería la crítica de los presupuestos de la ilustración. Sobrepasar el enfoque que la ciencia era sinónimo de verdad y la imposición del racionalismo como parámetro universal, por otro lado el acento sobre los valores del individuo y su experiencia como base de la interpretación de lo real.

Gustavo Frederico: Si. Pienso también que hay una descreencia en las meta narrativas / gran utopías como «capitalismo» o «socialismo». Una parte interesante de tu respuesta, Anyul, es la interpretación hermenéutica, «es intento de ver el evangelio desde la posmodernidad y no la posmodernidad desde el evangelio moderno y cerrado» ¿nosotros leemos el evangelio o el evangelio nos lee a nosotros?

Anyul Rivas: si, es una experiencia bilateral, pero por años hemos creído que es una experiencia unilateral de Dios hacia nosotros.

Gustavo Frederico: Los números de las iglesias evangélicas – sobretodo las pentecostales – siguen creciendo en América Latina. ¿Necesitamos de un movimiento emergente, Natanael?

Natanael Disla: Más que necesitar de un «movimiento emergente», que vendría siendo otro modelo eclesiológico importado más, necesitamos repensar desde nuestros propios contextos las formas de ser y hacer iglesia, que respondan a las necesidades de nuestra gente.

Anyul Rivas: Coincido con Natanael, si algo debemos aprovechar del «Movimiento emergente» de Norteamérica es su disposición al dialogo y la conversación con el entorno en el que se desenvuelve. Yo aplaudo la iniciativa del dialogo interdenominacional / interreligioso y el no aferrarse a confesiones doctrinales específicas del movimiento emergente americano, pero en latinoamérica esto parece ser un hueso duro de roer…

Natanael Disla: Sí, pero eso ya las teologías presentes en América Latina y el Caribe lo han venido diciendo desde hace décadas.

Gustavo Frederico: «movimiento emergente» o «iglesia emergente» parece ser un termo «temporal» para describir un proceso natural y orgánico de cambio en Norteamérica, por eso pregunto si hay diferencias entre las características de la posmodernidad en la América Latina, Caribe y Norteamérica.

Natanael Disla: En mi opinión la posmodernidad no puede definirse claramente en América Latina y el Caribe. Más bien debiéramos hablar de la poscolonialidad, entendida como el proceso que está llevando a esta región, África y ciertas zonas de Asia, de «independizarse por segunda vez». Hemos recibido todo un bagaje de pensamiento externo a nuestra realidad, euro céntrico, que veía a la razón como el ente más elevado de la humanidad, inherente a ella, pero externo, ahora se ha venido recuperando las identidades autóctonas, contextuales y vivenciales de los pueblos de nuestras regiones.

Difiero con Anyul en ese sentido:

1. Crítica de los presupuestos de la ilustración. Aquí debiéramos hablar de reencuentro con las formas de pensamiento originarios a partir de ver al individuo como ente unido a la Tierra, en cuanto ser vivo

2. Intepretación de lo real. Aquí debiéramos hablar del ser humano en cuanto parte integrante del mito.

3. Descreencia en las metanarrativas. No me parece que esto esté sucediendo en estos pueblos. Aún pervive y es herencia de un modernismo bien tardío que empezó a afincarse desde las guerras de independencia del siglo XIX.

Gustavo Frederico: ¿No le parece a usted que la caída del muro de Berlín, la crisis de las izquierdas, el fin de la guerra fría, y ahora la crisis económica y ecológica colaboran para una ‘descreencia en las metanarrativas’?

Natanael Disla: Desde luego que sí, pero es muy cuesta arriba superar las dicotomías fe/razón y fe/ciencia en nuestros pueblos, presas todavía de la institucionalización aún presentes en el socialismo del siglo XXI… y en los demás sistemas políticos presentes.

Gustavo Frederico: Anyul, usted menciona una crítica al racionalismo, y puedo veer esto en los emergentes en la América del Norte. En América Latina nosotros conocemos algunos problemas de la falta de la razón en las iglesias y en la teología (abuso de poder, manipulación, fe sin comprehensión, etc). ¿Piensas que la «crítica a la razón» de los emergentes se aplica en la América Latina?

Anyul Rivas: El racionalismo es uno de los causantes del denominacionalismo que compone a la iglesia en Latinoamerica, así que si la crítica a este racionalismo es una forma de superar esta segmentación, entonces pienso que su aplicación es válida.

Gustavo Frederico:
 A mi parece que la crítica norteamericana al racionalismo adviene de la presunción de la lectura literal de la Biblia. Asímismo me parece que tienen una descreencia en la tecnología, y en los modelos económicos

Anyul Rivas: De acuerdo. Y en esta presunción de leer las Esctiruras literalmente, cada quien interpreta su visión de las Escrituras como única verdadera e intenta imponerla en el otro, cuyo rechazo deviene en la formación interminable de denominaciones. Creo que sería un tremendo logro que lograramos enfatizar la ortopraxis antes que la adhesión a sistemas doctrinarios cerrados.

Gustavo Frederico: 
Natanael, una de las propuestas de la conversación emergente es que son contra las divisiones, como sacro y profano ¿Puedes ver tendencias teológicas en Latino América que promueven este concepto?

Natanael Disla:
 Sí, en las Teologías de la Liberación (TLs) se han venido promoviendo estos conceptos, pero en la primigenia TL el tema de la corporeidad no fue tratado, salvo cuando empezó a dialogar con los estudios feministas en los 1980s, cuando empezaba a gestarse tímidamente la teología feminista.

Quisiera subrayar el concepto de corporeidad aquí, puesto que desde el mismo propone la desfragmentación de la dicotomía sagrado/profano, en cuanto el cuerpo ha sido entendido como fuente de pecado desde la religión. El cuerpo entonces necesita de un medio que lo vincule con la divinidad, y ahí es donde entra la religión. El concepto de cuerpo en América Latina y el Caribe aún no sale fuera de la academia debido a los paradigmas esclavizadores aún presentes.

Gustavo Frederico: ¿Y la Misión Integral? ¿Que va a decir acerca de la división entre sacro y profano?

Natanael Disla: La Misión Integral no se ha ocupado del tema, por provenir de un talante conservador en su teología… no se ha preocupado por repensar desde dentro los supuestos teológicos que ha heredado

Gustavo Frederico: pero la TL habla de la «liberación de la teología» parece ser una distinción interesante. Como si en la TL hubiera una forma de desconstrución que no existe en la Misión Integral.

Natanael Disla: La TL y la Misión Integral (MI) difieren bastante. La MI no es la «versión protestante» de la TL.

Gustavo Frederico:
 Anyul, usted habló de los problemas del denominacionalismo en Latino América. La conversación emergente en Norte América parece tener una noción (o al menos un discurso) de alteridad semejante a esa presente en la Misión Integral y la Teología de la Liberación. Quizás podríamos hablar de personas con interés en el ecumenismo en Norte América (Samir Selmanovic por ejemplo). Desde la Reforma Protestante tenen varias denominaciones los protestantes.¿Qué rumbo podrían tener las denominaciones en América Latina?

Anyul Rivas: Phylis Tickle tiene una teoría interesante, ella menciona que las denominaciones que no se acoplen a la conversación emergente estarán condenadas a la disminución de sus miembros y posterior extinción, pero no creo que ese concepto se aplique si quiera por completo en Norte América. Ahora lo que veo es que existe cierta tendencia en las denominaciones en fortalecer sus estructuras y centralizarse aun más, ejemplo de ello son los recientes «movimientos apostólicos», que según mi entender es simplemente otro esfuerzo de verticalizar aún más la iglesia protestante.

Gustavo Frederico: Natanael, puedo ver los 3 cambios como asuntos en Cristianismo de Liberación ( nuevo termino en Brasil para la Teología de la Liberación 2.0) ¿Es realista esperar ver las 3 caracteristicas – el ser humano como sujeto de la teología, la acción y justicia social y la inclusión de los excluidos – en los evangélicos latinoamericanos y caribeños en el futuro?

Natanael Disla: En algún momento deberá ocurrir, pero definitivamente hay que deconstruir el concepto de iglesia como hasta ahora lo hemos tenido. Aún iglesia y templo son sinónimos, y es tristemente cierto que la Palabra de Dios —que tristemente también ha sido secuestrada en un «papa de papel»— está presente en la homilía en el templo. Es lo que se desprende del marco de pensamiento imperante.

Gustavo Frederico: Aparentemente, los emergentes norteamericanos y europeos han recuperado la omnipresencia de Dios con su critica a la división entre sacro y profano, que es un puro ejercicio de deconstrución. ¿Cuánto rompimiento con las denominaciones actuales sería necesario para tenernos una praxis de lo cotidiano, del pueblo, de la tierra, de la inclusión de los excluídos y de justicia social?

Natanael Disla: Creo que el denominacionalismo debe pasar a otra forma de entender y dialogar con las diversas formas de pensamiento, ser y hacer iglesia. No es asunto de romper con las denominaciones actuales, no es asunto de crear nuevas instituciones, ni siquiera de fusionar otras, es asunto de dejarnos provocar por el Otro o la Otra; embarcarnos en un nuevo viaje y redescubrirnos en cuanto seres orgánicos.

Anyul Rivas: Creo que no se hace necesario el rompimiento, aunque quizás sea más difícil la transición para las denominaciones más conservadoras. Tengo conocimiento de iglesias metodistas en Colombia con proyectos de Latinoamericanización de la iglesia bajo la iniciativa de Elsa Tamez, cuyos postulados coinciden con las 3 propuestas mencionadas arriba. Como dice Natanael, se trata de realizar un ejercicio de alteridad.

Gustavo Frederico: Cuando pienso en praxis del pueblo, de la tierra, de la inclusión de los excluidos y de justicia social, parece que la iglesia está automáticamente posicionándose «en la izquierda» sobre la óptica politica. Esto debe sonar un poco incómodo por ejemplo, para algunos Venezolanos o Paraguayos o Bolivianos que no comparten una «posición política socialista». ¿Es posible imaginar un movimiento emergente latinoamericano que incluya tendencias que no sean de «izquierda»? O en otras palabras: ¿Cómo hablar de teología del pueblo, del la tierra, de inclusión, etc, y tener pluralidad de posiciones políticas?

Natanael Disla: Es un tema espinoso. En primer lugar, Si bien es cierto que la pluralidad de posiciones políticas no exime de que hayan cambios en las diversas individualidades en cuanto a la preocupación sobre la contextualización de la fe, no es menos cierto que los sistemas imperantes de opresión resultan estar avalados por los mismos entes e instituciones políticas que los sustentan, lo que conlleva a tomar partido en una u otra posición política, máxime cuando se trata de hacer cambios radicales en las comunidades desde la misma fe, se llega a una disyuntiva en algún momento. Pareciera ser un «zugzwang» en ocasiones del que no podemos despegarnos. En segundo lugar, nos tendríamos que preguntar cómo repensar la política desde la fe, Las reflexiones de la participación política de los protestantes desde la Misión Integral, sólo se han circunscrito a avalar el ocupar posiciones influyentes en los gobiernos de turno para de esa manera, desde la fe, repensar la forma de hacer política… pero no se ha reflexionado el «hacer» política desde el contexto vital, y aquí es donde quisiera detenerme y enfatizar que la macropolítica debe dar paso a la micropolítica. Ello incluye deconstruir el Estado como institución rectora y reguladora del pueblo, las instituciones en cuanto entes fragmentadores de ese suprapoder y las iglesias en cuanto guardianes de la «moral y las buenas costumbres»

Gustavo Frederico: Comprendo, ¡Amen! Anyul, ¿usted quisiera agregar algo?

Anyul Rivas: En Venezuela es justamente ese el problema que tenemos al promocionar la discusión sobre la TL o promover la lectura comunitaria de la Biblia por ejemplo, porque siempre la presuponen asociada del discurso Marxista. Ha sido muy difícil superar estas barreras y hasta ahora no existe una propuesta convincente e inclusiva a la vez.

Gustavo Frederico: Una característica interesante del movimiente emergente es el «liderazgo como cuerpo» que aplana las jerarquías. Quizás eso sería una herramienta para la deconstruición de instituiciones sociales, Aplanando las jerarquías no tería a priori posición política.

Gustavo Frederico: En Brasil vemos nuevas comunidades «emergentes» que siguen una línea más alternativa, con tatuajes, rock pesado y lenguaje muy informal, esta línea no sería tan diferente de los ‘neo-reformados’ como Driscoll. Una de las ideas sería que la aplicación del evangelio cambia y se contextualiza con la cultura pero la esencia del evangelio no cambia. ¿Es verdad que la esencia del evangelio no cambia, y solamente la forma de transmisión del evangelio cambia?

Anyul Rivas: 
Yo creo que es inevitable que el evangelio cambie, principalmente por los distintos contextos de vida y significados del evangelio, la «buena nueva» de la cultura que lo comparte y la que lo recibe, los términos salvación y liberación han tenido connotaciones muy distintas durante los años en las distintas culturas, y si el evangelio ha de ser relevante, debe abordar esos conceptos y tomar su significado desde allí, no son las mismas buenas nuevas las que se predican ahora que las que se predicaban en tiempos de Jesús.

Natanael Disla: La esencia del evangelio, cualquiera que sea o se entienda este, siempre vuelve a cómo se entiende el ser humano utópicamente. Este concepto es cambiante en épocas, contextos vitales, culturales, grupos de personas. Esa utopía se resume en el ser humano como amor, «Deus caritas est» La «forma de transmisión» de ese evangelio se la ha entendido como «método», que no es más que la construcción de técnicas a partir de paradigmas prediseñados. Esas mismas «formas de transmisión», así entendidas conceptualmente, se disocian de la palabra en cuanto ente orgánico primario del discurso, que ya tiene una construcción determinada y todo un bagaje de formas que dan lugar a la fundación de paradigmas que norman las sociedades, de modo que las formas de transmisión de ese evangelio no son más que diversos métodos estéticos que se apoyan en los paradigmas teológicos de las metanarrativas.


*Esta conversación se publicó originalmente en el sitio web Renovatio Cafe . Tambien existe una versión en inglés en Emergent Village

Natanael Disla posee una Licenciatura en Administración de Empresas de la Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña y está estudiando para obtener la Licenciatura en Ciencias Teológicas en el Seminario Bautista de la República Dominicana. Es miembro de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (Grupo de Trabajo Latinoamericano) y Coordinador del Grupo de Trabajo (FTL) de la República Dominicana. Natanael vive en Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.

Gustavo Frederico es canadiense-brasileño que vive actualmente en Brasilia, Brasil. Obtuvo su Maestría en Ciencias de la Computación por la Universidad de Ottawa, Canadá. La Teología de la Liberación y la lectura son algunos de sus intereses. Es fundador de Conversa Sem Nome | Conversación «Sin Nombre». Está casado con Louise y es padre de Christina y Lucas

Anyul Rivas tiene una Licenciatura en Ciencias de la Computación de la Universidad Nacional Experimental Simón Rodríguez y es estudiante de Teología en el Seminario Evangélico de Caracas, Venezuela. Es anfitrión de una pequeñá comunidad emergente (iglesia en casa). Vive en Los Teques, Venezuela.


by BEN STERNKE on JULY 18, 2011

Harvest Time Mowers 1873, by Grigory MyasoedovThis morning I read the parable of the sower from Mark 4:1-20. I’vewritten before about this parable, specifically on the three things Jesus illuminates as those which “choke the word, making it unfruitful.” As I read this morning, though, I was struck by a simple thing: Jesus gives us a three-phase process of discipleship in this compact story.Jesus describes the fourth soil, the one that produces the abundance harvest, as those people who “hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop.” Hearing, receiving, and producing are the three phases Jesus seems to be illuminating here. But there are all kinds of ways we can interrupt and abort this process. That’s what the other soils are showing us.

If we think back through the other soils, we’ll notice that each one aborts the process at some point along the way. The seed sown on the path doesn’t really even get to the hearing phase. The seed sown on rocky soil hears the word, but doesn’t properly receive it; they have no root, so when hardship comes, they fall away quickly like a plant wilting in the hot sun. The seed sown among thorns hears the word, receives it and so grows good roots, but the thorns around the plant make it unfruitful, interrupting the last phase of the process. They have heard and received, but aren’t producing fruit.

I don’t think it’s stretching the truth to say that most North American Christians are “third soil” people. They have truly heard and received the good news. They have grown some roots and don’t fall away when the going gets rough. They attend church services and small groups and try their best to bless and serve others, but at the end of the day they aren’t producing fruit. That is, there is no multiplication-factor to their lives. They aren’t making disciples and thus aren’t “producing a crop,” which is what a sown seed is called to do.

So what to do? Pull up the thorns that are choking the word. As I wrote in my previous post on this parable:

The implication is that you can be a Christian your whole life and never produce the kind of fruit you were made for if you don’t deal with the “thorns” Jesus mentions. All the potential to produce a massive harvest of fruit is there, inherent in the seed that has grown up into a plant. The “natural” thing for the plant to do is produce a crop thirty, sixty, or a hundred times what was sown, but it will not happen as long as the thorns are allowed to co-exist with the gospel plant.

In my previous post, I went into some detail about the thorns that Jesus outlines in this parable, so I won’t belabor them here. I just wanted to point out the three-phase process of discipleship I saw in the parable.

I’d love to hear from you on this:

Do you think that Jesus is laying out a discipleship process here? What are some ways that we abort or interrupt this process in our lives? In the lives of those we disciple?

Escuchando, Recibiendo, y Produciendo

Esta mañana he leído la parábola del sembrador en Marcos 4:1-20. He escrito antes acerca de esta parábola, específicamente en las tres cosas que Jesús ilumina como aquellos que «ahogan la palabra, y se hace infructuosa.» Cuando leí esta mañana, sin embargo, me llamó la atención una cosa simple: Jesús nos da un período de tres -fases del proceso de discipulado en esta historia compacta.
Jesús describe la tierra en cuarto lugar, la que produce la cosecha de la abundancia, como las personas que «oyen la palabra, la aceptan, y producen una cosecha.» Audiencia, la recepción y la producción son las tres fases de Jesús parece estar iluminando aquí. Pero hay todo tipo de formas en que pueden interrumpir y cancelar este proceso. Eso es lo que los otros suelos se nos muestran.
Si recordamos a través de los otros suelos, nos daremos cuenta de que cada uno anula el proceso en algún momento a lo largo del camino. La semilla sembrada en el camino en realidad no  llega hasta a la fase de audiencia. El que fue sembrado en terreno pedregoso oye la palabra, pero no lo reciben bien, porque no tienen raíz, por lo que cuando las dificultades viene,  desaparecen rápidamente como una planta marchita bajo el sol. El que fue sembrado entre espinos oye la palabra, lo recibe y por lo tanto crece buenas raíces, pero las espinas alrededor de la planta la hacen que sea estéril, la interrupción de la última fase del proceso. Que han escuchado y recibido, pero no produce frutos.
Yo no creo que sea una verdad más que decir que la mayoría de los cristianos de América del Norte son «tercer suelo» de personas. Ellos realmente han escuchado y recibido las buenas noticias. Ellos han crecido con algunas raíces y no se apartan cuando las cosas se ponen difíciles. Ellos asisten a los servicios religiosos y a los grupos pequeños y hacen todo lo posible para bendecir y servir a los demás, pero al final del día, que no están produciendo sus frutos. Es decir, no hay factor de multiplicación de sus vidas. Ellos no están haciendo discípulos y por lo tanto no son «productores de un cultivo», que es lo que una semilla sembrada está llamado a hacer.
Entonces, ¿qué hacer? Tire hacia arriba de las espinas que se está ahogando la palabra. Como escribí en mi post anterior sobre esta parábola:
La implicación es que se puede ser cristiano toda su vida y no producir el tipo de fruto que se hicieron para si no se ocupan de las «espinas» Jesús menciona. Todo el potencial de producir una cosecha masiva de frutos está ahí, inherentes a la semilla que ha crecido en una planta. Lo «natural» de una planta  es producir una cosecha de treinta, sesenta o cien veces lo que se sembró, pero no va a suceder, siempre y cuando las espinas pueden co-existir con la planta del Evangelio.
En mi post anterior, me fui en algunos detalles acerca de las espinas que Jesús describe en esta parábola, por lo que no voy a extenderme aquí. Yo sólo quería señalar el proceso de tres fases de discipulado que vi en la parábola.
Me encantaría saber de usted en esto:
¿Cree usted que Jesús está poniendo a cabo un proceso de discipulado aquí? ¿Cuáles son algunas maneras en que abortarán o interrumpirán este proceso en nuestras vidas? En las vidas de aquellos a quienes discípulas?

 

 

http://bensternke.com