My Postmodern Articles

2005-03-12T14:57:00.000-08:00

Ross

Institutional Church or Organic Church

2005-03-07T10:14:00.000-08:00

Why are we doing this to ourselves?

Ross Rohde © November 2003

Now, after more than three centuries, we can, if we will, change gears again. Our opportunity for a big step lies in opening the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means, in one sense, the inauguration of new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier Reformation in which the implications of the position taken were neither fully understood nor loyally followed.[1]

Even the most unsophisticated review of the Book of Acts and the Epistles will lead the reader to the conclusion that the Church of the 21st Century and the Church of the 1st Century were conducted in very different ways. Obviously there are historical and cultural differences of context; yet these distinctions don’t begin to scratch the surface of profound changes that have shaped church practice in the last twenty centuries. Are these changes good or bad? Is the way we “do” church now an advantage or are we missing powerful dynamics that the early church understood? How did we get to the place we find ourselves today?

The purpose of this paper is to try to investigate these questions in depth, particularly the first two. However, I want to declare myself from the very beginning; I think the profound differences in the way we express our faith, as compared to the early Church, have profound effects in how effective we are in accomplishing our goals. Are the changes we see good or bad? Like most complex realities it is difficult to say something is completely good or completely bad. However, if we take an honest look at the Church we see in the New Testament and the Church as it experience it today I think we will notice that the New Testament Church had a dynamic, spiritual spark that is largely missing today.

The author further recognizes the inability of stating everything in a balanced way. For the sake of comparison or explanation statements will be made that are not completely balanced, fair or complete. No one group of people or expression of church is exactly one way or another. Simplification is done for the sake of clarity and comparison, not because the author has an ax to grind.

I do not want to say that the New Testament Church was perfect or anywhere close to it. The New Testament Church was rife with heresy, struggled with personal disagreements, and was decidedly unpolished and earthy. Yet it exploded out of Jerusalem with incredible spiritual power. It found success within its Jewish genesis point, in the Greek world and in Rome itself. Both Church tradition and history tell us that in that first generation the Church had already moved out of the Roman sphere of influence and was making headway in a number of exotic cultures. All of this was done in the face of official and unofficial persecution.

Nor is this to say that the Church as we express it nowadays is bad. The vast majority of my Christian growth was facilitated within the traditional evangelical church. I was discipled there, I experience fellowship and love there, and I ministered and was ministered to there. I know loving servant leaders in the traditional church. I have experienced a love and respect for Jesus Christ and His Word there. I know deeply spiritual people who feel very comfortable there. However, nothing occurs in a vacuum. The way we are expressing our church life today affects how we experience spiritual growth, how we express leadership, how we plant churches, how we disciple one another, how we deal with finances, even how we experience God. I believe certain aspects of the way we express our faith creates problems and exacerbates problems.

This paper will intentionally focus on what I believe is the most significant difference between the Church in the 1st century and the Church we find in the 21st century. This difference profoundly influences how we think about church, what we experience, and how effective we are in accomplishing the very goals that Jesus himself laid out for us. This difference is actually quite simple, yet it is having a powerful and negative impact on our church life and experience. The difference is the way we are organized.

The 1st century Church was organized organically, much like an organism. It had life, it reproduced naturally and all of its parts were seamlessly connected to the others in a holistic way, much like the way all the organ systems of the body are interconnected. The cardiovascular system won’t function without the nervous system. The nervous system needs the endocrine system. The endocrine system won’t function without the cardiovascular system. In the 1st century church discipleship led naturally to church planting, leadership development, evangelism and spiritual growth.

The 21st century Church is organized like an organization. It is programmed; its reproduction is seldom natural or spontaneous. In fact, often its reproduction is practically nonexistent and almost always clumsy. Although its parts are easily diagramed on an organizational chart, they are often in conflict with one another. How many times have we seen budget fights about how much money is allocated to which program? Many 21st century leaders have never thought much about how discipleship relates to church planting. Organic churches and organizational churches are both organized, they are just organized in very different ways and those differences affect the outcome of what we experience.

I believe that Church was designed by God himself to be organic. The analogies that New Testament uses for the Church are usually organic. The Church is a body with Christ as its head. The Church is a bride with Christ as the bridegroom. In fact, the only non-organic analogy we have is that the Church is a building with Christ as its cornerstone. Peter in I Peter 2:5 reminds us that the stones used to make this building are organic living stones.

When the Church organized itself in organizational/institutional ways it lost the dynamics it was created to have. It had to program what before was happening naturally. It had to institutionalize and work hard to achieve what before just seemed to happened. Take leadership development. There is no indication in the New Testament that leaders were scarce or that the Church was worried about having enough leaders. In fact, in 2 Tim 2:2 we see Paul training Timothy who trains faithful men who can train others also. There are four progressively growing generations of leaders. Leadership was multiplying, and it was happening in a relational, non-institutional way. Yet nowadays, with our plethora of seminaries, we still have trouble staffing churches. Take for example a pastoral job description taken from a website:

Church X seeks a new Senior Pastor with excellent skills in Bible teaching/preaching, the leadership skills to grow a large organization to greater effectiveness and impact for the Lord, a deep walk with the Lord, humility coupled with self-confidence, transparency and authenticity, and a conservative evangelical stance that emphasizes grace. Such a person could already be a Senior Pastor at a church of 1,000+ or could have been on a pastoral staff of a much larger church and now prepared to be a Senior Pastor.

In I Timothy Chapter 3 we have what could be called a job description for a pastor/elder/bishop, but it sure doesn’t look like that, nor was it advertised in an international Christian magazine. Further, one certainly doesn’t get the idea that elders were hard to find. There is not one mention of a seminary, preaching is not a must nor is self-confidence and since is it doubtful that any local church in the 1st century was ever over a couple of dozen people, such ideas as Senior Pastor at a church of 1,000+ is a bit ludicrous. Where did the idea of “Senior Pastor” come from anyway?

That is a question I would like to answer historically. In the year 313 A.D. the Edict of Milan was proclaimed by the Emperor Constantine. Basically it was a law that decreed Christianity legal and further mandated that persecution was to stop. All religions were to be tolerated but their toleration was due to the toleration extended to Christians. In fact, Christianity is the only religion named. Over night Christianity had become the first among equals. This first among equal status had a profound affect on Roman society. Official Roman paganism was a religion of spiritless ritual. Most Romans were pagans because they were Roman. If Christianity was the first among equals then they might as well be Christian.

Christians had been meeting, up to that time, in homes or hidden places. They also met in large groups sporadically, when they could. After all, they were a persecuted religion. Now huge numbers of people wanted to be “Christian”. Where were they going to meet? Since Christianity had a semi-official status with the Roman government they applied to use official Roman government buildings. In most towns there was a building called a basilica. The word has come to mean a church building, but at that time the basilica was a cross between a courthouse and a civic center. Christians began to meet in large groups in the basilica.

These changes ended up having profound affects on the Christian faith. Up until this time the meeting of Christians had been predominantly done in small intimate spiritual communities. Larger gatherings were actually a conglomeration of the smaller communities. These smaller groups were called churches. So were the bigger groups. One was the church that met is so and so’s house. The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. (I Cor. 16:19). The other was usually the whole set of small communities in a given city. Paul, Silas and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you. (I Thes. 1:1).

After the Edict of Milan the large gathering predominated over the small. This in turn had profound effects on the Christian community. When a group of 8 or 10 or 14 people meets there is a very intimate dynamic of community that develops. One’s testimony is known. There are few secrets. Pretensions drop away and your leaders are your friends. When hundreds meet this dynamic is impossible. The shared intimacy and deep spirituality that the Church was accustomed to was being diminished at the same moment when they had an incredible influx of new believers and new people who were becoming “Christians” for social rather than spiritual reasons. This in turn had a profound affect on leadership.

Up until the changes wrought by the Edict, leaders were merely people recognized for the depth of their spiritual life. We can see what kind of people these were by looking through the list of traits found in I Tim. 3. These people had a number of names, pastors, elders, and bishops. These titles were recognition of the role they played in both the small and large expression of the Church. One’s elder was the friend they saw almost daily. They were probably also the one who was personally discipling you. They were the people who you trusted because you saw the power of Jesus in their life. You knew their story, you knew their strengths, you knew their weaknesses, and you knew how they dealt with their weaknesses.

If a church didn’t trust an elder he was no longer an elder because elder wasn’t a positional title in a hierarchical power structure. It was recognition of role and of spiritual life. If personal character didn’t match the role, the role ceased to exist. There were other types of recognized leaders in this mix. We can see their titles in Eph. 4: 11, 12. It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up…Again these leaders were recognized for their spiritual giftedness and life, this was not a power hierarchy. It was recognized that Christ appointed these people through the giftedness that he had given them.

The Edict played havoc with this intimate dynamic of leadership. Within a very short time the group that met is Erastus’ house was now meeting with hundreds of others down at the basilica. Who became the leader of this large group? One of the leaders of the small groups became leader; one who was known and trusted for their spiritual walk. But everyone didn’t know this person.

Another dynamic came into play. Since you had many leaders of small groups now meeting predominantly in the big group the leadership started arranging itself into hierarchical power structures. The most obvious model for this was the Roman governmental structure. To be fair, this process had already started before the Edict of Milan, because it was a powerful cultural model. But the Edict heightened and finalized the process.

Finally, Christianity’s semi-official governmental status became more and more official. Leaders eventually became governmental functionaries. Authority became something based on position rather than spirituality. This also had the powerful backing of the government. Within a relatively short time, leadership was merely something that went along with title. Spirituality had very little to do with it. Within one hundred years monastic movements started. The roots of their origins have basis in the fact that true Christians had lost faith in their hierarchically appointed leadership and looked to the desert fathers, deeply spiritual men, for spiritual leadership.

What does this have to do with Christianity seventeen centuries later? We are still meeting at the basilica. In fact, most church buildings retain the basic layout of a Roman basilica. There is seating in two blocks with a central isle. The pulpit is where the judges sat. Seventeen hundred years later we are still closely reflecting even the physical layout of a “church/basilica” building. Amazing isn’t it? The big expression of church, called the congregation, with its inability to provide intimate community still dominates our view of how church is expressed. We are also still using the hierarchical power structures we inherited from the Roman government. We are still vesting our leaders with titles and positions and allowing leaders to lead from positional authority as much as or even more so than spiritual authority. Leadership is often viewed as a job with job descriptions, titles and vested power.

I think these historical encrustations have made it nearly impossible to experience the spiritual dynamic and power that the 1st century church enjoyed. Let’s compare and contrast the institutional church with the organic model of the 1st century.

The institutional church is first of all complex and institutional in its structure. In the 4th century the institutional model of choice was the Roman government. It still is in the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches. In most evangelical churches the model of choice is modern business. After all, the business model is as strong of cultural model in today’s society as the Empire’s structure was in Rome. Ministries are viewed as departments of the business. Most ministries have some sort of appointed leadership and often committees to oversee it much like a board of directors. One ministry does not necessarily have much to do with the other unless it is budget time. Then the various ministries may have to fight for allocation of funds. The leadership of the church is set up like a corporation or at least a small business, depending on the size of the church. The pastor is something like the president, the elder board (where did this concept come from?) is like the board of directors, and ministry leaders are like department heads. This can all be laid out in an organizational diagram.

Evangelism, church planting, and missions are viewed as programs to be developed by the given committees or departments. These departments need to maneuver for allocation of funds in order to develop their given projects. Projects are often rejected or set on the back burner based on the availability of funds. In missions the Church Growth paradigm predominates. The missional function of the church is viewed from a sociological, business and marketing perspective.

Particularly since the Enlightenment of the 18th century, spirituality within the institutional church has been viewed as having correct or approved doctrine. Modernism in the form of the Renaissance divided the Western Church into Catholic and Protestant camps. The Enlightenment shattered the Protestant church into hundreds of denominations and even independent congregations. These divisions were based on doctrinal issues as well as issues of ritual and practice.

The general practice of the modern institutional church has been to dichotomize. It divides one ministry from another. It separates one denomination from another. It views congregations as separate entities unrelated to other congregations in its geographical proximity. It tends to separate leadership from the very community it is supposed to lead. It can even separate doctrine from spiritual life.

Much of this has roots in the fact that we organize ourselves as an institution. The organizational principal of the institution allows us to think of discipleship with its department, budget line item and committee as separate from evangelism with its department, budget line item and committee. The way we are organized causes us to see the distinctions not the connections. Perhaps the president of the corporation, often called the pastor, sees the connections. Perhaps even the pastor doesn’t see them. We have taken our organizational structure from the world and it is harming the living organism called the Church.

Christian Schwarz calls the thinking described above technocratic thinking. Because we are, perhaps subconsciously, using business as our model it should come as no surprise that we do ministry like a business develops a new product or a factory builds a car. In short, the technocratic approach to ministry can be described like this: a minister develops a program or model and then encounters and applies the resources necessary to accomplish the desired outcome. Technocratic thinkers are always looking for a tip a trick or a technique. When they see a ministry that is bearing fruit they want to copy the model, as if the power was in the model, not in the Holy Spirit who lead someone to develop the model. Institutional thinking and institutional organization often lead to sterile, institutionalized, technocratic ministry.

It is easy to be critical. It doesn’t take much to notice that what we are doing in the postmodern world isn’t working too well. Unfortunately, the answer that many of us come up with is to try to do the same sorts of things twice as hard. But since most of us have never seen anything else, it is hard to imagine what it could look like and how one would go about ministry.

The polar opposite to the institutionalized church is the organic church. It is most certainly church in every biblical respect; it just doesn’t look like an institution because it isn’t one. It is a spiritually living organism. It is simple, it is relational, it grows by itself, it assumes that God will lead it into ministry, it is holistic and it is biotic.

First of all it is simple. It does not try to be fancy; it does not try to develop programs. It avoids committees, hierarchical structures, titles, and budgets. It doesn’t get overly excited about developing long term plans. It keeps things simple. The purest expression of these simple churches is commonly called house church. I actually prefer to call house churches simple churches because house isn’t the issue, simple is. In fact, what we find in the New Testament are networks of simple house churches. Yet everything the Bible says about church was said to and about these simple churches.

These simple churches are organic in their structure. Christian Schwarz talks about the “all by itself principle”. These churches tend to reproduce all of their elements all by themselves. For example, simple churches tend to multiply themselves, all by themselves without outside help, a program, funds from a denominational structure and a budget. Local leadership reproduces other local leaders all by themselves. Apostles develop apostles, teachers reproduce teachers, evangelists train other evangelists. Simple church networks tend to hive off other simple church networks. Christians learn to help their friends become Christians.

They are organic in another way. Just like an organ systems of an organism are interconnected and nurture one another all the elements of “churchness” are connected in such a way that it is really impossible to talk about the mission’s department or the evangelism program. What does this look like?

A maturing Christian has a relationship with her non-Christian friend. Jesus told her to make disciples so she starts to disciple her friend. Discipleship here is defined as continually helping someone take one step closer to Jesus. This works as well with non-Christians as Christians. Her friend starts to move towards Jesus. She starts to grow.

Somewhere in the process of being discipled she not only comes to Christ but is encouraged to invite some of her friends to discuss what God is doing in her life. A group forms at the new Christian’s house. The more mature Christian that is discipling the new Christian suggests that she begin to disciple her friends. A church is born. New Christians are born and discipled. They in turn start churches in their own circles of influence.

In the mean time, recognized leaders called apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers come among this growing network to help the training and discipleship process. Where did these people come from? They were recognized as being gifted people in the original simple church network of the first maturing Christian mentioned. Each of these leaders provides leadership from their own areas of giftedness. They observe who is showing significant spiritual growth among these new Christians and make sure they are encouraged and trained through life on life discipleship in how to be elders. As the network matures people with apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, teaching and pastoral gifts will be noted and they will be trained by similarly gifted people. Eventually apostolic teams of people with the Ephesians 4:11 gifts will be formed in this new network and when they sense a prompting from the Spirit of God they will go out and start new house church networks. This may even be in another city, country or ethnic group. In the mean time, more evangelism, discipleship, and church planting are going on in the original network. All of this started with a friendship of a Christian with a non-Christian.

Discipleship in this model can’t be separated out from evangelism or church planting or leadership development or network growth. Missions is connected to leadership development. The prayer and Bible study involved in the discipleship process can’t be separated from evangelism or just plain friendship. Where does the money come from? They give as they see need. They are discipled to love one another and take care of one another and the people around them. They lay money at the apostle’s feet so that new networks can be planted and the needy in their network and community can be cared for. The care for the needy in their neighborhood ends up leading to evangelism. These things form an integral whole. To separate them and give them all line items in the budget is ludicrous.

The best analogy I have found for this is the mobius strip. The mobius strip is the only three dimensional object with one side. If you take a simple strip of paper and form a loop with it, it will have two sides, the inside of the loop and the outside of the loop. However, if you give the strip a half twist before you connect them into a loop you have formed a mobius strip. If you take a pencil and draw along the strip the line it writes will join itself even though the pencil is never lifted from the paper. That is because there is only one side of a mobius strip. A mobius strip can’t be dichotomized. There is only one side. In a simple church network there is only one side. Evangelism is on the same side as leadership development, ministry to the poor, giving, discipleship, prayer and teaching. They are whole and the whole organism reproduces itself. This is further all directed by the Head of the Body, Jesus Christ Himself. Organisms have minds. The mind of the Church is the Holy Spirit.

This is all based on the biotic principal. Part of the biotic principal, as Schwarz points out, is that life produces life all by itself. I think another part of the logic of the biotic principal is a mindset, one could even call it faith. A simple biotic church or network believes that under the direction and in the power of the Holy Spirit they can minister into the lives of each other as they are gifted by Him. When they do this, the Spirit will guide them as a community into further ministry. This ministry will deepen them as Christians, draw them closer to their Lord and cause the reproduction of Christians, churches and networks. This happens all by itself, or actually in the power and under the direction of the Holy Spirit. This sounds very idealistic, but is it really happening? Yes, all over the world. A more mature example would be the sixty year old house church movement in China. It is working in almost every country in Europe. It is happening in Africa, Asia, Australia, Latin America and North America. It tends to contextualize all by itself.

In the last year and one half we have seen over 20 simple churches being born in Spain; at least these are the ones my friends and I know about as I write. By the time this gets published I am sure I will know of more. These simple churches are already reproducing all by themselves. A year and a half ago simple churches were unknown in Spain, at least by this author and his friends. We certainly know of no simple church in Spain or Portugal older than one and one half years, and our ears are to the rail trying to find these churches. I mention Portugal because the same thing is happening in Portugal. One of the known genesis points for this was a conference a year ago; one simple conference. Granted this is all messy. It is not under our control but life is messy and the Holy Spirit is clearly guiding this and it is under His control. Spiritual life is giving life to more spiritual life. People are coming to Christ, being discipled and churches as well as networks of churches are being formed. All this has happened in one and one half years.

I would like to compare and contrast simple organic churches with institutional churches. I would like to do this in a number of areas: organizational structure, authority, leadership, church planting/missions, discipleship, finances, view of spiritual gifting, spirituality and how meetings are conducted. When talking about organic churches these separations are artificial; I do so only to be able to compare and contrast them with the institutional model. But, because this is true, it is very difficult to talk about one area without bringing up others.

Organization

Besides the institutional vs. organic structure I have already mentioned there are a number of other distinctions that should be mentioned. Leadership in an institutional model is invariably arranged in a hierarchy of authority and power. Authority and power are vested in titles. People with titles are given certain responsibilities and job descriptions.

In the organic church each person is viewed as a leader because each person is gifted. Any gifted person can lead in their areas of spiritual gifts. Granted some people are quite immature in their giftedness and others more mature. Believer’s spiritual gifts are stirred up when they are allowed to use them and are coached by other similarly gifted but more mature individuals. Spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit and recognized within the body by how the Holy Spirit works through and motivates a given individual. Ministry is directed by the Holy Spirit. He will bring the right people together at the right time with the right gifts, and the promptings He has placed in their hearts. Sometimes one group of gifted people will minister together, at another time it will be a different set of people. This is very hard to chart on an organizational diagram.

As mentioned before, the way these churches are organized characterized the way they view ministry. Those in an institutional church with a corporate or business model will tend to dichotomize ministry from ministry, doctrine from life, and one church or denomination from another. Those in the simple, organic model will tend to see the wholeness of ministry under the power and direction of the Holy Spirit and see the whole worldwide Church as the body of Christ, whether it is institutionalized, simple, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, Charismatic or Pentecostal. A believer is a believer. A true believer is connected to Jesus so they are connected to us. We can’t separate the wheat from the tares that is a job of the angels.

Institutional churches tend to organize ministry based on programs, models, and techniques. It is assumed that one can look for and find contextualized techniques or models and apply them in a given context. The power is at least partially in the model itself. It is expected and hoped that the Holy Spirit will breathe power into these programs, models and techniques. Simple churches tend to believe in the biotic principal. The Holy Spirit will lead them into ministry.

Further the institutional church tends to be organized around the concept of the congregation. This concept is post-Constantinian. There are a number of formations of the congregational model, mostly based on forms of leadership structure or church government. There are also churches with cells and churches without cells. Cells are a half step toward simple church but in almost all cell churches the focus and power is still in the congregation and congregational leaders. Cell churches, at their best, are hybrids. They are organic units called cells, grafted to an inorganic structure called the “church”. The very fact that only the congregation is called the church is testimony to the actual inorganic nature of cell churches.

Simple churches are focused on the small simple church also called house church. These are churches that can survive on their own and reproduce by themselves. Everything that can happen in a congregational church can happen here. Simple churches do tend to form into networks. These networks have their own leadership structure based on the Eph. 4:11 gifted leaders. While the leader of a simple church is called an elder or pastor or spiritual father or mother; the leaders of networks are called apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers. Simple churches do all gather together on occasion for training, instruction, worship and celebration on a larger network scale. This is not a congregation and does not necessarily need to be expressed in a congregational format. It could be done just as easily as a conference, barbeque, festival, seminar or fair.

Authority

Authority and its sister leadership, are significant issues in churches, and they are also consistent and significant sources of conflict. The way authority is often expressed in the institutional church and in the organic church couldn’t be more different. The concept of authority is complex. We need to think clearly about the issue because there are really different types of authority.

When we are talking about church life there are at least three types of authority that come into play. The first is positional authority. This is the authority that comes from position, title or role. Because a person has this type of authority they are vested with certain responsibilities, privileges and power. Others respond to this type of authority because of the position held, not because of the person who holds it. The person being influenced says to themselves, I will do it because they have a title. This is called saluting the flag.

The second type of authority that comes into play in church settings is relational authority. This is authority that comes out of the friendship the person with authority has with the person being influenced. Because a person has a level of trust and relationship they are vested with a certain amount of influence in other people’s lives. Others respond to this type of authority because they trust the person. They have history with this person and this history inspires trust. The person being influenced say to themselves, I will do it because I trust them.

The third type of authority in church life is spiritual authority. This type of authority comes out of the evident spiritual life of the person with authority. Because of the evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives they are vested with influence in the lives of others. Others respond to this type of authority because they see Jesus in their life and that inspires trust. The person being influence says to themselves, they demonstrate spiritual maturity and wisdom; I will do it because I trust them.

Listen to the Apostle Paul appeal to the Corinthians to heed him in I Cor. 4: 14-16:

I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

This is an appeal both to relational authority and to spiritual authority. There is not one word about positional authority. Paul certainly reminds his readers that he is an apostle, but he never encourages someone to obey him because he has a title.

Parker J. Palmer in his book The Courage to Teach talks about the authority of a teacher.

External tools of power have occasional utility in teaching, but they are no substitute for authority, the authority that comes from the teacher’s inner life. The clue is in the word itself, which has author at its core. Authority is granted to people who are perceived as authoring their own words, their own actions, their own lives, rather than playing a scripted role at great remove from their own hearts. When teachers depend on the coercive powers of law or technique, they have no authority at all.[2]

Viewed from this perspective authority comes from inside the person, power comes from outside the person. Positional authority isn’t really authority at all, it is power. This is power that is vested in the person by the institution or organization.

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave– just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:25-27)

The very structure of the institutional church encourages saluting the flag. It is, after all, based on the Roman social structure which Jesus was referring to when he talked about the rulers of the Gentiles lording it over them. In fact, the parallel passage in Luke 22:25 uses the word “Benefactors” which was a title Roman civic leaders used about their role. The idea is that the leader is using his power and authority for the good of those underneath him. Jesus called this charade what it was. It was really lording power over others, no matter what verbal gymnastics are used. The structure of an institution encourages this type of thinking and this type of behavior. At its core it has the idea of some people having more power than others. It views some as those who are “above” and some who are “below”.

Does this mean that all leaders in institutional churches are abusing power? No, of course this is not true. Many are true godly leaders who, like Paul, appeal to their relational and spiritual authority. They allow authority to flow out of who they are, not what title they have. However, we would have to be blind to not see that many church leaders use the power of title and position to get their way. We would have to be deaf to not hear the groans that result from the wounding this causes among those who are “being led”. This is a major source of conflict in the church, and the conflict is built into the system. We have structured potential conflict in by following the world’s system instead of Jesus’ system of leadership.

Authority in the organic church comes out of recognized giftedness and relationship. Giftedness comes from the Lord and is an expression of spirituality. Every Christian in the organic church is a potential leader because everyone is gifted. They can lead when their gift is needed and they will be recognized by the level of spiritual maturity they possess. That recognition comes because the people leading in any given situation are in relationship with those being led. Leadership is recognized not vested by an organization or institution. Apostles are recognized by what kind of ministry the Holy Spirit leads them into. The kind of authority they have flows out of who they are and what God is doing in their life. The same can be true of the one recognized as having the gift of mercy. There is no institutional or organizational structure that requires the saluting of the flag. There is no flag. When flags are saluted, leadership failure has already occurred.

Does that mean that it is inconceivable that a leader in the organic church will try to lord it over others. This is just simple sinful human behavior. Of course it will happen. There is just no structure to back that type of person up in their power play. Such a person will probably just be ignored or might even be rebuked by people who have real spiritual authority.

Leadership

Leadership and authority are closely related issues. In discussing authority and influence we have also touched on key issues in leadership. However, there are a few other elements that should be contrasted in comparing the institutional model with the organic model.

Leadership, like authority, in the institutional model is vested not merely recognized. It is based on title not necessarily relationship. In fact if the relationship exists it is merely a corollary situation. In fact, one issue associated with leadership within the institutional church is that often leaders feel isolated from the very people they lead. It is this sense of the different quantity and quality of power and control that separates the leader from those they “lead”. Again the problem is built into the model.

To say that leadership doesn’t exist without relationship in the organic church would be overstating an ideal. Evangelists, for example, might very well be recognized by their reputation in ministry. They might be invited to come and train other in evangelism among churches where they do not have personal relationship. But they would come based on the authority of the recognition of giftedness and proven ministry they had demonstrated. They might come based on the recommendation of some other trusted individual like Paul’s recommendation of Timothy to the Corinthians. But though trust can be shared or imputed as a door opener, in the long run it must be earned to be maintained. Long term authority and therefore leadership is maintained through relationship and spirituality. If relationships and spirituality are abused, the authority will be lost. Most leadership though in an organic church setting is face to face, friend to friend.

Leadership in an institutional setting is often a paid position. There is a slot or position that carries with it requisite responsibility. As long as the responsibilities are fulfilled the functionary receives pay. The danger here is that ministry can just become a job instead of a Holy Spirit led passion.

In an organic setting there is seldom this type of pay for fulfilling of role mentality. Respected leaders may very well receive offerings for sacrificial service among Christians. Christians may raise offerings to send out apostolic teams or to support people who are dedicating themselves to the ministry. But it is just as likely that leaders will have non-ministry related jobs. This is a bit of a misnomer, since all of life is ministry and every relationship is a discipleship opportunity to take others one step closer to Jesus.

Church Planting/Missions

The first thing to be noted here is that church planting and missions in the institutional church is clumsy, inefficient and in many cases nearly non-existent. At best, church planting is a process of addition. Since church planting more than likely means buying property, constructing a building and paying staff it becomes incredibly expensive. The typical clergy mentality requires “experts” to be hired and trained for such work. These can be hard to find because the work is difficult and not particularly financially rewarding. You have to give these people credit; they are most likely working out of passion, because they could make more money selling shoes. This is not a life begetting life process. This is the technocratic model which requires a lot of hard, thankless work. Since this is so hard and so expensive there is a lot of effort put into trying to keep ailing and dying churches alive. The building alone required a lot of financial investment. Much time, effort and human suffering have gone into establishing and maintaining the ministry. An institutional church’s death is often viewed as a tragedy. There always seems to be a scent of failure associated with a church building being turned into a restaurant or museum.

Organic churches reproduce all by themselves. Where there is life more life comes into being. It is assumed that Jesus will lead into ministry. It is assumed that the Father will gift His children with the resources necessary to reproduce new Christians, new churches, new networks. This is a multiplication process. Every element in an organic church reproduces all by itself in the power and direction of the Holy Spirit. And just like in the natural world, things die. Churches die on occasion and Christians fall away. This happens in both the institutional model and in the organic model. There is just more vibrancy and life in the organic model. If there is enough life and reproduction going on we don’t have to try to hold on to every single church and try to make it survive. Organic churches have life cycles. They are born, they reproduce and in the process of multiplication they may give all of their life to other churches. The life is still there. Jesus is still ministering to His people, but any one particular church may cease to exist. This is not a tragedy; this is part of the life cycle.

Discipleship

Discipleship in the institutional model can usually be compared to a classroom process. It is often a programmed curriculum designed to impart doctrinal knowledge. There are hundreds of these programmed curriculums one can buy off of the shelf. The discipler often takes the role of teacher. Sometimes the discipler isn’t even necessary. Homework can be assigned and the disciple can do independent study. The emphasis can end up being discipleship as a program, Christianity as doctrinal knowledge with a focus on behavior modification.

This is a proactive process. The discipler or the curriculum writer decides what subjects, issues and doctrines a good Christian needs to know about. These are systematically laid out and the knowledge is imparted. At its worst this process can end up producing cookie cutter Christians who all think the same way, have the same views and don’t have idea one what the Holy Spirit is doing in there life. Or even worse, they can become program or classroom attendees, people who view church as an event to attend. There are other forms of discipleship in the institutional church. Probably the most satisfying for both the disciple and the discipler are deep intentional spiritual friendships. There is nothing in the institutional model that prohibits this, but it is not particularly common. The classroom model seems to predominate. This is usually just called Sunday School.

Discipleship in the organic model takes on a much different flavor. It is relationship based. It has both small group and one on one aspects. When the church meets personal discipleship is happening. The individual Christian is being discipled by more mature Christians called spiritual fathers and mothers, elders, pastors, or just friends. Christians may be being discipled on a series of levels at the same time. When at a church meeting they are being discipled by the whole church. They are of course discipling their friends as well, because it is a mutual process. They could be in a one on one personal and intentional discipleship process with a more mature Christian. And they could be receiving training in the spiritual gifting they are demonstrating.

All of this tends to be more reactive than proactive. It reacts to what the Holy Spirit happens to be doing in the life of the individual at any given time. This means that it is both more personal and more spiritually focused. Mature Christians recognize what God is doing in a given life and participate with the Holy Spirit in ministry. It may tend to be reactive but it does not mean that it is unintentional. There is a high level of intentionality here. It can also be proactive at times as the Holy Spirit prompts someone to speak into the lives of others. This proactive ministry often has a prophetic edge to it.

Finances

Some research was done a few years ago to find out how finances were used in a house church network in Texas. About 80+% of the money was used in two areas: missions and benevolent giving. What did this look like? If a member of a particular church lost their job, people give them money. If they needed a car they loaned or gave them their second car. If their community needed some type of social ministry to the poor, money was raised for specific projects; usually this money was accompanied by personal participation in ministry to the poor. If a member of the church needs funds, envelopes with money are left in their Bibles or on the seat of their car. If there is a need in another house church an offering is raised and sent through the elder or an apostolic leader. This is benevolent giving. If apostolic teams were going out to plant new simple church networks, offerings are raised. This is missions. This type of giving is direct, immediate and personal or conversely impersonal if anonymity is called for.

This proportion of finance focused on direct ministry is impossible in the institutional church. In an institutional church the vast majority of money is focused on two areas: buildings along with their maintenance and salaries. Whatever is left over can be used for direct ministry. The crumbs that are left over after these two huge budget items tend to be the source of conflict. Once again the problems are built into the system.

Money is handled in an institutional way in the institutional church. It is planned for, it is budgeted, it is allocated, it is put into and taken out of accounts and it is receipted. Money and its distribution is a source of power. Withholding of money can be a form of manipulation. Giving and the distribution of money in the institutional setting is seldom spontaneous. The accounting of money is a huge drain of manpower and time. Money must be budgeted, administered, counted and accounted for then receipted.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught:

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt. 6:3,4)

Spiritual Gifting

In most institutional churches spiritual gifting is either a non issue or it is proscribed. It becomes a non issue in most non Pentecostal or Charismatic churches. Since the church is an institution with a hierarchical power structure those in “ministry” fulfill roles. This rarely has anything to do with spiritual gifting. At least it doesn’t have to be based on spiritual gifting. To be honest, those in “ministry” often do end up expressing spiritual gifts. However, what about all those people who are not in “ministry”? Most don’t even have an idea what their gifts are. This certainly doesn’t have the scent of the Holy Spirit leading us into ministry based on the gifts he has given.

In a Charismatic or Pentecostal church there is a tendency for certain supernatural gifts to be appreciated. Those who express these gifts are spiritual. Those who don’t are immature. This is over stating the case, but there is little doubt that certain gifts are more appreciated than others.

In an organic simple church the Holy Spirit gifts. Everyone is gifted and everyone can lead in that area of ministry or giftedness. The issue is maturity. If one is more mature they express their giftedness and the subsequent ministry produced with greater effectiveness and deeper spirituality. The immature should be discipled by those who have more experience in this particular gift. There is clearly a sense of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into ministry based on the gifts He has given.

Meeting

Any time Christians get together they are in fellowship with one another and with Jesus. This is church. In an institutional setting much of church isn’t given the dignity of being what it is, church. Only certain meetings are dignified with the name. These meetings are often stiff, formalized affairs with an “order of service”. This is clearly post Constintinian and really rather boring. Why are only certain formal types of meetings respected and given dignity?

In an organic church when Christians get together it is the body of Christ at work and Christ is in the midst. Two Christians meet for lunch, it is church. When three families get together for dinner on Thursday night, it is church. When thirty house churches meet in one place, it is church. And Christ is in the midst.

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst. (Matt. 18:20).

Organizational churches offer us meetings. Organic churches offer us “meatings” where friends gather around meals and discuss Christ because he is in their midst. In organizational churches you have clergy and laity. There are those who are paid to be spiritual and those who observe them being spiritual. It is obvious who is who by what kinds of activities they participate in. By doing this we teach the “laity” to be do nothing or do little Christians. I remember when I was in graduate school we were looking for a church. I asked if I could teach an adult Sunday school class. I was told that in this church only those who were teaching on a seminary level were allowed to teach adult Sunday school classes. In other words, I was being assigned a role; the role of spirituality observer. I could observe those who were more prestigious and therefore more spiritually mature than I was. There was no room for the Holy Spirit to work through me for the edification of the body. The structure and policy of the church was in the way of the Holy Spirit. The problem was built into the structure. In an organic church Christians express their gifts through ministry. They grow and mature in their giftedness and therefore in the ministry the Holy Spirit expresses through them.

In organizational church we have congregations. Most Christians don’t do much. In organic church we have community where we know each other and love one another. In organizational church we have ministry programs. In organic church we have the power, presence, purpose and relationship with Jesus. When I am in a congregational church service I always ask myself the question, what would happen if the Holy Spirit broke out here? In most cases the “clergy” wouldn’t know what to do or how to respond because the Holy Spirit would get in the way of the service, program or schedule.

In organic church the church waits to see what Jesus is doing, then they minister accordingly. What does this look like? In a house church setting the believers gather together and begin to talk about Jesus. A wise leader starts looking for themes that the Holy Spirit is bringing up. He then follows Jesus into that theme by asking questions or suggesting Scripture or ministering to someone who has expressed a spiritual need or the need for prayer. The whole church is really ministering to one another. It doesn’t need to wait for a leader to notice or lead. Sometimes it is not the leader who happens to notice what the Holy Spirit is doing, so someone else leads.

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (I Cor. 14:26)

This is what it looks like when the Holy Spirit leads a church into ministry through the gifting He has given. The Holy Spirit is expressing himself. They Holy Spirit is ministering thorough the body. And the Holy Spirit is accomplishing his results.

By organizing ourselves institutionally we have put obstacles in the way of the Holy Spirit doing what he intends to do and the Church being what the Church was designed to be. The Church was designed by God to be his living organism. To respond to him the way a body responds to the mind. The Church was designed to be a place of spiritual encounter where God’s people met him in community and individually. Its very design speaks of intimate, real spiritual encounter; of supernaturalism. The Church was designed to be a place where God’s people ministered to each other in the power and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, using the spiritual gifts they have been given to lead the body in specific areas of ministry; every Christian a leader, under the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit’s desire is for his people to experience him, to follow him, to respond to him, to obey him. We have put so many human obstacles in his way that we have made this difficult; human obstacles of hierarchical leadership structures, positions, bureaucracy, forms, protocols, systems, orders of service, schedules, meetings, formalities, goals, objectives and programs. We are so focused on these human things that we can miss the divine.

In the process we have designed in significant conflict. We have designed in potential abuse of power and leadership. We have designed in a clergy laity split. We have designed in a Christianity that encourages a few to do most of the work and the majority who really don’t express their faith at all; they become observers of faith and attendees of meetings and services. We have designed in financial problems and financial conflicts. We have designed in the vast majority of our recourses going to things that really aren’t necessary, buildings, their maintenance, and salaries of professional Christians, of which I am one. In the meantime evangelism, discipleship, and missions wither on the vine. We have designed in a significant amount of time being spent on bureaucratic administration rather than hands on ministry that help people conform to the image of Christ. The problem is in the design, it is structural not spiritual. The way we have organized ourselves has become our chief problem.

It is time for the Second Reformation of which Elton Trueblood spoke. This Second Reformation will not really be about doctrine, although we will recover the doctrine of the supernatural, but about ecclesiology. It will be about the way we “do” church, not about what we believe about God. It will be about experiencing him, not merely talking about him. We will recover what we have lost, the supernatural encounter of the Living God leading us into ministry. And we will do this through the reorganization of removing the obstacles that history has put in place.

I have been living this type of Christianity for the last couple of years. I find it infinitely more spiritually satisfying than what I have experienced in my organized, stylized congregationalized history. Would I go back to what I had before? I would certainly not do so willingly. I have been experiencing Jesus living his life through me. I have seen his power at work. I have been ministered to by my brethren and I have been able to see God working through me in their lives. I have had the joy of following the Holy Spirit into ministry instead of trying to do God a favor. I feel that I am experiencing Christianity as it was meant to be; powerful, supernatural, communal and fun. Church was never fun before, it was a spiritual duty. I am enjoying my experience with Jesus. I would be mad to want to give this up.

God is at work in history. He is using the sociological shift to postmodernity to wake up his Church. He is doing this just like he used the Renaissance to correct bad theology through the first Reformation. Now he is correcting bad ecclesiology through the Second Reformation. We need to embrace this change. Change is always uncomfortable. But we can go along with what the Holy Spirit is doing in history like our spiritual ancestors did in the Renaissance.

When God wakes up his Church at these sociological turning points he does not forget his people who fail to go along with what the Spirit is doing. God did not abandon the Catholic Church at the Reformation. He still loves believers who are within the Catholic Church and his Spirit still works though the Catholic Church. But he did pour the vast majority of his power and blessing into the new wineskin of the reformed and evangelical churches. I believe he will do this again as he is again making a new wineskin for his Church.

I believe that we should embrace the shift into the Second Reformation. We should pour our resources where the Holy Spirit is pouring his blessing. New wineskin churches are growing all over the world. They are really just about the only thing that is growing in much of the world. Certainly this is true in Europe. Europe in not dead to the gospel, it is dead to our old wineskins. We need to embrace the change and follow the Holy Spirit into what he is doing in history. We need to become early adopters of the Second Reformation.

[1] Elton Trueblood, Your Other Vocation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), p.32.
[2] Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998) p. 33.

Evangelism by Invitation

2005-03-07T09:29:00.000-08:00

By Ross Rohde
February 2003©

Evangelism has always been a difficult business. As we move from the modern age into the postmodern world, it seems to have become even more complex. How does one “do” evangelism in the postmodern world? Are there any principles that help us to understand evangelism in this new context? Should we just give up? Should we just try harder? Should we simply continue to evangelize using the same methods we have used for the last half century? I would like to try to answer some of these questions from what I have been learning by experience, study and observation of effective ministry in postmodern Europe.

Contrary to its fame as the “graveyard of missions,” I hold out much hope for Europe. Despite what many say, there are actually many exciting things happening. The problem is that they do not have the appearance of traditional evangelical practices and are, therefore, easily dismissed. In fact, much of what I believe God is doing is so contrary to traditional, evangelical practices, that it seems to actually anger some of our sisters and brothers. But, whether it makes us angry or not, God is at work in Europe. So what are some of these principles and how can we participate?

We Need to Be Invited to the Party

Evangelism is a supernatural process. In reality, it is God who brings people to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It has never been our cleverness, our techniques, our booklets or our persuasiveness. Even Jesus waited for the Father to invite him into ministry.

In the forth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus has an interesting conversation with a Samaritan woman. What starts out as a simple conversation about a drink of water ends up as a town revival meeting. This is a story that most Christians are familiar with, but I would like to make a few observations.

Jesus starts his conversation with the Samaritan woman by making a common request. “Give me a drink.” She immediately brings religion into the picture. “You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” Since she wants to talk and she has brought up the subject, Jesus throws out a big hook to see if she will bite. “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” The woman and Jesus continue in this spiritual conversation even though she has a tendency to go down rabbit trails. Yet Jesus skillfully keeps pointing her back to himself, and his offer of eternal life. Jesus then demonstrates his credibility through prophecy. She responds by inviting the townspeople to the revival meeting and salvation comes to a Samaritan village.

So where was the invitation from God? It comes when we find ourselves in a divinely ripe situation. Jesus seems to test the waters in the first part of his conversation with the Samaritan woman to see if he is in such a situation. What would have happened if the Samaritan woman had responded to his request for a drink of water by giving him a cup and grunting “Here!” My guess is that Jesus would have taken a drink, wiped his mouth with his sleeve, said thanks and waited for the disciples to return. But God had something else in mind. This woman brought up spiritual issues. Jesus, noting that God may be up to something, keeps investigating in that vein. Jesus waited until he saw that the Father was at work and then joined him in that work.

In the next chapter of the Gospel of John we have another demonstration of the same principle. Jesus is in Jerusalem. We pick up the story in John 5:6. Jesus notices a man who has been crippled for many years. He talks to the man about his condition. Jesus asks if he would like to be healed and when the man positively responds, he heals him. Note the progression. Jesus strikes up a conversation. The person responds. Jesus offers to demonstrate spiritual power. Again the person responds. Jesus joins the Father and God’s work gets done. This is a similar pattern to Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. But in the John 5 passage the local spirituality police decide that Jesus isn’t working according to their ideas of spiritual correctness. After a thorough investigation they complain about his apparent infraction, to which Jesus responds.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel. (John 5: 19-20)

There was something in these interactions that Jesus saw as the Father’s doing. So what was the Father doing? What did Jesus notice? Where was the invitation?[1] Well, there certainly wasn’t any audible voice from the sky, at least not in this instance. Jesus did however seem to be highly sensitive to God coloring normal every day situations with the supernatural. When he noticed, he assumed that God might be giving him an invitation to move forward. When people respond to conversation about the supernatural or spirituality or, in fact, bring up the subject, we need to move forward trying to discern if God is giving us an invitation to participate with what he is doing.

Jesus moved into these situations in natural ways watching for a response. He didn’t force his way with a one size fits all gospel presentation. He certainly didn’t preach to people when they didn’t want to listen. But he did preach. He was not passive. He did end up in all sorts of conversations about spiritual things. He was on the lookout for opportunities opened up by the Father. Jesus didn’t minister unless he felt the Father was already at work. He did what the Father was doing “in like manner”. He felt that being invited into ministry was an expression of the Father’s love for Him. He felt that the Father had to show Him what the Father was doing. And to participate in the Father’s work was marvelous.

To be effective in evangelism, we need to be invited to the party by the Father. I have come to believe that we should not initiate ministry unless God opens the door for us. If God hasn’t invited us to do ministry, why would we want to do it in the first place?

So what does an invitation from the Father look like? To be sure, there’s no formula but, like Jesus, we can look for what God is doing. Sometimes we are well into the process before we realize, “Wow, God is at work here.” Friends of mine, Bill and Jane, experienced this in a clear way. Their daughter wanted to have foreign exchange students in their home. The first student, a young man from the Basque country of Spain came to Christ and started to grow. His parents back in Spain were disturbed by the religious things they were hearing from their son. Their concern was so great that they made a transatlantic to visit this American family to see, first hand, if their son was being brainwashed. Their apprehension, however, soon turned to a sense of wonder. They were fascinated by the change they saw in their son and by the love that was shown in Bill and Jane’s home as well as in their church. These loving parents not only gave their blessing to what was happening, but soon Bill and Jane were getting requests from some of their relatives to host children. Out of the small step of taking in an exchange student has grown a ministry in which a number of young people have come to Christ. Still, Bill and Jane were well into the process before they could see what the Father was doing.

Sometimes the Father invites us to the party through prayer. A couple of years ago had a call into ministry though a strong conviction to pray about a specific ministry. At first I was not sure if I was hearing from God or from my own flesh. Did I want to do this because I wanted to be important and significant or was God really speaking to me? All I could do, in the absence of clear confirmation, was pray. Soon God began to confirm through circumstances. I had not told anyone about my prayer burden, yet people began to call me to talk about this particular type of ministry. They asked if they could be involved with me in this ministry though I had said nothing about it to them or to anyone else.

My prayer became: “God, bring five couples to be involved in this with me.” Although the first couple contacted me within a month, I still felt it could take years to find the remaining four couples. However, soon after and within a ten-day period, four more couples had contacted me, two of which I hade never even met. In ten days God had accomplished what I thought might take years. Before long, there were ten couples involved, each of whom initiated the contact. From this beginning, an ongoing church planting ministry has evolved. God confirmed through his answers to my prayer that the burden I felt was, indeed, an invitation to go through a door that he had opened. He continues to bless this ministry to this day. What would have happened had I simply plowed ahead on my own to initiate this ministry? Would the same supernatural confirmation and subsequent blessing have occurred? I don’t think so. God blesses what he is doing, not what we want him to do.

Sometimes the Father invites us to the party though prophecy. Though my own spiritual formation took place in a context where this type of event was not accepted, I have personally seen it happen. While at a conference in October, 2002 a man with a prophetic ministry gave a prophecy to a man named Ignacio. The prophecy had a few key elements. Ignacio’s name was ‘General’ which meant he was a strategist. He was to help strategically lead a house church movement just getting started in Spain. He was to get together with certain people (specifically named) already involved with this movement and develop a father/son relationship with them. He was to go through a brief but difficult desert period in his life in the near future but he wasn’t to despair because this period would end. The man who gave the prophecy did not know Ignacio. Actually very few people at the conference knew Ignacio; until this point, Ignacio had not said a word and had been rather reserved. He certainly wasn’t standing out as the big leader type.

At that point, I approached Ignacio, with whom I had only spoken to once by phone. I asked him how he was doing. He was quite emotional. Many of the prophecy’s specific points had some deep and significant meanings for him. I asked him if he would like to go outside and pray together. As we prayed and talked I became very impressed with Ignacio’s clear giftedness in ministry strategy and vision. I was surprised by his breadth of experience, for being such a relatively young man. Ignacio stated that he had come to the conference because he was convinced that there was something missing strategically in the way church was currently being done in Spain. He had been planting churches, based on various models; he had learned much but, as a Spaniard, he knew there was something missing. He came to the October conference hoping to find that missing strategic element. He felt that being at the conference was a divine appointment because he was finding what he was looking for.

As we spoke, I became convinced that this young man was clearly being divinely appointed to lead a Spanish house church movement. I told him that I felt that what he really needed to do was get in contact with the leaders of the house church movement in Switzerland and Germany. They could really help him in his divinely appointed task. I named some specific leaders by name. In fact, they were people who were present in the Spanish conference.

“Oh, I’m moving to Switzerland next week”, he told me.

“Where in Switzerland?”

“Schaffhausen, my wife is from there and since she is pregnant we decided to move up there so she could be with her family. I have just finished my responsibilities in the planting of a church in Extremadura. I have come to this conference and it is the last thing we need to do before we move.”

“Ignacio, Schaffhausen is just across the border from where that leader lives in Germany. There are house churches in Schaffhausen.” You need to talk to these people right away and set this up.

So I took him inside and personally introduced him to the people I had specifically named. They struck up a friendship and promised to meet in Switzerland or Germany.

The next time I saw Ignacio, after the October conference, was in Prague, The Czech Republic in November of 2002. After he had moved to Switzerland, I had invited him by e-mail to be a part of a leadership conference for people involved in the European House Church movement. Ignacio had driven to the conference with one of the men I had introduced him to in Spain. I asked him if they got together often.

“Sure, we live less than ten kilometers from each other.” I see him often and since then he has taken me to Holland to see how to train house church planters.”

Since then, I have seen Ignacio one more time face to face. We met during one of his visits to Spain. Over dinner, he outlined how he had spent the last few months. He explained how much he was learning. He shared how he and his wife had planted a house church in Switzerland. He told me of the various merits of different training models he had experienced first hand. We talked of how one on one discipleship and quality Bible study could be accomplished in a Spanish house church context. I was amazed at how much he had learned. I was stunned by his insights and I was thrilled by his critical and insightful analysis of what house churches should look like in the Spanish context.

“Ignacio, how has life been for you personally?”

“It has been really difficult, one of the most difficult times of my life.”

“Why?” I was thinking to myself that this would have been one of the most fulfilling experiences of his life, considering how much he had learned and his ministerial development.

“Did you know that in Switzerland they have police that come into your house to check how many radios you have, to make sure you are paying your radio tax? Did you know that if you happen to throw your garbage away in the wrong place they have garbage police who will go through the garbage to look for clues so they can hunt you down and fine you? Did you know that you can’t use a mobile phone on a bus? It is against the law, it might bother someone. I had an old lady yell at me the other day for talking on the bus. I don’t think Switzerland is a good place for a Spaniard, you don’t have any personal freedoms.”

“Do you think these hardships have anything to do with your prophecy about the brief difficulties you were about to experience?”

“Oh sure, this has been a partial fulfilling of prophecy, although there are other things that have added to this desert experience. But I am going to be back in Spain in June.”

I have certainly not exhausted the ways that God invites us to the party, nor could I. I’m not sure I know all the ways that God invites us into ministry. He is sovereign and knows how to communicate with us. There is, however, another invitation that is vital if we are to be effective in evangelism in the postmodern world. This is the invitation from the person with whom we desire to share Christ.

Getting a Party Invitation from our Postmodern Friends

I Peter 3: 13-15 gives us good insight in how to witness in a seemingly hostile postmodern environment.

And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

Think about what this is saying about sharing our faith in a potentially hostile environment. Peter says, “When someone asks us to give an account.” Hold on!

· You mean that, in most cases, they should ask first?
· You mean they should have a reason to ask?
· You mean there has to be something in my life, something that they see first before I share my faith?

Let me also make a couple of statements about what I Peter 3 is not saying. It is not saying we need to bone up on apologetics so we can prove we are right through a recitation of the facts. It is not saying that we should fight about every controversial public issue that seems to pop up in the newspaper. It is not saying that having convincing scientific facts will sway our audience. This is about life. It is the about the powerful testimony of a life where Christ is sanctified as the Lord of the heart. Facts are not bad or wrong, but they are not nearly as convincing as a Spirit filled character.

Postmodern people do not want to have someone share their point of view about controversial issues, without that person first being invited to do so. This is particularly true of religious convictions. In fact, most postmoderns wouldn’t be so kind as to use such a gentle word as “share”. They would say something like “Who asked you to jam your religion down my throat?” Postmoderns have been accused of having no moral absolutes. This is not true. They just have different moral absolutes, one of which is that you don’t try to convert someone without an invitation. How offended are you when someone violates your moral absolutes? Are you even more offended when you are somehow involved in the process against your will? Now you know why postmoderns get so emotional when we witness to them without an invitation.

What is worse, the harder we insist the more powerful their negative reaction. Let me try to illustrate this with the concept of a semi-permeable membrane in a cell. In biology, a semi-permeable membrane is one which allows certain substances through while blocking others. Once a substance is permitted through a membrane, it can do what it was designed to do within the cell. Substances which can not pass through the membrane, never affect the inner workings of the cell. In the same way, someone who is on the outside of the “social membrane” of postmoderns should not speak about spiritual things. They will be rejected and may lose whatever potential for relationship existed to that point. However, those who have passed through the membrane may quite possibly be welcomed to talk about spiritual things.

The analogy of the semi-permeable membrane has many implications and applications. First, think of the membrane as a tautly stretched piece of latex rubber; like that used to make surgical gloves. Now, imagine trying to push a marble through that latex. It will not pass through, the harder you push the stronger the resistance. Eventually, the resistance will be such that the marble is flung away, similar to shooting a marble out of a slingshot. The harder the push the farther the marble will sail away. In the same manner, the harder we press in with preaching the gospel to postmoderns, those who have not invited us into the conversation, the stronger will be their rejection. I personally believe we do more damage to the cause of Christ than good to the cause of Christ by this type of evangelism, no matter how noble our intentions.

How does one share the gospel with a postmodern if they are so resistant to spiritual things? Actually, they aren’t resistant to spiritual things; they are resistant to pushiness and violation of their moral absolutes. In fact, postmoderns are often very open to conversations about spirituality and are often quite open to a relationship with Christ. But, they are only open to spiritual conversations with people who are on the other side of their membrane. Penetration comes through invitation, and invitation comes through special relationship. To witness to a postmodern from whom you have no invitation, based on a special relationship, is an exercise in rejection. They decide when, how and with whom they will invite someone “through their membrane.” To initiate this process from the outside is to invite rejection. To force this process is to invite a forceful rejection.

Ministry in the life of the postmodern comes on the basis of the quality of our relationships and the quality of our living. All of our life should be viewed through this lens. In every relationship we possess an opportunity to minister the life of Jesus to others; both with Christians and non-Christians. At the beginning of this article, I asked the question: how does one do evangelism in the postmodern world? The answer: we don’t “do” evangelism, we don’t “do” ministry. We live the supernatural life of Jesus. All of life is ministry. We can not and should not dichotomize our lives into ministry and non ministry. Thus the onus (and privilege) is on us to be the fragrance of Christ (II Cor. 2: 15, 16) in the power of the Spirit, at all times and in all situations. This means that all of life is permeated with the supernatural. This means we are dependant on God to produce his fruit in and though us. We can not rely on our own efforts and acts of our will to accomplish Kingdom work. That is just religious activity. Authentic fruit is that which Christ develops in our lives, and we don’t get to determine what that will look like. Jesus simply promised that if we abide in him, we will bear much fruit.

This does not mean we have to be secretive about Jesus, who is the focal point of our very existence. He is the author and finisher of our faith. He is our life, the captivator of our every thought. He is the supernatural presence that fills our souls with his love, peace and joy. We are in love with him, and he with us. If this is how we live it will be evident. Then, the subject of Jesus will come up at the right time; and it will be natural and winsome rather than artificial and forced.

We can take heart, the membrane is semi-permeable. One can get through and, when one does, sharing our faith becomes a joy to both the hearer and the one who is telling of the power of Jesus. As stated above, penetration comes through invitation, and invitation comes through special relationship. So, what kind of special relationships? There are really only two: family relationships and deep friendships. In terms of family relationships, unless one is born into the family, the only remaining avenue is through adoption. And, in terms of deep friendships, no amount of insisting will create them. They only grow over time and through free, mutual assent. But there are a number of ways one can be invited through the membrane.

My friends Bill and Jane found a membrane penetration principal when God initiated their ministry to Basque exchange students. This happened when they went to Spain to spend time with the families of the students who had stayed in their home. They soon learned that they were welcomed into these homes as family members. In fact, they found out that the parents were well aware of the discussions about spiritual things with their sons and daughters. Not only did they not prohibit such conversations, they welcomed this type of input in their children’s lives. This is an ethnic group that is historically and notoriously suspicious of outsiders. Yet, Bill and Jane had passed through the membrane. With this penetration came the invitation and opportunity to speak freely about spiritual things.

But how did they get there? They were informally “adopted” by these families. Why? Bill believes he and Jane were adopted because they had, first of all, adopted those students into their own home and family. Because they had loved those students, they were loved and invited into the family. Bill and Jane are still very careful with the freedom they now have. They are aware of how precious it is. But, at the same time, they are bold in talking about spiritual things. I have been with them as they boldly shared their faith. Had I, as an outsider, tried to say the exact same things, the conversation would have ended rather abruptly or created relationally devastating tensions.

It is not merely the quality of the conversational content that is important to the postmodern hearer. Rather, it is the quality of the relationship in which the conversation takes place that gives or denies the right to speak. This is one significant difference between evangelism from the old “modern” viewpoint and that which occurs in the newer, postmodern world. In the rational, modern worldview, one could often prove through rational argument the validity of one’s position. The idea was to make the gospel simple, clear and convincing. In point of fact, we sometimes confused evangelism with a type of indoctrination in which we made sure someone understood and agreed with the right “doctrines”. Evangelism, on the other hand, is helping someone encounter the supernatural life and salvation of Jesus. Postmoderns may agree that you are rationally right and still deny you the access necessary to change their heart. What postmoderns really want is to see that they are loved in a way that is natural, appropriate for the situation, and not forced.

Many years ago, I had a summer job on a wheat ranch in Eastern Oregon living in a bunkhouse with another college student. With great interest I had been reading Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. One evening, while washing up after a long day of work, we got into a spiritual conversation. Boy did I think I was ready. I blew him out of the water with facts, figures and statistics. He was impressed with what I was saying but not convinced. He asked to read the book, which he did over the following week. He read every word. At the end he came to me and said “I’ve read your book. I can’t argue with the facts. But I don’t believe.” I was witnessing to a postmodern, I just didn’t know it. It wasn’t the quality of the argument that denied access to his soul. Rather, it was the absence of a quality relationship with him, one in which I could have shown with my own life that Jesus was worth having. Access denied.

Another way to penetrate the membrane is to become accepted as a close friend. How do such friendships happen? They happen like they have always happened, through time together and mutual interest. Tim, a friend of mine in Portugal, joined a group of motorcycle enthusiasts. He wasn’t shy about admitting he was a Christian but he also wasn’t invading people’s space. Over time, as the relationships developed, spiritual conversations started taking place. Recently, several couples in the group have asked him if he could do a “Protestant Mass” for them. Notice ––they asked him. He didn’t come up with the idea and suggest it to them. He probably never would have thought of this particular ministry model. But, they had come to the point that they wanted to initiate a spiritual element into their relationship. Tim had somehow passed through the membrane, at least for some of the members of the motorcycle club. If Tim is obnoxious with his new found freedom, he can lose it. But I have every confidence that God will give him wisdom and more opportunities.

A few years ago my wife, Margi, started to attend a local Tai Chi class to exercise and to make contacts in our Spanish community. Before she did this, we had long discussions about the potential dangers of the spiritual roots of Tai Chi. She attended the first few weeks with trepidation, hoping that the class was not actually a front for New Age spirituality. What she found was that this particular school of Tai Chi mainly emphasized the physical benefits, rather than presenting it as a spiritual exercise. Through prayer, we decided that she should continue in class and that our daughters could join. This class became a source of many friendships for Margi and the girls. Margi started praying for her friends as she exercised. She also found herself playing the role of the “bridge person” for the newcomers in the class whom the old timers tended to shun.

Two years later, her Tai Chi instructor asked her for a private meeting. In that meeting, he told her that he noticed something special in her character. He didn’t know quite what it was, but he did notice that people were attracted to her. This was particularly interesting since she and our daughters were the only non-Spaniards in the class. The Tai Chi instructor asked her if she would be willing to become an instructor herself. Again, after much prayer, we felt that God was opening doors and that we should proceed.

Even though her school emphasized the physical benefits of Tai Chi, Margi found that many people came looking for something spiritual. Margi has not publicly emphasized her Christian faith, nor had she denied it. But, what she has found is that many of her friends now openly talk to her about spiritual things. They initiate these discussions; when they do, Margi talks about Jesus and her relationship with him.

Recently, Mari Carmen and Marisol went out to coffee with Margi after class. Mari Carmen wanted to talk about chakras, a Hindu concept. Marisol told Margi that she believed in auras and entered into a long description of the meaning of the different colors of auras. She then admitted that even though she has been studying auras for several years, she has never really seen one. That is, until she watched Margi do Tai Chi. She said, “Margi, I can actually see your aura. It is bright white.” Margi asked what that color meant. “White is the color of purity.” From this Margi got an opportunity to explain that what she was probably seeing was the presence of Jesus. Margi talked of who Jesus was and why he was important in her life. Had Margi felt duty bound to discredit Mari Carmen’s and Marisol’s false beliefs concerning Eastern mysticism, she would have never had a chance to talk about Jesus. In fact, the relationship probably would have ended at that point. Instead, she took every opportunity to build the friendship until she was invited through the membrane. Now, she has even more opportunity to talk about Jesus.

Cleaning up false beliefs should come after conversion, when the Holy Spirit is present in someone’s life and can lead them into all the truth. Sometimes, however, we get this process backwards. We feel we have to help people clean up their lives so they are, somehow, acceptable to Jesus. This, of course, is nonsense. Were we actually to think about it, we would realize this is not biblical nor how Jesus himself acted. He entered freely into the lives of sinners and, in turn, was very welcome among sinners. The only people offended by him were the religious types, because he didn’t try to fit into the norms of their religious sub-culture.

Another story from the Gospels that most Christians are familiar with is that of Zaccheus, the tax collector, and his interaction with Jesus. We are usually most familiar with how Zaccheus, who was short in stature, climbed a tree to be able to see the Lord. Yet, Jesus called him by name to come out of the tree; then invited himself to dinner at Zaccheus’ house. I’ll pick up the story there.

“And when they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” And Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:8-10)

How different the story would have been if Jesus had said. “Zaccheus, charging more taxes than the Roman government requires is fraud. You, a descendent of Abraham, are harming his other children. I know what a dishonest scoundrel you are. When you show me that you are willing to shape up and act right we will have ourselves a little talk. I do want to commend you for your willingness to seek me, demonstrated by climbing the tree. Now, just keep up the good work and go that extra mile and some day salvation can be yours.”

Evidently, the crowd was waiting for a nice little religious speech like that. Jesus didn’t give it and they began to doubt his credentials. Jesus didn’t seem to be paying much attention to the grumblers. He was too busy listening to Zaccheus spill his heart on the way to his house. But, the striking thing for me, in this passage, is Jesus’ statement ‘Today salvation has come to this house.’ How did Jesus know that? There had been no gospel presentation. There had been no decision, no apologetics, no convincing of any kind. There was just Zaccheus, wearing his heart on his sleeve, expressing his desire to make things right. For Jesus, that was enough. There was already evidence of the Holy Spirit at work in the tax collector’s life. Apparently, for Jesus, life controlled by the Holy Spirit is the same as salvation.

One day I went into a bar in Spain for a cup of coffee with a very “religious” Christian. We saw a man playing the slot machine in the back of the bar. My religious friend felt duty-bound to “tease” the man about his gambling. Unfortunately, the gambler didn’t see the humor. I’m also certain he didn’t feel my religious friend was a spiritual guide who could lead him to the truth. He probably just thought my friend was offensive. Even now as I write, I realize I feel the need to justify my presence in a bar for certain Christians, particularly in the United States, who would find a Christian’s presence in a bar offensive. Jesus went to where the sinners were. They liked that about him. He also walked in holiness. If you believe that holiness can be sullied by entering a bar or by taking a Tai Chi class, perhaps you need to study again the meaning of holiness.

We do not need to help people become more holy. The Holy Spirit is the only One capable of that. When he does it, it is a wonderful, powerful and supernatural process. When we try to do it, it is obnoxious. Many of us long for the days when average Europeans and North Americans were good church goers and when the morals of society were better. I don’t long for those days. Although I am sorry for the people who are wounded by sin, the fact remains that light shines brightest in the darkness. I do not long for the days when it was difficult to tell the sheep from the goats. Marisol knew there was something very sheep like about Margi. No one needed to tell here. She could see the light shining in the darkness. She just thought it was an aura.

I also have no interest in changing people’s drinking habits or bringing about some other kind of moral change. My interest is in introducing people to Jesus. He will help those who have a drinking problem. I know because he helped me in a supernaturally-powerful way. It was not a matter of having a newer and better set of Christian morals. Jesus helped me with my drinking problem before I knew that North American Christians didn’t approve of strong drink. I was 15 years-old at the time. I didn’t know any other Christians. It wasn’t until two years later that I started to attend a Bible believing church. All I knew was that, as a new Christian, I no longer wanted or needed to get drunk. I just wanted to please Jesus.

There is one final way through the semi-permeable membrane that I would like to discuss. This is the concept of the “man of peace”. In Luke 10, Jesus is giving ministry instructions to seventy people. Among other things, Jesus told them:

And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ And if a man of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you. And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. (Luke 10: 5-7)

Many around the world are seeing strategic significance in the concept of the “man of peace” (verse six). For many, the man of peace is the strategic door opener, the person who opens the way for the gospel to enter a group or segment of society. The man of peace is found through prayer or prophecy, not necessarily through strategic insight or ministry technique. Three biblical examples of this would be Cornelius the Roman centurion in Acts chapter 10, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8, and Lydia the Philippian seller of purple in Acts 16. God supernaturally arranged for believers, who were infected with the gospel, to meet others who were ready to experience it; one through an angel (the Ethiopian eunuch) another through a prophetic dream (Cornelius) and the third by divine encounter down by the riverside (Lydia).

Does this happen today? Is that really an application of what Jesus was teaching in Luke chapter 10? To the first question the answer is clearly “Yes,” This is happening today. Should we wait for God supernaturally to put us in contact with a strategic door opener? To answer this, let me simply state that, when people ask God to put them in contact with a man or woman of peace, it is not uncommon for God to answer, often in unusual and powerful ways.

Phil and Becca were new missionaries in Spain. Like many new missionaries, they were finding it hard to make significant contact with their Spanish neighbors. After hearing of the concept of the “man of peace,” they began to ask God to bring one to them. Soon after they began to pray, they received a phone call from a young man named Frank, someone they had never met. Frank had recently moved to Spain and had gotten my friends’ names from mutual acquaintances in North Carolina. Frank had met a young Spanish woman, Mercedes, in a bar. Mercedes noticed something special in Frank’s life, and to make a long story short, Mercedes became a Christian. At that point, Frank felt that he needed some help. How was he going to disciple Mercedes? Where were there good churches in Madrid? Whom could he call for help? Then he remembered that he had Phil and Becca’s names through contacts. Soon they all got together; and Mercedes became a “person of peace” for the house church that is being planted.

This is a relatively mild “person of peace” story. I know of many others who have been found through prophecy, still others who are being found through prayer and divine appointment. I’m sure “people of peace” are being found through dreams. In fact, I believe a fascinating book could be written just compiling person of peace stories which are happening all over the world. God clearly seems to be at work.[2]

People of peace get the gospel through the semi-permeable membrane that stretches between people who have the gospel and people who need the gospel. Some people of peace only bring the gospel through the membrane; others bring their gospel bearing friends through as well. By this, I mean that we don’t always become friends with all the person of peace’s friends. They may not introduce the gospel-bearer to their friends, just the gospel itself. On other occasions, the person of peace may be the doorway for friendship with a whole new network of people.

The important thing is that Jesus and his gospel gets through to a new network of people; and that the gospel becomes a lovely contagion there. Of course, there are significant, strategic issues involved as the gospel crosses a semi-permeable membrane. How will discipleship be carried out? How will churches be formed? How will leadership be developed? These are important questions, and the same Jesus who introduced us to the person of peace will give us the wisdom and the resources to answer the strategic questions as they come up.

The man of peace, the adoption principal, and significant friendships are all illustrations of God opening the doors of relationship. In all of these instances, the non-Christians also initiated the passage through the semi-permeable membrane. It would be very easy to relegate this to a technique.

· All I have to do is make some friends and do friendship evangelism.
· Maybe we should all just pray to find the man of peace.
· If I would just have exchange students maybe I would get adopted into their family.
· I guess we will all just have to go out and buy a motorcycle like Tim.

That is more like magical thinking than sound ministry practice. It is putting faith in the technique, not in a supernaturally powerful God. Techniques do not have power, Jesus has power. Jesus needs to lead us into ministry. Jesus needs to open doors. That Jesus wants to do this for us has never been in question. The hard part is praying, listening, waiting and following. For far too long we have been putting our faith in techniques and methods, and far too little faith in God. We need to watch and pray. We need to wait for God to invite us to the party, and then we need to be patient until God initiates a way through the semi-permeable membranes that separate us from people who need Jesus. We need to stop forcing and start following. Actually I think Solomon says it best.

Trust the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. Seek his will in all you do, and he will direct your paths. (Prov. 3:5-6)

[1] I am using the metaphor of divine invitation. The Apostle Paul, referring to the same phenomena, uses the metaphor of an open door in 1 Cor. 16:9 and 2 Cor. 2:12.
[2] For a current day man of peace story that happened to Baptist missionaries go to www.ethnicharvest.org/links/articles/bridges_man_of_peace.htm.

The Gospel and Postmodernism

2005-03-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

A comment that is often heard in missiological circles is that Europe and even the United States is becoming post-Christian. Some go so far as to state that Europe is already post-Christian. I think this statement carries a lot of truth. However, I think this statement tends to mask the real issue. I would suggest that the real issue in not post-Christendom but postmodernism. The western world is undergoing a rapid cultural shift away from a previously held worldview. This shift is affecting the way religion and Christianity are perceived by those who have undergone this shift of worldview or hold some aspects of the new worldview. It is this shift in worldview and the Church’s failure to understand and adjust to this new way of perceiving reality that is to a large measure, causing the rejection of organized religion and more specifically Evangelical Christianity in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States.

One of the difficulties of this shift in world view is that it is has caused significant cultural change that does not have the usual earmarks of a different culture. Western postmodernists look, dress, and speak just like western modernists. They eat in the same restaurants, work in the same offices, and their children go to the same schools. In other words they seem to be just like us yet at the level of values and how they perceive their world they are very different.

Because of this difficulty to easily discern this subtle yet profound cultural shift, we may very well be missing a tremendous opportunity. While this shift in worldview may tend to leave those of us with the old worldview bewildered and even angry, it has some elements to it that bode well for the Christian faith if we deal with these elements strategically and wisely. One of the great strengths of Christianity has been its ability to adjust to different cultures and worldviews without losing its essence. I would suggest that we need to look at the new worldview of postmodernism from a strategic point of view and ask ourselves, how can Christianity be expressed in this new culture without losing its fundamental essence? We also need to ask ourselves, where are positive points of contact within the postmodern worldview that God can use to make contact with these people for Christ?

A Discussion with Paco

On Saturday February 26, 2000 I had a conversation with Paco Lledo, a non–Christian friend of mine in Madrid which started me thinking about postmodernism and its strategic ramifications in the preaching of the Gospel. Paco was telling me about a book he had just finished about Mani the founder of the ancient religious movement that later became the Assassins. Paco related how Mani did not use his political privileges, given to him by the Persian King, to teach his “truth”. He mentioned that Mani did not teach his doctrine as exclusive but as inclusive. He never belittled other religions, but rather portrayed himself as one who could give further truth. He talked about how Mani tried to get people to “find the light within”. I asked Paco how he felt personally about these things.

In general Paco related that he was favorably disposed towards Mani because he was not argumentative, but was humble, inclusive and tried to put people in touch with the “light that was within”. I asked Paco how he responded to modern day religion. He said he was a non-practicing Catholic. He did not like the history of the Catholic Church in Spain, particularly their abuse of power and the use of coercion to make people conform to their belief system. He did not believe they had an exclusive spiritual truth that was unavailable to others apart from the Catholic Church. He related that he believed that his own experience told him that there was “something more” and that whatever it was, he wanted it. This something more should impact his life in practical ways. I asked him how he would find it? He said that when he saw someone who was displaying something spiritual in his or her life “that person can be a spiritual guide for me.” At that point I summarized what I had heard to make sure I was getting the fine points. I expressed his views as being postmodern. He was familiar with this term and agreed with me that his point of view was postmodern. He also agreed with my summary of his views. Following is my summary of Paco’s views:

· He does not appreciate the abuse of power or influence in the name of religion.
· He is sensitive to the hypocrisy of those who claim religious truth.
· He does not believe in exclusive truth.
· He does not believe that one religion has all the answers.
· Argument against another religion, no matter what it is, offends him.
· He defines himself as a non-practicing Catholic. However “Catholic” is still part of his cultural heritage and his religious definition for himself.
· He believes that there is something beyond what we normally experience.
· He believes this “something more” is spiritual.
· He believes that he can find this something more by looking for the light within.
· Spirituality must have practical application in life.
· He would be open to someone being his spiritual guide.
· One gains the right to be his spiritual guide by invitation.
· One also gains this right to be his spiritual guide by demonstrating an undefined spirituality in their own life.

Bad News and Good News

For me as an Evangelical there are some disturbing concepts in Paco’s understanding of truth. His understanding of reality does not fit my Biblical or cultural worldview. Among some of the elements I find disturbing are:

· He does not believe in exclusive truth.
· He does not believe that one religion has all the answers.
· Argument against another religion, no matter what it is, offends him.
· He defines himself as a non-practicing Catholic. However “Catholic” is still part of his cultural heritage and his religious definition for himself.
· He believes that he can find spirituality by looking for the light within.

As an Evangelical I believe in both objective and exclusive truth. I believe the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind; it is true and furthermore Jesus is the ultimate expression of truth. He said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. I believe this truth to be exclusive, because as Jesus said, no one comes to the Father but by Me. Since no one comes to the Father but by Jesus I believe we have exclusive answers to ultimate questions. If this is true, then other religions are by logical deduction not true. Like most Evangelicals I have concerns about some of the Catholic Church’s doctrines which are part of Paco’s cultural and religious self-definition. To look for the light within sounds very much like New Age thought which I find dangerous and uncomfortable.

What this tells me is that given Paco’s worldview, if I were to preach to him that my Bible, my faith and my understandings were true and even more, exclusively true, I would lose my hearing with him. He would probably not “hear” the core of my message because my exclusivity and rejection of others would render me as an unfit messenger of light.

However there is some good news. Many of Paco’s affirmations have positive strategic implication for the preaching of the gospel.

· He believes that there is something beyond what we normally experience.
· He believes this “something more” is spiritual.
· Spirituality must have practical application in life.
· He would be open to someone being his spiritual guide.
· One gains the right to be his spiritual guide by invitation.
· One also gains this right to be his spiritual guide by demonstrating an undefined spirituality in their life.

Paco is not an atheist. He believes that there is something more and that his very nature testifies to this. He might as well have quoted Romans 1:19-20. He is seeking spirituality. He wants a spirituality that has practical application in his life. He is willing to listen to someone who he perceives as having demonstrated spirituality in his or her own life. Jesus Christ has exactly what Paco is looking for. If one has a good testimony with him they can gain the right to become his spiritual guide. But this will probably not come by quoting the Bible or by sharing doctrinal truths. It comes by showing Christ alive in one’s life.

Postmodernism

In many ways Paco is quite typical as a postmodernist. I found it interesting that Paco was familiar with the term and willing to include himself in this group. Paco is a well-educated man. He is an engineer working for an aeronautical firm designing helicopters. Yet he openly discusses spirituality and his desire to find it. I did a web search on the concept postmodernism and found an article by Dr. Mary Klages, who is an Associate Professor of the English Department at University of Colorado, Boulder entitled Postmodernism, which I have found helpful (http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html). In this brief article Klages defines Postmodernism both from a literary perspective and from a historical/sociological perspective. While these points of view are interrelated, it is the sociological implications of postmodernism that have strategic implication for the preaching of the Gospel in modern western society.

“… the second facet, or definition, of postmodernism comes more from history and sociology than from literature or art history. This approach defines postmodernism as the name of an entire social formation, or set of social/historical attitudes; more precisely, this approach contrast “postmodernity” with modernity,” rather than “postmodernism” with “modernism.” (Klages p. 2).

I have tried to extract some of the tendencies of postmodernity. However it should be noted that we do not live in a completely postmodern society, but rather in a society that is moving rapidly from a traditional society to postmodernity. Social change on this scale takes generations. Francisco Andrés Orizo, a Spanish sociologist, in his book Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90 writes:

Y no es una casualidad que muchas de estas manifestaciones que rompen los esquemas de la modernidad se lideren dentro del escenario español, cuando aún no habíamos completado las prescritas etapas de un proceso de modernización. Nos hemos hecho posmodernos sin haber ejercido antes de modernos.[1]

(And it is not a coincidence that many of these expressions that shatter the preconceptions of modernity may have come upon the Spanish scene, when we haven’t even completed the prescribed stages of the process of modernization. We have become postmodern without having previously practiced modernism.)

According to Orizo the prevailing worldview in Spain before postmodernism was the traditional worldview. So Spain has jumped from a traditional (or premodern) worldview to a postmodern worldview without having gone through modernity. While we may encounter people in Europe or the United States who are thoroughly modern in outlook; most Spaniards are either traditional in their worldview or postmodern. It is probably much more common to find people who have many postmodern values, some having more than others. However this is the direction in which Western society is moving, and each succeeding generation will have a higher percentage of postmodernists and be more thoroughly immersed in postmodern thought. It should also be noted that in reality Europe is much more postmodern than modern. Also in this age of rapid and powerful communication, social change occurs more rapidly that it did in past generations. So it would be reasonable to expect a more rapid shift from modern or traditional to post modern than from ancient to modern or even from one modern expression to another, for example from Renaissance to Enlightenment.

While this monumental change takes time Orizo’s research seems to indicate that in general, Spaniards who were born before 1945 tend to be traditional in outlook, those who were born after this date have a stronger tendency for a postmodern outlook. The younger a Spaniard is the more likely their value system will reflect postmodernism and their postmodernism will be tend to be more ideologically pure.

Tendencies of Postmodernity

Taken from the Klages article:
· Subjectivity
· Rejection of rigid distinctions
· Local, personal and specific truth
· Rejection of absolute truths
· Rejection of “grand narratives” which explain reality such as capitalism or communism. These grand narratives are seen as old and simplistic and don’t adequately explain the world’s complexity.
· Practicality
· Inclusiveness or tolerance
· Diversity of morals and lifestyle
· Tendency to perceive information that does not fit their worldview as “noise”.
· Tendency to see conservative religion or politics as the enemy.
· Language is fluid and subjective (the hearer brings as much to the conversation as the listener).

· Other tendencies not specifically mentioned by Klages:
· Desire for spirituality
· Desire for community
· Rejection of negativity

· Modernity
· Rationality
· Autonomy
· Objectivity
· Science as the objective arbiter of truth
· Knowledge produced by science is “truth” and is eternal
· Value of progress and perfection
· Order
· Language is rational and transparent (it means exactly what it says)
· Rejection of that which does not represent order
· Rejection of that which is considered “other” i.e. lack of tolerance

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism as Expressions of Modernism

What struck me as Klages described modernity was that Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are modern expressions of Christianity. I do not in any way mean to disparage either of these expressions of our faith. I merely mean that they are an expression of their historical/cultural context, a context that is rapidly changing. Protestantism itself started with the Renaissance, which was the first cultural expression of modernity. The various expressions of Protestantism developed as modernity developed. Evangelicalism and Christian Fundamentalism as we now know them are the fullest expressions of the modern worldview brought into the Christian faith. These expressions have a distinctly American flavor, although each country will have its own variations.

Orizo’s observation that Spain has passed from a traditional society to a postmodern society without having fully passed through modernism goes a long way in explaining why the Evangelical Church expressing itself in modernist forms has never been able to make strong inroads into the Spanish culture. This paper will focus on the contrast of modernism and postmodernism because the modernism of the Evangelical Church and the postmodernism of the Spanish society has become a critical strategic issue.

Following are some ways in which we express our modern cultural underpinnings. I do not in any way want to imply that these are wrong, merely that we have expressed our faith from a specific worldview.

A scientific view of the Bible. The Bible is our book of theological facts. We investigate this book to extract these facts. Our hermeneutic could be metaphorically described as putting the Bible under a microscope. The evangelical hermeneutic is highly objective. We want to know exactly what the text means by what it says. In other words the language of the Bible is transparent.

Emphasis on doctrine. Doctrines are our theological facts. We have a tendency to disagree and even argue over these facts because to get the facts right is of very high value to modernists. We have a low tolerance for ambiguity in doctrine because the modern mind wants everything clearly explained.

High value on rightness. The modern mind wants everything analyzed and put in order. Whatever does not fit our order must be rejected. What fits the order or scheme is right; what does not must be rejected. Thus modern Evangelical scholarship places high value of systematic theology and on schools of systematic theology, for example Calvinism.

Low tolerance for mystery. I am not using the word mystery in the Pauline sense of the word as “a previously unknown truth which is now revealed” but in its more generic sense of something that can not be easily explained or understood or perhaps isn’t completely explainable or understandable.

High value on Truth. We often state our faith as a series of “truths”. This is as old as Christianity itself. It goes back to the first Christian creed which is Jesus is Lord and continues through the various other creeds such as the Nicene and the Apostles Creed. However, these creeds are relatively simple and brief compared to the systemization and expression of doctrine common in modern Christianity (think of Chafer’s Systematic Theology in eight volumes). We have systematically tried to extract every truth from the Bible and have tried to express each truth doctrinally.

Low tolerance for aberration. Modern Christianity has a fairly low tolerance for aberration in doctrine and lifestyle. We highly value lifestyles that reflect our doctrines and feel we need to confront those lifestyles that do not fit Biblical/Doctrinal norms. This is one of the differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is more tolerant in doctrinal aberration than is Fundamentalism. Two moral issues which are currently important to most expressions of the Christian faith are homosexuality and abortion. Doctrinally, most Christians would affirm their love of those who practice these lifestyles, while expressing abhorrence for the practice itself. Often though, we are perceived by outsiders as hating both of these lifestyles and those who practice these lifestyles.

Proclamation of the Gospel as Doctrine. One of the great strengths of modern Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism is our ability to proclaim the truths of the Gospel in clear concise ways. We do this in a number of ways: The Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, The Bridge Illustration and The Roman Road, among others. Our very ability to be concise and clear reflects our modern worldview. The Gospel itself is viewed as a doctrinal truth to be accepted and believed as fact. More ancient forms of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy struggle with this. This is because their worldview tends more toward an ancient mindset. Thus, the Christian faith is viewed as a series of mysteries, symbols, creeds and paradoxes to be meditated on. In contemplation of the symbols, mysteries and creeds one might come into communion with God.

High value in teaching and preaching. Because we tend to view our faith doctrinally and we so highly value truth, we feel a high expression of Christian maturity is to be doctrinally and Biblically knowledgeable. Therefore there is a high value put on teaching. This is particularly expressed in the large proportion of time devoted to preaching and teaching in the typical Evangelical or Fundamentalist service. Among many, there is a very high value put on expository Bible teaching. In other words, what exactly does the text say and therefore how does this doctrine apply to our lives. It is quite common for churches to systematically go through a book of the Bible or even the entire Bible itself. This is a fairly recent phenomenon in the Church. Thirty or forty years ago in Evangelical or Fundamentalist circles most sermons were topical sermons. Three or four centuries ago they were homilies.

Low value in personal discipleship. Because there tends to be such a high value on teaching in the church service, there is a correspondingly lower value placed on strong personal discipleship. When personal discipleship is expressed it is often focused on teaching Biblical and doctrinal knowledge or Bible memorization. Often there is even a failure to distinguish between personal discipleship and teaching such as in Sunday School (another modern expression). This is not to say that discipleship is non-existent but that it is fairly uncommon and when expressed it is often highly doctrinal in nature. Compare modern forms of discipleship with more ancient forms which were much more personal, intimate and intense such as spiritual formation.

Autonomy in church practice. There is a strong sense of the autonomy of believers and of individual churches. The priesthood of all believers was one of the foundational principals of Protestantism. This high value on autonomy is a tendency of modernism. Because there is a high value also placed on truth and because we can not agree on the fine points of doctrinal truth, there is also a tendency for the fragmentation of the Church into denominations and even individual church bodies holding firmly to their specific doctrines.

These practices are not necessarily right or wrong, they are expressions that have grown out of a specific cultural/historical context. Some very good things have come out of these modern expressions of Christianity, for example the ability to clearly and simply express the gospel and a deep and exhaustive understanding of Biblical truth. However, like all cultural expressions of Christianity, if exposed to another worldview or culture without contextualization there will be a tendency to reject the message because of the way it is communicated. We have to also realize that, as in all cultural expressions of Christianity, there will be weaknesses which others can clearly see but to which we are insensitive or even blind.

Barriers and Bridges

As modern Christianity moves into this new worldview or culture of postmodernism, it will encounter barriers of understanding. These barriers of understanding become one of our two chief strategic stumbling blocks. At the same time there may very well be bridges of natural affinity to our message that we will not recognize because they are so foreign to us or are expressed in ways that make us uncomfortable. This becomes our other chief stumbling block.

Barriers

Some of the potential barriers we will face:

Truth and Subjectivity. Modernism puts a high value on exclusive truth. Postmodernism places a high value on subjectivity. To a postmodernist it is truth if it is true for me. This could be expressed as this is my truth; you can have your own. It is true for me. This resonates with me. You believe what you want to, I will believe what I want to.

Rejection of rigid distinctions. Postmodernists tend to not like rigid distinctions made about themselves or others. Even more so, they will bristle at negative judgements made about different opinions or lifestyles. They may not agree with these opinions or lifestyles themselves but they would uphold the right of others to hold different views or practice different lifestyles. This may be expressed in the following ways: How dare you judge someone else. I believe in tolerance. The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance. I believe in diversity of lifestyles.

Local, personal and specific truth. As stated above, postmodernism places a high value on subjectivity. This is true to the point that there is a tendency to view truth as personal and specific. Everyone can have his or her own truth. Postmodernists also tend to take on as truth what their peer group or community believes. If a group to which they identify has strong value structures they will also tend to hold these values.

Rejection of absolute truths. Klages in her work titled Postmodernism refers to Francois Lyotard’s concept of the “grand narrative”,

Totality, and stability, and order, Lyotard argues, are maintained in modern societies through the means of “grand narratives” or “master narratives,” which are stories a culture tells itself about its practices and beliefs. A “grand narrative” in American culture might be the story that democracy is the most enlightened (rational) form of government, and that democracy can and will lead to universal human happiness. Every belief system or ideology has its grand narratives, according to Lyotard; for Marxism, for instance, the “grand narrative” is the idea that capitalism will collapse in on itself and a utopian socialist world will evolve. You might think of grand narratives as a kind of meta-theory, or meta-ideology, that is, an ideology that explains an ideology (as in Marxism); a story that is told to explain the belief systems that exist.” (p.4)

Klages goes on to explain:

Postmodernism then is the critique of grand narratives, the awareness that such narratives serve to mask the contradictions and instabilities that are inherent in any social organization or practice… Post modernism, in rejecting grand narratives, favors “mini-narratives,” stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large-scale universal or global concepts. Post modern “mini-narratives” are always situational, provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability. (p.4)

Christianity by its very nature is a grand-narrative which claims to be absolute truth. Most postmodernists would reject out of hand ideas and concepts presented in this way.

Inclusiveness or tolerance. As stated above postmodernists have a low tolerance for intolerance. This may seem a logical contradiction to a modernist, but like it or not this is their tendency. This becomes a strategic barrier when we express low tolerance or lack of tolerance for other religious expressions, lifestyles or morals.

Diversity of morals and lifestyles. Postmodernists desire the freedom to express and live their own personal morals and lifestyles. Initial hostility to these lifestyles, opinions or morals will create an almost insurmountable strategic barrier.

Tendency to perceive information that does not fit their worldview as “noise”. In the modern conception the opposite of knowledge is ignorance, but in the postmodern worldview it is noise (Klages p. 5). Postmodernists have just as much trouble understanding ideas which are not formulated in their paradigms as do other worldviews. By communicating with postmodernists in modern paradigms we risk our ideas being classified as having no value (noise). At this point, this is the chief barrier we are encountering in the preaching of the gospel to postmodernists. We tend to start at the wrong points, and present our truth in the wrong ways and we immediately get turned off as noise, just like someone switching the channel to static.

Rejection of negativity. Postmodernists do not appreciate statements that are perceived as negative or lacking in appreciation of personal freedom. To express hostility to another religious expression would tend to create a barrier of communication. To express hostility to a given lifestyle or value would be perceived as negative and would also create a barrier of communication. It would not only be noise, but it would be viewed as intolerant. This does not mean that the postmodernist personally holds these views, but rather he or she upholds the rights of other to have different views, values or lifestyles.

Tendency to see conservative religion or politics as the enemy.

…the desire to return to the pre-postmodern era (modern/humanist/Enlightenment thinking) tends to get associated with conservative political, religious, and philosophical groups. In fact, one of the consequences of postmodernism seems to be the rise of religious fundamentalism, as a form of resistance to the questioning of the “grand narratives” of religious truth. (Klages p.5)

There are natural and inherent conflicts in the encounter between the modern worldview and the postmodern worldview. There are also inherent conflicts in the encounter of modern expressions of Christianity as it encounters postmodern culture. Postmodernists feel this keenly and tend to view us as the enemy.

Bridges

However, there are several bridges into the postmodernist’s life which have encouraging strategic potential.

Tendency for spiritual sensitivity. One clear characteristic of postmodernists is that they have a tendency to be spiritual seekers. Newsweek magazine reports that people are buying more books on meditation, prayer, and spirituality than on sex or self-help.[2] Of course not all postmodernists are spiritual seekers, but many are. This bodes well for those who wish to preach the gospel to them. However, this spiritual search is a search for something experiential, personal and practical in nature. They are looking for their own personal spirituality. Thus we see the rise of Eastern religions in Western societies. New Age thinking, for example, is becoming more and more popular. We should think of New Age as an expression of postmodern spirituality because it is experiential, personal and from the practitioners point of view practical.

Experiential Spirituality. One of the major advantages we have as Christians in dealing with postmodernists is that we have a God who is real and who is active in our lives. Unfortunately, this personal interaction has been somewhat downplayed in our modern expressions of Christianity. Many postmodernists are looking for a real spiritual encounter. They want to make actual contact with spiritual forces. They can make contact with Jesus who is real and very powerful.

Personal Spirituality. While at first this looks like a disadvantage it can be turned to an advantage. Those postmodernists who are spiritually minded want to have personal interaction with spiritual forces. Christians have a personal love relationship with Jesus Christ. We encounter Him through abiding, Christian meditation, Bible study and prayer. He is interested in every detail of our lives and is willing to become involved in the most intimate and minute details of our lives. He answers our prayers supernaturally. This is a very positive message for a postmodernist if we can communicate it to them in their cultural language.

Practicality. Postmodernists want answers to the real problems they are facing in their daily lives. They don’t want grand narratives, they don’t want doctrinal answers, they want results. We have a God who can meet their needs. We have a God who has spoken to mankind in practical ways about their significant needs. He continues to interact with mankind through meditation of the Scriptures, the body life of the Church, and the Church’s interaction with society. We have a God who has given us practical guidelines on marriage, child rearing, family, lifestyle, relationships, and dealing with problem areas of our lives, among others.

Social needs. Postmodernists, while rejecting the grand narratives, do want answers to local problems. If we were to talk to most postmodernists about the large sociopolitical problems that cause world hunger they would turn off the noise. However, if we were to send food and clothing to flood victims they would respect us for having a social conscience. They want to see action that is doing something about real problems. This will be perceived as showing spiritual light, we call it having a good testimony.

Shalom. Postmodernists are looking for a better life. But the improvements they are looking for are not merely material. They have the benefits of modern technology and they appreciate them, but they want something more. They want emotional comfort, happiness, peace, joy, and love. They may not know how to express it in our terms but they are looking for shalom. This is good news because Jesus wants to give them shalom.

They are willing to break out of former norms. Postmodernists are willing and even anxious to break out of modern forms including and even especially religious forms. However, religion expressed in modernism is something they are adamantly against. They would be willing to try new religious forms if they were practical, spiritual and spoke their language. In Spain we need to keep in mind that Catholicism is viewed as part of the social fabric of life; it is part of being Spanish. They may not like Catholicism as it now exists as a religious practice but they don’t want to lose their Spanishness. Any expression of spirituality that looks, tastes and feels Spanish will be greatly appreciated.

They are looking for spiritual guides. My first reaction to Paco’s statement that someone could be a spiritual guide for him made me think of New Age spirituality, which concerned me. However, once I could get past the language I realized that this is exactly what a witness is, someone who points a non-believer to Jesus. Witness needs to come from relationship not from proclamation. Their idea of a spiritual guide is not someone who points them to the right trail but rather someone who says, “I have experienced the trail. I love the trail. I am on the trail. Come with me.” Furthermore, they need to sense that indeed we are on a spiritual trail and that that trail could be good and practical for them. Proclamation of the doctrinal truth of the gospel as a theological fact to be believed will be turned off as noise. In fact, that is what most of us are experiencing as we preach the gospel to postmodernists. We need to find ways of making relationship and then inviting them join us on the trail.

Moving In the Direction of Solutions

How do we get past the cultural and communication barriers between modernists and postmodernists and cross the bridges that exist so they can meet Jesus? Following are some ideas to ponder. I don’t claim that I have concrete failsafe solutions but as we work together and experiment together perhaps the Holy Spirit will guide us to ways to make contact and allow us to be spiritual guides to our postmodern friends.

Lead with Jesus. Those postmodernists who are spiritually minded want encounters with a personal spiritual force. This of course can be a very dangerous desire if it is focused in the wrong direction. However, if focused on Jesus it can lead to an encounter with the loving, gracious God of the universe. We might consider talking with our friends about what Jesus is doing in our lives. We need to talk about Him just as He is, personal and spiritual.

We also need to be careful. Going too fast or too aggressively will be perceived as noise and we will be turned off.

Be practical. Postmodernists want to hear practical solutions. How is Jesus affecting our marriage? How is Jesus helping me overcome bitterness? How is Jesus helping me raise my kids? What is Jesus leading me to do for my neighbors who have needs?

Be spiritual. Our modern tendency is to avoid being too spiritual. To the point that we often view mysticism with skepticism. Christian mysticism is as old as the Church. Postmodernists who are looking for spirituality are probably much more open to personal spiritual encounter than a non-Christian modernist would be.

Think of introducing them personally to Jesus. Our modern tendency is to preach the gospel as a doctrine to be accepted and believed as truth. It might be wise to consider introducing our postmodern friends to a spiritual Jesus who offers practical solutions; one of the most important of which is that Jesus wants to cleanse us spiritually. He wants to offer grace, love and peace to those who formerly didn’t know Him. Then we can go to the cross as a highly personal act that showed the extent to which He would go to meet us and spiritually cleanse us.

George G. Hunter III in his book How to Reach Secular People suggest that instead of trying to convince someone of the rightness of our point of view and then ask for a decision or conversion as we do with modernists we should look for a series of mini-conversions. He suggests that we should do this from relationship looking for changes of perspective in these following six points in the following order:

· awareness
· relevance
· interest
· trial
· adoption
· reinforcement

In other words first we help our friend become aware of our relationship to Jesus (mini-conversion #1). Next we show how Jesus can be relevant in their personal life (mini-conversion #2). We then try to cultivate interest in their investigating a relationship with Jesus (mini-conversion #3). We challenge our friend to see if Jesus won’t respond to their felt need such as in helping them heal a broken marriage or dealing with children (a trial). We can do this through introducing them to what God has said in his Word and through their own prayer to Jesus (mini-conversion #4). When they have an experience with Jesus we tell them of other things that Jesus offers especially forgiveness of sin, or spiritual cleansing (mini-conversion #5). We then need to encourage our friend that he or she has made the right choice. One way to do this is through introducing them to other Christians so they have a sense of community and they can begin to adopt the values of that community (mini-conversion #6). All of this comes from relationship and must be done over time. It is not something that can be done in one conversation, one week or probably even in one month.

Think about spiritual formation as a model. As discussed before, most postmodernists have an aversion to doctrine, but this does not mean they would be disinterested in spirituality and spiritual growth. One ancient model that would probably appeal to new postmodern Christians would be spiritual formation. In this model the spiritual director works through practical and spiritual problems with the disciple by directing the disciple to pray through and meditate on certain scriptures. He may give the disciple a specific spiritual task to accomplish or a question to answer; he may even strongly confront the disciple. This is intense biblical discipleship but it is not based on doctrinal knowledge but rather focused, deep, practical spiritual growth.

Look for an invitation to be a spiritual guide. Postmodernists reserve the right to invite us into their spiritual world. They don’t want us to invite ourselves. However that doesn’t mean that we have to sit around and do nothing. I like the analogy of fishing. We need to put out the concept of what Jesus is doing in our lives as “bait”. If they respond, we give them a little more. If they don’t, we build relationship and give them some more bait later. We can even tease them with the bait. But we should be very careful of coming on too hard. The second we are perceived as coercive we become noise to be switched off.

Look for discipleship relationships. We tend to think the gospel comes first, then introduction of the new Christian to a church, then discipleship through teaching. When the new Christian enters the church he will meet new Christian friends. We might consider changing the order of this model. Friendship comes first. In the process of friendship comes opportunity to become a spiritual guide. It is at this point that discipleship really starts. In the process of discipleship (or spiritual formation) we introduce the person to Jesus. We continue to guide this person in their relationship with Jesus. In the process as we begin to see spiritual growth we introduce the new disciple to others who know Jesus and who enjoy worshiping Jesus together. When the disciple is ready we introduce them to corporate worship in some sort of group or even church setting.

Look to the Creeds. Postmodernists tend to be allergic to systematic doctrine, but that does not mean that they do not need doctrine or shouldn’t be introduced to the foundational truths of Christianity. One way to do this would be to have them meditate of the basic creeds of the Church such as the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. This is also an opportunity to show wholeness of the body of Christ. We can say that different churches have different customs that comes from different periods of our rich history, but we all agree on these foundational truths.

Focus on the disciplines. The cardinal Christian disciplines of prayer, meditative Bible study, Christian meditation, fasting and scripture memorization would be something a new postmodern Christian might be drawn to as long as they were presented as spiritual exercises to draw closer to Christ and to gain practical solutions in ones spiritual life.

Focus on abiding. One of the key Christian disciplines that has tended to be de-emphasized in modern Christianity is abiding in Christ. Perhaps it is because abiding can be so mystical. Postmodern Christians will probably warm up immediately to the concept of Christ’s spiritual control and guidance in our life as we abide in Him and He abides in us.

Focus on prayer. Prayer is something that many non-Christian and new Christian postmodernists can relate to, after all, it is highly spiritual behavior. It would probably be wise to emphasize fully orbed Christian prayer. By this I mean that in modern Christianity we have tended to focus on supplication, thanksgiving and confession; down played worship and almost completely ignored meditative prayerful Bible study, Christian meditation, ecstatic prayer and prayers of silence. Some of our Pentecostal brothers have tended to focus on one specific style of ecstatic prayer (tongues) at the expense of other forms of prayer. We all have tended to do much more talking than listening in prayer. Postmodernists would be just as drawn to these other forms of prayer as they would supplication or tongues.

Find ways to express Spanishness. To be Spanish is to be Catholic. It will be hard to convince most Spaniards of anything else. The older a Spaniard is the more likely they are to hold to their Catholicness. Until we give them reason to believe otherwise they will view Protestantism as noise to be turned off. But if we can invite them to Church sponsored events that are very Spanish they will feel more at home. These need to be celebrations or social activities not teaching services. It becomes our burden to show one can be an Evangelical Christian and still be very Spanish. One way might be to avoid the words Protestant and Evangelical. We have the right to use the word Christian just as much as Catholics do. Use of this term, if done well becomes inclusive rather than exclusive. This may avoid an unnecessary barrier. We need to remember that any negative statements about the Catholic Church will not only be seen as intolerance but as anti-Spanish. We need to look for ways to build bridges of friendship to the Catholic Church without losing our own spiritual heritage; particularly to those in the Catholic Church who are truly born again. This does not mean we are in agreement with all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but that we are trying to avoid a serious strategic barrier to the preaching of the gospel.

Find ways to express culture. Spaniards are very interested in their own cultural/historical/literary heritage. This is probably true of other expressions of European postmodernism. We might explore different ways of expressing and celebrating Spanish cultural and artistic events in the name of Jesus.

Offer shalom. Postmodernists are looking for wholeness, particularly emotional and spiritual wholeness. The biblical word for this is shalom. This is what Jesus is offering his people. This would be a concept that postmodernists could warm up to.

Meet real needs in the community and the world. Postmodernists want mini solutions to real problems. They are much more likely to warm up to giving blood at the blood mobile than to a march against world hunger. We can use these small events to make contact and to build a reputation as spiritual, socially conscious people. We can invite them to give clothing to our clothing drive to clothe Rumanian immigrants. We can bring the blood mobile to our Church and invite them to give blood too. Ask them if they would like to contribute to our relief aid to help flood victims. Offer to provide written financial accountability because they see the organized church as dishonest. Offer to allow one of the members of the community to help in the finance committee to show accountability. Ask them to participate with us in these events at almost every level. We don’t need to lose control of these events, but we can offer opportunities to rub shoulders with some gracious people who know Jesus. But don’t set up a stand and preach the gospel to them. It will be noise and they will turn you and it off, perhaps permanently.

Present the Bible as a spiritual book where we can encounter Jesus. It will be hard for a postmodernist to relate to the Bible as merely a book of doctrine, although it is that. It is also much more. The Bible is the spiritual book where the postmodern Christian can encounter the Triune God and abide in Jesus as they meditate and pray through scripture.

Talk about love, joy, peace, patience… The fruit of the Spirit is the emotional result of shalom. To tell a postmodernist that to be a follower of Jesus is to begin to experience these things should be very attractive. Furthermore these should be the parameters for the postmodern Christian worship service. Modernism focused on teaching in corporate service, postmodernism should focus on experiencing the fruit of the Spirit in community. A corporate worship service should be where one experiences love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness all done with a spirit of self control. Teaching comes in brief focused practical homilies, in small groups and particularly in discipleship relationships.

Emphasize the community of believers. Postmodernists like community, they like relationship and they like events. While they are highly personal in their desire for personal spirituality they can also find the community of the saints to be attractive if that community is done in a postmodern way. They will also tend to absorb the values of a community they identify with. See above.

Don’t be afraid of symbols, mystery and metaphors. As modernists we have stripped the Church of much of its symbols, mystery and metaphors. We do this because we have a scientific mindset. Many postmodernists will warm up to symbol, mystery and metaphor. We can do this both in our introducing them to Jesus and in our corporate celebrations of worship.

Avoid spiritual language. One of the quickest ways to turn off a non-Christian postmodernist is to try to communicate to them in modern Christian jargon.

Avoid quoting the Bible. This does not mean avoid the Bible. The word of God is living and active and sharper than any sword. It can cut right through to the thoughts and intentions of peoples hearts. If we really believe this, we can allow it to do its work with out citing verse references or quoting the Bible in obvious ways. Just let it be what it is, the supernatural Word of God. Postmodernist non-Christians do not have a lot of faith in the Bible, but the incredible wisdom and power of the contents of the Bible may powerfully impact them. New postmodern Christians will need to be lovingly introduced to this powerful, spiritual book, filled with the very wisdom of God Himself. (See: Present the Bible as a spiritual book where we can encounter Jesus.)

Avoid being doctrinal. If there is a quicker way to turn off a modernist than using jargon it is to become doctrinal. To them it is just noise, noise, noise. That does not mean that they do not need doctrine or that they can never learn doctrine. Rather it means that that they need to learn doctrine as they study and meditate on the scriptures, meditate on the creeds and particularly as they are personally discipled in their spiritual walk as they deal with practical spiritual issues.

Avoid coercion. Postmodernists do not like to be coerced. They view being preached at, as being coerced. Their view of organized religion is one of abuse of power, force and coercion. Ministry needs to come from relationship. This means in towns were there is no gospel witness, strategies may need to be explored to send Christians to live there rather than trying to start churches by proclamation of the gospel. This will have little success and further it would probably brand even the new Christians as “noise” to be avoided rather than establishing an effective beachhead.

Avoid strong doctrinal teaching in the service. (See Avoid Being Doctrinal). Rather keep it focused on practical life issues.

Avoid Being Critical. Postmodernists do not like intolerance and do like inclusion. To criticize other expression of the Christian faith or other religions is highly counter productive. They may not like them either but they will defend their right to personal opinion and lifestyle etc. It is best to find ways to say things as positively as possible. It would be better to be evasive than to be critical though better still to be open and positive.

Postmodern Christianity

Just as the shift from ancient Christianity to modern Christianity was inevitable, so is the shift from modern to postmodern. Postmodern Christianity will happen anyway, in fact, it already is happening. It will have its own strengths and weaknesses. It would be best to reflect strategically now to help the building of this postmodern Christianity and help it avoid inherent weaknesses. We need to think about the legacy we are going to leave the postmodern Church. We don’t want to have a destructive split in the church like at the beginning of the modern era. We have a lot to offer postmodern Christianity but we also need to realize that this cultural shift in Western society is so profound that we will not be able to hold it back any more than ancient Christians could hold back the Reformation. Even less so, because we will be unwilling to use violent tactics to stop postmodern Christianity. Their new wine won’t fit in our wine skins, but we can help them become salt and light as they begin to minister to a culture we will never completely understand.

First we need to recognize that postmodern Christianity, if nurtured well, can have some tremendous strengths.

Potential Strengths of the Postmodernist Church

· Strong tendency toward personal spirituality. If properly discipled postmodern Christians could avoid one of the unhealthy tendencies of late Ancient Christianity and Modern Christianity, being nominal Christians. Postmodernists want a personal spirituality not just a doctrine or rites that guarantee access to heaven.

· The potential to become deep, thoughtful Christians. Because of this desire for personal spirituality, there can be a tendency to direct them to a deep walk with Jesus. I suspect that postmodern Christians will have a stronger tendency to desire and tolerate much more intimate and directive forms of discipleship.

· Strong emphasis on abiding. One of the weaknesses of modern Evangelicalism has been its lack of emphasis on abiding. The emphasis on abiding in the early church was replaced by doctrinal knowledge in the modern church. Since for many modern Christians maturity meant doctrinal/theological/biblical knowledge, there was much less emphasis placed on actually developing an intimate relationship with Jesus, or intimacy was redefined as knowing and living biblical doctrine. I suspect that postmodern Christians will be less likely to fall into this weakness.

· Stronger tendency to live out their faith in society. Postmodernists want to make a difference in the problems they see around them. They will be much more socially conscious than modern Evangelicals have tended to be. This gives them many more ministry opportunities and allows them new ways to be salt and light in their communities.

· Desire for community. If church life is developed with postmodernists in mind they may very well have more of a desire to express body life than have modernists. This is because while looking for individual spirituality they desire community. They would also have less of a tendency to dichotomize their “church life” from their “secular life”. However, if church practice was formed along modernist lines they would have very little desire to attend church activities.

· Less tendency to fight with other Christians over doctrine. One of the sad legacies of modern Christianity is our tendency to fight with our brethren over minute doctrinal issues. Of course, each of us feels that the issues we fight over are major. This is because of our modernist desire to have exclusive truth. In doing this we have sometimes strained out gnats and swallowed the camel of Jesus’ desire and prayer for His Church to be one. I don’t foresee the postmodernist Church becoming one worldwide organization, but I do see them being much more tolerant of doctrinal differences, and much more willing to live in peace with each other.

· More openness to the realities of spiritual warfare. Postmodernists will be more open to the realities of the spiritual realm. Some modernist Christians have struggled with this even though it is a clearly biblical issue because their modern mindset would not allow them to accept what they could not measure or sense with their five senses.

Potential Weaknesses of the Postmodern Church

Like many human situations the postmodernists greatest strengths can be their greatest weaknesses. The very things that bode well for the emerging expression of the Christian faith also have the seeds of destruction sown within it.

· Desire for individual spirituality. There may very well be a strong tendency to seek individual spirituality without real biblical and doctrinal moorings. This is an incredible danger. Our postmodern brethren may have the tendency to be like the Children of Israel in the time of the Judges, everyone doing what was right in their own eyes. One of the great legacies we have to give our brethren is well thought out biblical theology. In other words, doctrine. This is the very thing they are going to want to resist. We need to find ways to give them biblical parameters without expecting them to be doctrinaire.

· Desire for individual truth. This is very similar to what is mentioned above. Postmodernists may very well have the tendency to say it is truth for me so that is good enough. Yet Jesus is the embodiment of truth, and if we are not connected with that Truth we have no truth at all.

· Potential to get enamored with spirituality itself. It would be very easy for postmodernists to get excited about the peripheral issues of spirituality and miss the biblical Jesus. To miss the biblical Jesus is to miss the real Jesus. They will need to learn that it is not prayer that is important, nor the feelings of peace that comes with prayer, it is connecting with the real God of the Universe and developing an abiding relationship with Him that is important.

· Tendency to not reflect biblically about social issues. It would be very easy for postmodernists to make social stands without reflecting biblically and asking the question, what has God already said about this?

· Potential to be pragmatic. Practicality is good; pragmatism without biblical reflection is dangerous.

· Tendency to hold personal doctrine above biblical doctrine. Postmodernists may tend to say that Jesus told them something in prayer so it doesn’t matter what the Bible says. Or they may make decisions based on their own non-biblical values without significant biblical reflection; both are dangerous.

I am sure I have not touched on all of the potential strengths of the postmodern church, nor have I plumbed the depths of where the devil may try to steer them off course. But I am convinced that postmodernism is here and it offers a great opportunity and challenge to modernists who want to evangelize postmodernists. I am also convinced that the postmodern church will exist, in fact it already does. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not withstand us. There will always be a Church to be breaking down the gates of hell. But that Church may not look like what we are used to.

Two examples of emerging postmodernism are the seeker churches in the United States and the Alpha Movement coming out of England. Saddleback Community Church in Saddleback, CA is the second largest church in the United States. It has specifically designed its models to reach postmodernists. In 1980 Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback started with a church of three: himself, his wife and his daughter. By the end of 1999 Saddleback was a church of 19,000 people and claims a Christian community of over 25,000. Warren has specifically designed his strategy for conversion growth, not transfer growth.

The Alpha Movement coming out of Holy Trinity Church Brompton, England has some very healthy signs of life. Their Alpha Group model is attracting new believers in great numbers on both sides of the Atlantic. What is clear is that both models are attracting postmodernists in tremendous numbers. Some Evangelical Anglican churches in England are packed to standing room only with postmodernists seeking and finding Jesus. The same can be said for the seeker churches in the U.S., especially Saddleback.

There are at least two movements in Spain which have intentionally adapted their models to postmodernism. The Asembleas Cristianas denomination founded by Manolo Espejo has grown to 14 of churches and four mission points in 22 years. The mother church in Jerez de la Frontera has 575 adult members and 130 children. Manolo was the first person to explain to us the strategic importance of postmodernism. The Amistad Cristiana movement founded by Gregorio Jacob has also intentionally adapted its strategies to postmodernist realities. God has blessed both of these Christian movements with significant growth in what has traditionally been considered a resistant culture; how exciting.

God is at work among the postmodernists and it will become our responsibility to understand what He is doing among them so we can be used by the Holy Spirit to do the same in Spain. I do not mean by this that we should copy the Saddleback model or the Alpha model. I mean we should understand what they are doing to minister to postmodernist and why. We need to understand the principles, not copy the forms. We need to understand the postmodernists, and in specific the Spanish postmodernist and offer to them the blessed truth of the gospel in a way they can understand so they don’t turn off the noise. We need to give them opportunities to worship and fellowship in ways that minister to their souls. We need to make sure they are discipled in ways that help them develop a deep and abiding relationship with Jesus Christ. And we need to leave them a legacy that helps them along their way to a powerful, spiritual and biblical faith without causing them to stumble over our own cultural issues. Frankly, I’m excited by the challenge.

Annotated Bibliography

1. Jimmy Long, Generating Hope A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997).

Long uses the analogy of the two types of winds encountered in a hurricane as an analogy for understanding Generation X. The intense winds inside the hurricane are Generation X, the steering current that determines where the hurricane will go is postmodernism. Long gives a sociological Analysis of the Church, Generation X and postmodernism. He gives a theological foundation for dealing with Generation X and by proxy postmodernists. Finally he gives a framework for ministry in dealing with Generation X. He has an extensive bibliography.

2. George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992).

Hunter uses the term “secular people” but he is touching on the issues of postmodernism. He wrote his book in 1992 before the term postmodernism became readily known. Hunter discusses the broad issues of western cultural change through six watershed events in the last 550 years, and how that affected the Church. He profiles secular people, gives themes and strategies for reaching them, talks about communication with them, and discusses what kind of Christians and churches reach them. Hunter also has an extensive bibliography.

3. Mars Hill Review (Bainbridge Island, WA: No. 12, Fall 1998), Dan Allender, Ed.

This entire issue is dedicated to postmodernism. It has eleven essays and studies on postmodernism’s encounter with Christianity. These issues touch on presenting the gospel in postmodernism, the philosophy of postmodernism, postmodern hermeneutic, postmodern counciling and theology. The cross-disciplinary essays give a fuller understanding of the profundity of the cultural shift from modernism to postmodernism. Brief annotated bibliographies in the margin.

4. Dr. Mary Klages, Postmodernism
(http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomolhtml).
This is a five-page essay on postmodernism as a literary phenomenon and as a sociological phenomenon. I have quoted extensively from this article.

5. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.1996).

This is one of the best books written on postmodernism from a Christian perspective. Grenz clearly understands postmodernism, its dangers and its potential advantages for Christianity. He does not fall into the trap of condemning postmodernism because it is different. I suggest reading the introduction through the end of chapter 3 then read chapter 7 which is the last chapter. The section in the middle is only those who are highly interested in a history of philosophy and more specifically the philosophy of postmodernism.

6. Gene Edward Veith, Jr, Postmodern Times, A Christian Guide to Contemporary Though and Culture (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.1994).

In my opinion this book is not to be recommended. Veith has a good grasp of postmodernism but fails on two strategic points. He fails to see the modernist tendencies of evangelicalism and fundamentalism and therefore fails to grasp why postmodernist are reacting negatively to us. He only sees liberal theology as modernist, which it is, but fails to see his own philosophical foundations. Secondly, he attacks postmodernism because it is different than his own worldview. This is reactionary rather than helpful. We can not stop postmodernism, we must learn to have a vibrant, spiritual and biblical Christianity within postmodernism without accepting its counter biblical tendencies. It is better to read Grenz who did not make these strategic mistakes.

7. Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, (Grand Rapids, Michigan.: Zondervan Publishing House.1993).

McGrath’s book is on apologetics. He has a brief section in Chapter six A Clash of Worldviews that deals with postmodernism. He makes a good point that in dealing with postmodernists “we must adopt a tactical approach in order to gain a strategic advantage.” (page 177). He goes on to explain correctly that with postmodernists it is not wise to start with doctrinal truth but to introduce it later. His weakness is that as an apologist he still fights the battle by arguing about what is true and right. Most postmodernists would turn this off as noise. He seems to have not yet grasped that this type of argument is almost always counterproductive with postmodernists. See also his section on “The New Age” in the same chapter. New Age is religion based on a postmodernist worldview. He is actually more helpful in his comments on how to speak to New Age believers than when he talks about postmodernism.

8. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1989).

Newbigin thinks clearly and very well about postmodernism. However he never actually uses the word in his book. Instead he uses pluralism or pluralist society. Nevertheless, he is talking about postmodernism. He actually sets up a defense of the reasonableness of postmodern understanding of reality, then uses postmodern argument to defend why postmodernists have the worldview they have. He does not however buy into postmodernism wholeheartedly. He understands its strengths and weaknesses and deals with them. This is an excellent book.

9. Antonio Cruz, Postmodernidad, (Terrassa, España, Editorial CLIE. 1996).

This is the only book I know about that is written from the Spanish Christian perspective on the issue of postmodernism and its potential ministry ramifications. Cruz does a good job of outlining the basic issues of postmodernism but his suggestions for what to do about it tend to come from a modernist perspective.

10. Francisco Andrés Orizo, Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1996).

Francisco Orizo is a non-Evangelical Spanish sociologist who is participating in an ongoing world wide sociological research. He has analyzed the Spanish portion of the research and also compared it to European wide trends. He clearly talks about Spain being postmodern, explains in minute detail what that means. He talks for example of the spiritual longing of postmodern Spaniards and their feelings and for the most part rejection of the Catholic Church. One interesting statement he makes is that Spain appears to have gone from a “traditional” (read premodern) worldview to a postmodern worldview without really going through modernism. This is an excellent source of data on the Spanish sociological condition.

11. Francisco Andrés Orizo, Los nuevos valores de los españoles, (Madrid, Fundación Santa Maria. 1991).

This is a synthesis of the ongoing European research that Orizo is participating in, focused on Spain. It is of an earlier date than Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90 and he was not yet ready to declare Spain “postmodern” although he indicated that it seemed that Spain was going that direction and time would tell. In his work five years later in Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90 he clearly states that Spain is a postmodern society. His analysis for Fundación Santa María tends to have a Catholic point of view.

12. Juan del Pino Artacho and Eduardo Bericat Alastuey, Valores sociales en la cultura andaluza, Encuesta Mundial de Valores. Andalucía 1996. (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1998).

This is part of the same worldwide study as Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90. It is focused on Andalucía. It is helpful in that it shows that postmodernism in Spain is not just an urban phenomena but has reached conservative rural Spain.

Andrés Tornos and Rosa Aparicio, ¿Quién es creyente en España hoy? (Madrid, PPC, Editorial y _Distribuidora. SA. 1995).

A great sociological work to help one understand the Spanish view of the Catholic Church both from an insiders point of view and from the outside. Of special interest was the table on page 39, which describes four types of Catholic Christians: Christians looking for an existential adjustment, Moral Christians, interdependent Christianity, and vocational Christianity. They define these terms and then show why each is being rejected by the Spanish society at large. The most strategic insight is that while “vocational Christians” who have found a true spirituality are respected and even admired the Spanish society at large feels that these spiritual people are somehow so special as to be beyond reach for the average person. This should encourage us that if we can show that we can be truly spiritual and at the same time normal people we will have a hearing from many in Spanish society.

José María Mardones, Para comprender las nuevas formas de la religión, La reconfiguración postcristiana de la religión. (Estella, Navara Editorial Verbo Divino. 1998).

A sociological work written for a Catholic audience. Nevertheless, it has a lot to say about why new religious movements are taking hold in Spain because of postmodernism (called postchristianity). After reading this book I had the strong impression that we are living in an hour of opportunity for the Evangelical Church in Spain if we can learn to minister to Spanish postmodernists in postmodernist ways. He is saying in much more detail what this paper has set out to say.

Other books on my postmodernist reading list not yet read:

Craig A. Loscalzo, Aplogetic Preaching, Proclaiming Christ to a Postmodern World. (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 2000).

Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World, (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1995).

[1] Francisco Andrés Orizo, sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1996). Page LV-LVI.
[2] Dr. Bruce Demarest, Satisfy Your Soul: Restoring the Heart of Christian Spirituality (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1999), p.44.

Practical Considerations for Postmodern Sensitive Churches

2005-03-07T09:21:00.000-08:00

(note from the author: I wrote this before I became aware of house church movements among postmodern people. My thinking has evolved since that time, but this paper was a step in the process. See link entitled Simple Church/House Church Articles, Including Mine to the right which will take you to my blog on simple/house churches. )

The Bridges and Barriers Research Project

The Bridges and Barriers Research Project set out in 1999 to answer the questions: What are the cultural barriers to the proclamation of the gospel and to the growth of healthy churches in Spain? And what natural cultural bridges exist that we can utilize to see more effective evangelism and healthier growing churches? The first outcome of the Bridges and Barriers project was a report entitled The Gospel and Postmodernism. That report documented the existence of postmodernism in Spain and its philosophical implications for the Spanish Evangelical Church. It also highlighted the fact that postmodernism is a significant cluster of cultural issues that can not be ignored if the Evangelical Church is to grow and prosper in Spain.

The Bridges and Barriers Research Project originally planned to do actual street interviews with non-Christians and ask them their opinions on how they viewed religion and what were religious barriers for them and what they viewed as attractive in religion. We actually went through the process of doing four different pilot projects to refine our questionnaire and did around 200 interviews in these pilot projects.

However, during this process we were informed that this type of research had already been done by secular sociologists. Through reading these sociological works we found that they had asked much the same questions that we had, had broader samples than we could have had, had done various works over different times and that their analysis was very well done. These studies clearly document postmodernism in Spain and mention the spiritual tendencies that seem common among postmoderns in other areas of the world. They also confirmed the results of the interviews we did in our pilot projects.

There were a second series of books by secular sociologists who were contracted by various organizations within the Catholic Church to analyze the spiritual condition in Spain. These works were answering Catholic questions but the general information confirmed what other sociologists were saying about the postmodern spiritual condition of Spain. Even though the questions came specifically from a Catholic point of view, the content was useful to us as well. I think it is helpful to point out that these sociologists were not particularly complementary to the Catholic Church. In other words, they were not just telling the Catholic Church what it wanted to hear. Their analysis was straightforward, honest and speaks to many of the issues that we face as Evangelicals. I do not agree with all of their conclusions because as an Evangelical Christian I must view issues through a biblical lens, which did not constrain them. However, their analysis was scientifically accurate and very helpful. For a list of these sociological works see the annotated bibliography at the end of this report.

Since postmodernism’s existence and spiritual tendencies were being confirmed in Spain by secular sociologists, we felt the next step would be to find out how effective ministry was done in other areas of the world where people had the same cultural and spiritual tendencies. We decided to do a web search on the Internet asking two basic questions: How does one do evangelism among postmoderns? And how does one “do church” among postmoderns? We spent over 200 hours on the web researching these questions. We were particularly curious to see if there were any general patterns in these two areas. We were also curious to see if there were churches in Spain that fit these general patterns, if such patterns existed. Finally we wanted to know if these Spanish postmodern style churches had relatively greater or lesser success in reaching the Spanish people with the gospel.

This report intends to start where The Gospel and Postmodernism left off. Its purpose is to explore the practical strategic considerations of postmodernism in the Spanish church context. It will try to answer such questions as what kinds of ministries tend to work in postmodern contexts and which do not? What does a postmodern sensitive church look like? What kinds of issues are postmodern and which are national, local or personal? What is the general pattern of evangelism in postmodern contexts and how does it differ from more traditional models? What do we really know about evangelism and churches in a postmodern context and what do we not yet know? What do we know about postmodernism in the Spanish church context and what do we not yet know? What are some ideas that can be explored and experimented with?

The Realities of Postmodernism

The first thing that needs to be understood is that postmodernism is a worldwide phenomenon. It is not merely an American situation, nor is it limited to Anglo-Saxon countries or even Western European countries. Such diverse places as Japan, the Muslim World and Eastern European countries are undergoing some type of postmodern worldview shift.

Its philosophical base comes from France, with such philosophers as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean Francois Lyotard, although there are other postmodern philosophers as well such as Umberto Eco from Italy and Richard Rorty from the United States. Postmodernism is not a philosophy invented by philosophers, rather it is a global shift of worldview. Such people as Derrida and Lyotard did not invent postmodernism; they merely describe it and give it a philosophical structure. However, in the process they also promote it and shape it.

A better way to understand postmodernism is to view it as a response to the western world’s 500-year experiment with rationalism commonly called the “modern” worldview. The modern worldview, that started with the Renaissance and was further clarified in the Enlightenment, basically stated that the measure of all things is man and that man can fully understand his world through science and reason. The experiment is over and the world has found that modernism is emotionally unsatisfying and does not adequately deal with such important questions as: Where do I come from? What is the meaning of life? How can I understand the spiritual dimensions of life?

If the rational modern worldview is not fulfilling, then what can take its place? The current answer is postmodernism. This is a worldview that says man can not answer every question. Truth is extremely complex and is impossible to fully express in human language. It takes much more than reason to explain the world we find ourselves in. For a postmodern, rational thinking and science, emotion, tradition, intuition and community are all equally helpful for understanding our world. Since humans can not fully understand or express truth in human language, there is more of a tendency to look for local “truths” that may not explain everything, but help us get through life. This aspect of postmodernism is often called pluralism, which basically states, it is true for you but it may not be true for me. You live with your truth and I’ll live with mine.

The Postmodern Person

What does the postmodern person act like? How are they different from modern people? The following is a profile of postmodern people from their own perspective.

· I’m looking for a truth that works for me.
· I can only try to see life from my own perspective; reality is too complex to understand it all.
· I’m interested in the values of my group and my community.
· I believe in being tolerant.
· I believe in letting others live like they want to.
· I don’t like it when people argue about how their group or beliefs are better.
· I want practical answers to life. I’m not drawn to idealistic schemes.
· I am suspicious of schemes that try to explain everything or give simplistic answers to complex questions.
· When people talk to me about these schemes I think of it as “noise” to be ignored.
· I like to have a group of close friends with which I share common values.
· I don’t like institutional religion.
· I do have a vague desire for non-institutional spirituality. But I don’t know how to find it.

These are a few of the more common values of postmodernism. Not every person in a postmodern society holds each one of these values. However, there is a strong tendency in the society for these values and most people hold many, if not all of these values.

One needs to distinguish between philosophical postmoderns and “street” postmoderns. Philosophical postmoderns, like the above mentioned philosophers and their philosophy students in universities, tend to state that there really is no such thing as truth. The average person on the street is not nearly so philosophical. In fact, few ponder the deep questions of life, but they have still absorbed the basic postmodern worldview. If forced to express in words how they view life, the average street postmoderns would more likely state that truth exists, it is just impossible to fully understand. Because of its complexity they tend to look for a “truth” that works for them. Most of the people we meet are not philosophical postmoderns but street postmoderns. The good news is that street postmoderns tend to be quite open to considering the gospel if it is expressed in postmodern sensitive ways.

As stated above, postmodernism is a shift of worldview on a worldwide scale. Following are levels of values in order from most profound to least profound.

· Worldview
· Cultural values
· Customs
· Personal preference

Worldview is the most profound level of cultural expression. It expresses the most deeply and widely held values. These are the values that form the framework of how we view and understand our world. Worldview values are often held by many cultures in many parts of the world.

Cultural values are also very significant value structures. While they often are somewhat similar to other cultural expressions within the same worldview, they are what make cultures distinct. Cultural values are what make the Spanish different from the French, or the people from Galicia different from those from Catalunya.

Customs are usually local in nature. They reflect such local preferences as food, dress and local dance customs. This is why different groups of youth in the same town may prefer to wear different types of clothing and participate in different activities.

Personal preference is what makes one person different from another. Some prefer reading to watching movies, for example.

Of course there is considerable overlap in these categories and sometimes it will be difficult to distinguish if something is a cultural value or a local custom. The main issue here is that postmodernism is on the worldview level. It is a change in the way people view and understand their world. It is the deepest kind of cultural shift. Worldview changes are extremely infrequent. The last worldview change in western culture was the Renaissance, which occurred 500 years ago. It would not be reasonable to expect postmodernism to go away soon. It will probably be here in some form or another for a number of generations.

Since postmodernism is a worldview shift it will have regional and national expressions. France is postmodern and so is England but they are culturally different from each other because they have different cultural values and histories. However, these cultural values will still express themselves within the worldview framework of postmodernism.

Postmodernism in Spain

Since postmodernism is multigenerational, we will also see differences between different generations within the same culture. In Spain, those born after 1945 tend to be more postmodern in their value structure. This is based on an observation made by sociologist Francisco Andrés Orizo in Los nuevos valores de los españoles.[1]

La edad separa a la población en dos segmentos: el de los 18 a los 44 años, algo más favorable a los movimientos, y el de los que pasan de los 45 años, algo menos favorable.

(Age separates the population in two segments: those who are 18 to 44 years of age, tend to favor the movements, and those who are over 45 years old, do not tend to favor them.)

Orizo is referring to social movements traditionally favored by postmoderns such as human rights, ecology, disarmament and feminism. This change in values was noticeable in the other sociological studies, in the same age group. Orizo´s study was published in 1991, but his research was done in 1990. Hence, those born after 1945 tend to show the postmodern shift in values.

This means that Spain has three postmodern generations. Each succeeding generation will be somewhat distinct from the other and each will be more postmodern in its value structure, than the one before it.

The interesting thing about Spain is that it never fully practiced modernism as much of the rest of the western world did. This is principally due to the powerful influence the Roman Catholic Church has had on the history of Spain. The Catholic Church has an ancient (also called traditional) worldview. Spain’s failure to fully practice modernism is also due to the victory of the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War which re-imposed the traditional world view of the Catholic Church just as Spain was beginning to experiment with modernism during the Second Republic. It was not until Francisco Franco’s death in 1975 that Spain could begin to experiment with a new worldview. By that time, postmodernism was becoming the norm in Western Europe.

Y no es una casualidad que muchas de estas manifestaciones que rompen los esquemas de la modernidad se lideren dentro del escenario español, cuando aún no habíamos completado las prescritas etapas de un proceso de modernización. Nos hemos hecho posmodernos sin haber ejercido antes de modernos.[2]

(And it is not a coincidence that many of these expressions that shatter the preconceptions of modernity may have come upon the Spanish scene, when we haven’t even completed the prescribed stages of the process of modernization. We have become postmodern without having previously practiced modernism.)

Postmodernism in the Evangelical Church

Biblical Christianity has its own worldview. It has its own explanation for the origins of man, our relationship with our Creator and how men should interact with each other. The amazing thing about biblical Christianity is that, while in and of itself it is a worldview, it is able to fully express itself in every time and culture. Biblical Christianity is now in the process of learning to express itself in the new postmodern world.

Christianity was extremely successful in the ancient worldview as it spread rapidly through the Greco-Roman world. It was able to express itself very well in the Renaissance through Protestantism and in the Enlightenment with Modern Evangelicalism. Now as the worldview has changed around us, biblical Christianity again finds itself needing to develop ways to culturally express itself without losing its fundamental truths.

Christianity’s ability to express itself in different cultural contexts while maintaining its fundamental essence is best expressed by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 9:19-23 (NIV):
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

As we discuss the Church in the postmodern world we need to distinguish between “postmodern sensitive churches” and “postmodern churches”. In this report postmodern sensitive churches will mean those churches that are as careful as possible to express themselves in ways that are comfortable to the postmodern society around them, without losing their biblical foundations. Postmodern churches are also sensitive to the culture around them, but they have become so in tune with postmodern culture that they have failed to distinguish those aspects of postmodernism that clash with the biblical worldview. These are titles I am using for clarity in this report. I am advocating that we become sensitive to the Spanish postmodern world around us, without losing our biblical essence. We should become postmodern sensitive without becoming postmodern.

As Christians we can embrace much of the postmodern worldview, but we can not embrace all. Postmoderns are correct to assert that humans cannot fully comprehend truth. Only God can do that. They are correct to assert that we can only view reality from specific points of view because we are limited as human beings. The postmodern desire for community fits well with the biblical concept of a local church and the worldwide church or “Body of Christ”. To a point their value of tolerance parallels the biblical value of “as much as possible be at peace with all men”, but not perfectly.

But postmodernism comes up short when it asserts that all points of view are of equal value. As Christians we would say that only God’s point of view is actually correct. We are fortunate indeed to have a God who has revealed himself in written form in the Bible and in human form in Jesus Christ. As Christians we assert that Jesus Christ not only spoke the truth but is Truth. When the postmodern worldview and the Christian worldview come in conflict we should clearly, openly and honestly express who we are and why. But we should do this with kindness and grace, avoiding any sense of an argumentative spirit.

As human beings, we Christians should honestly say that we are limited in our complete understanding of the Scripture. That is why sincere Christians have honest differences of opinion on the fine points of biblical truth. However, that does not make the Bible any less true. The weakness lies not in the veracity of Scripture, but in our weakness as human beings. What is more, we have the perfect example of Jesus Christ, who was not only a man but is God himself, who visited Earth in human form. As humans, we fail to live up to his example, but the weakness again lies in us, not in Jesus Christ.

Postmodern Sensitive Evangelism

There seems to be a general pattern to the way effective evangelism was done in a modern context. The same is true of effective evangelism in a postmodern context. But effective evangelism in a postmodern context is different from effective modern evangelism. Most of us have done ministry in churches and organizations that have learned over the years to be effective in presenting the gospel and having church services among “enlightened” or modern people. The Evangelical Church rightly learned to adapt to this culture and present the truth of its message in ways that would make cultural sense.

The modern model starts with the “message”. The message of the gospel is clearly and rationally presented. One is asked to make a decision as to the truth of the gospel and to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. When one believes the truth of the gospel he is then directed to a good local church where he will grow in his understanding of his faith and become more mature. A good church is one that clearly teaches the doctrinal truths of the Scriptures.
This is an outstanding model to use with an enlightened rationalist. They wanted a clear rational presentation of the truth. They needed to know that this was the universal truth that governed the universe. When they were convinced of this, they made a clear decision to believe that truth.

In modern evangelism, there are two basic scenarios of preaching the gospel. Both use the above outline. The first scenario is personal one on one evangelism. The object was to convince someone though a brief, logical presentation of the gospel that they needed to make a decision. Although there are hundreds of ways to do this, it is common to use some sort of clear logical outline or booklet such as the Steps to Peace with God, the Four Spiritual Laws or the Bridge Illustration.

The second scenario of modern evangelism is public evangelism. This is usually some type of public proclamation of the gospel to groups of people, often called a campaign or gospel meeting. Again, there are many ways to do this but the general outline explained above is usually used. There is a verbal explanation of gospel, a decision is called for and those who respond are “followed up” by being directed to a Bible teaching church.

The postmodern model starts with “relationship”. The postmodern sees spirituality lived out in the life of someone he trusts. He is invited by his friend to explore spirituality with him. He learns that spirituality is really a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is invited to explore this relationship not only individually but also in the community of others who are seeking relationship with Jesus. As he encounters spirituality in the form of the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of his friends, in their love for him and one another and in the beauty of artistically creative corporate worship, he decides to believe and follow Jesus.

This new model often sounds bizarre to those of us who have grown up in the modern Evangelical church. It can sound like a bunch of mystical nonsense. But keep in mind that to typical postmoderns the gospel, presented as a rational message presented by someone they do not have a close relationship with, is just a bunch of noise to be ignored. It doesn’t even sound very much like a spiritual message to them. This is our strategic impasse. We are presenting the gospel in ways they won’t listen to, while we have the answers to the very things they are looking for. One way to summarize this is to say that the modern model started with the message as a rational, verbal declaration. Postmodern evangelism starts with the message of a spiritual life. Without seeing the messages wrapped in the life of a trusted friend, the message as a verbal declaration will probably not be listened to.

Just as modern evangelism had basic evangelistic scenarios, postmodern sensitive evangelism also has basic scenarios. In postmodernism there are three basic scenarios. Again the first is personal one on one evangelism. Unlike modern evangelism, this is not viewed as a one-time event but as an ongoing process. The evangelist, after having lived a life that gives evidence of spirituality, invites his friend to investigate that spirituality through the person of Jesus Christ. In that journey, the friend will be introduced to the salvation offered by Jesus Christ and will probably be introduced to a community of people who are also seeking to experience Christ. Notice that the basic pattern follows the outline for postmodern sensitive evangelism.

Instead of the public campaign of modernism, postmodern sensitive evangelism is usually done in some form of small group studies. The general outline is that groups of people are invited to explore spirituality though the person of Jesus Christ in a group setting. They are then lead through an organized study of the Scriptures to see who Jesus Christ is, what he offers and how one can encounter Him. This is usually done in a home, although it can be done in a church setting. It is usually associated with some type of meal or snack. The emphasis is on a warm, non-threatening, non- confrontational setting where people can investigate Jesus together. In Spain where the Evangelical Church is viewed as both institutional and as a sect it would probably not be wise to do this in a church building.

The third scenario is actually evangelism done within the walls of the church itself. This seems strange to traditional modern evangelists. Why would an unsaved person be in church? In fact, to the modern person there is a clear distinction of appropriate boundaries. Outside the church building is the physical domain of the non-Christian. Inside the church is the domain of Christians. Of course, non-Christians are not restricted from being inside the church building, it is just that activities that go on in this physical domain are done with the Christian in mind.

But we need to remember that a postmodern person who is seeking spirituality wants to see that spirituality lived out in practical ways in community. Where is he going to see that if it is not in a church or at least a small group of Christians? Since evangelism is a process for postmoderns and they are quite likely to want to explore the community nature of Christianity before making a decision for Christ it is quite likely that you will find a non-Christian postmodern in a church. This becomes a significant strategic issue. The church building is where much effective postmodern evangelism is done. This is the very place that the truths they have been hearing from their trusted friend and that they may have seen in a small group setting is being lived out on a larger scale. Seeing Christians living out the fruit of the spirit in a large community in creative artistic ways, is a powerful witness to postmoderns. If the service is beautifully creative and spiritual, the postmodern seeker may come back time after time until they finally believe. A graciously done altar call or some other call to commitment within a church makes good sense in this context.

Why shouldn’t small group evangelism be done in a church building in Spain, yet evangelism can be done in a church service? The difference is a matter of timing and where the person is in the process of seeking. Going to an evangelical church building, where there is only a small group meeting, before they have been drawn by the spirituality of the Christians that they have met, could be a barrier. On the other hand, as the person goes along in the seeking process, it is quite probable that they will want to be involved in a genuine church service. Every case is different and we need to be sensitive to the person and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Each scenario for effective postmodern sensitive evangelism – personal, small group and church setting – is a place where postmodern people will believe in Christ. But it is important that we do not view these as separate entities. Churches that are effective in postmodern evangelism often have evangelistic activity going on in all of these places at the same time and use these three scenarios together in a creative dynamic. Christians serve the non-Christian in their web of relationship through their individual giftedness. If they have the gift of service they serve, if they have the gift of mercy they extend compassion. If they have the gift of administration they might help a friend get their checkbook balanced. In doing this they express Christian spirituality. They verbally give testimony to Christ’s activity in their life and when the time is ripe they invite their friends to experience Christ in a community of believers. This may be a small group or a postmodern sensitive church service.

As they are lovingly invited to explore spirituality through relationship with Jesus, they will probably be given a number of gracious, non-coercive opportunities to accept him as their Lord and Savior. Some will take quite awhile to make this decision, others will do it quite quickly, still others will never make that decision. Not every postmodern person who clearly understands the gospel will become a Christian. This has been true in every age and it continues to be true today.

Postmodern Evangelical Methodologies

There are a number of methodologies that use this basic outline. One that has met considerable success in Europe is the Alpha courses out of Holy Trinity Brompton in London. There are currently over 16,000 Alpha courses running in 116 different countries. This is a 10-week 15 session series of well-done videos, which take the “seekers” systematically though a course that answers questions like the following. Who is Jesus? Why did Jesus die? Why and how should I read the Bible? Why and how should I pray? How does God guide us? What about the church?[3]

Another methodology is evangelistic home Bible studies. These are very similar to the Alpha courses without the videos. Evangelistic home Bible studies are often focused on biblical texts that help the seeker encounter Jesus. Some postmodern sensitive churches also use their cell groups to fulfill this function. If this is the case, special effort needs to be made to make sure the small groups are postmodern sensitive.

The Bible really doesn’t talk much about making decisions. The biblical terminology is to believe. Here is another strategic problem. For a modern person to believe means to know something is the truth and therefore acknowledge it as true. For a postmodern to believe is more to know, deep in the heart, that this is good and right and satisfying, therefore they will hold these truths for their own. Both are saying they ‘believe’ but what it means to believe and the very process of belief is different.

In this aspect, the process of believing in the postmodern world is much like it was in the time of Jesus. The modern world changed the meaning of the word. We are going back to a time when people believe with their whole hearts and don’t necessarily just make intellectual decisions. But the way of getting them to that point of belief is very different. If the language of the enlightened rationalist was science, the language of the postmodern is creativity. If the vehicle of belief for the rationalist is reason, the vehicles of belief for the postmodern are relationship and community.

But how do we know that this is true for the postmodern in different areas of the world? This new way of doing evangelism, through relationship and community, is based not on local culture or customs or personal preferences. It is based of some of the core values of postmodernism. It is based on the postmodern desire for personal, non-institutional spirituality. It is based on the desire for truth to come from the local community (friends), not from institutional religion. It is based on the longing of postmoderns to experience human warmth and love in community. And it is based on speaking their language: creativity. While it is true that the kind of creative art that attracts will vary from culture to culture and from generation to generation, artistic expression and the desire to encounter spirituality through creativity probably will not change. How this model will be expressed from country to country and from one generation to another will be different. However, the fact remains that this general outline speaks to the postmodern heart, which give us a much better chance to help them believe.

The Postmodern Sensitive Church

Postmodern sensitive churches start with a vibrant Christian community (local church) that focuses on the deep spiritual growth of its members. It often teaches its doctrine through creative artistic expression as well as through preaching. There is often a focus on creative, contemporary music and the theater arts. There is preaching and teaching but the emphasis is on personal interaction and creativity.

Leadership structure tends to be non-hierarchical. The leader is an empowering leader who helps others express their Christianity, not someone who demonstrates institutional power. Instead of a clear definition between clergy and laity, there is a feeling that the leadership is just another member of the community expressing their gifts for the good of the church body. Leadership style is non authoritarian, but rather focuses on encouraging the members to grow spiritually and express their individual gifts in ministry.

There is a strong tendency to have small groups. But these groups are not Bible studies as much as intimate groups, where the members minister to one another spiritually. This ministry may come through sharing the Bible with one another, through praying for one another, through counciling, through sharing a meal together and through just loving one another.

There is a passion for the personal spiritual growth of individuals. Spiritual growth is defined as when Jesus begins to personally guide the believer’s life. There is an acknowledgement of the divine paradox of the person becoming more Christlike, while at the same time become more of an individual. This is expressed in the fruit of the Spirit (Christlikeness) and the gifts of the Spirit (individual expression of spirituality).

A modern person, who was interested in God, wanted to know the truth about God. The modern evangelical church became very good at answering this need by developing and refining systematic theology. We tried to systematically explain all the truth about God, his ways and his church through doctrine.

The postmodern is much more likely to want to know how he can personally encounter God. Therefore the postmodern sensitive church must become adept at answering questions like the following. How can I find God’s will for my life? How does God lead us? How can I follow God? How do I encounter God in the Scriptures? How can I have a deeply spiritual prayer life? How can I hear God’s voice? How can I discern if God is really speaking to me? We will lose converts if we try to give systematic theology to them when they are actually seeking to experience God personally.

Does that mean that systematic theology is wrong? Absolutely not, in fact, it is essential if the postmodern believer is to grow in grace. But systematic presentation of doctrine can no longer take the front stage as it did in many modern evangelical churches.

What role should systematic doctrine play then in the postmodern sensitive church? A good analogy for this role is the fence around the schoolyard. Psychological studies have shown that if children play in a schoolyard without a fence they tend to huddle in the middle of the schoolyard. They fear getting too close to the edge because they fear the danger of traffic. However, the second a fence is put up they utilize the whole schoolyard for their play. The point of a fence in a schoolyard is to keep the kids safe, to let them know their limits.

In the same way, doctrine keeps our relationship with Christ on safe ground. The point of a schoolyard is to have a place to play. The point of Christianity is to have a deep relationship with Christ. Salvation is the important first step in that relationship, but it is not the whole relationship. We need to emphasize the relationship and how one does that, but within the limits of good doctrine. To take the analogy further there has been a tendency among some Christians to concentrate on the length of the schoolyard fence, the height of the fence, what color of the paint and what kind of steel and brick it is made of. At the same time, they have not taught the school children the joys of playing during recess. In other words, we teach the fine points of doctrine but don’t teach the practicalities of experiencing Christ in joyful relationship.

A church that does not emphasize practical spirituality will not be able to effectively keep postmodern believers. It does not matter how effective their evangelism is. Postmoderns will not stay if a church, whose emphasis is on the fine points of doctrine, but does not teach the believer how to personally encounter God. Just as a school without a fence is a dangerous place to play, so a church without clear biblical doctrine is a dangerous place for a Christian to grow. But the point of a schoolyard is not the fence, even less the color of the fence. It is a place to play. The point of a church is not merely to discuss the fine points of doctrine. It is a place to learn to have a vital, biblical relationship with Christ and to worship him within the joy of community. Biblical doctrine is essential, but it is not the primary focus.

In the postmodern sensitive church, the times when the whole body gets together are viewed as a time of corporate worship, fellowship and celebration through music and creativity. There will be teaching done, but the emphasis will be on worship and celebration. Most teaching will be creative teaching and teaching through different methodologies not merely a lecture or preaching, although this is done as well. However, the preaching and teaching that is done, does clearly state the truth of the Scriptures. Teaching often is interactive and participatory. There may be questions thrown out to the group, which will be answered. During a sermon, small groups may form to work through a question before the teaching continues. There may be an emphasis on individual members giving a testimony of how God is at work in their life. This may be coordinated with the topic of a sermon or just a testimony time. Worship services are flexible. If there is a sense that the Spirit has spoken through a testimony, song or drama, the leader may set aside his sermon and call for a life changing response from the church. There is often an emphasis on sharing some type of meal, snack or coffee together.

There is structure to the church and in the worship service. These structures are meant to facilitate spiritual growth. Therefore they are flexible. As long as these structures or programs are meeting needs and helping people grow in Christ, they will be welcome. If they, for some reason, begin to hinder growth, they will be adapted or set aside. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In the same way, the structure is to help people grow. People are not in the church to facilitate the programs.

Much emphasis is placed on making the place of worship a warm environment. This is done by making sure the ambiance is comfortable, tasteful and artistically beautiful. There is also a lot of emphasis on spirituality being expressed in corporate worship through the expression of love, the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in community. A metaphor for the modern church service could be the Christian classroom. A metaphor for the postmodern church could be a Christian theater or in some cases even a Christian dinner club.

Growth comes through the web of relationships that members have outside of the church. The invitation for a friend to join the community can be an invitation to join a small group or to visit the larger worship service, depending on the circumstance. There is a strong tendency to be connected to the non-church community through community activities and social ministry to the needy. These are viewed as opportunities to express Christ’s love and to make friendships that may become redemptive friendships.

There is an emphasis on love being expressed in personal relationships, in corporate meetings and in the individual’s relationship with Christ. When someone visits a healthy postmodern sensitive church, they often comment on how loving and warm the people are. There is a sense of the loving community. There is a sense that the outsider is welcome to visit, and to become an insider, if they so choose. But there is not a sense of pressure or force.

Finally there is usually a strong emphasis on prayer. This is not to say that modern era churches didn’t pray but that there tends to be a correspondingly higher emphasis on prayer in postmodern sensitive churches. For a case study about prayer in a postmodern sensitive environment, read Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire[4] by Jim Cymbala. This is the story of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. This is also a good case study in the use of testimonies in a church service. Jim Cymbala does not call the Brooklyn Tabernacle a postmodern sensitive church, but it does fit the pattern.

As stated above, if the church is modern in its style, a postmodern is probably not going to come back for a second or third visit. This too is a strategic issue. Which do we change first, our evangelism or our church service? The answer is that we have to change the church service first. There needs to be a vibrant spiritual community to invite to. Does the church have to be perfect before we begin to invite our postmodern friends, neighbors and family to them? No church is perfect, nor will any church ever be perfect. Most postmoderns can understand that we are imperfect people being changed by the power and grace of God. But they want to see evidence of that power and grace working in our lives.

The Time to Start Postmodern Sensitive Evangelism

When, then is it time to start doing postmodern sensitive evangelism? We need to be able to honestly answer the following questions in the affirmative. Is the definition of spirituality in our church a growing relationship with Jesus? Do we avoid defining spirituality as conformity to outward forms like frequency of meeting attendance or use of Christian jargon? Are there flexible ministries in place to encourage all believers to continue growing in their spiritual relationship with Christ, not merely knowing the fine points doctrine? Is this church a place where spirituality is expressed in creative, artistic postmodern sensitive ways? Is there evidence of a passion for spirituality that is lived in the daily life of the believers? Are solid biblical doctrines present as parameters to spiritual growth? At the same time is there an avoidance of mere knowledge of doctrine as adequate spirituality? Does leadership tend to be non-hierarchical and non-coercive? Again, no church is perfect, but if these issues are not honestly addressed, our churches will be postmodern hostile places.

We also need to acknowledge that we can not fake passionate spirituality. Spirituality is something that happens when we wholeheartedly seek a relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit begins to control our lives. It is not an academic, theological exercise. Nor is it a matter of working hard for God. It is a matter of abiding in Christ. In the same way, spirituality in the community of believers is not a matter of going through the right forms. We can have the right music. We can have postmodern sensitive evangelism. We can have a testimony time. We can have drama in our churches and small groups in our homes. We can work really hard at trying to do all the right things. But if the Spirit is not active in our lives and our communities, we will have wasted our time. Non-Christians can sense the difference between true spirituality and those who are going through the motions. It would be much wiser to dedicate ourselves to a season of prayer and repentance, asking God to manifest himself among us, than to try to be a postmodern sensitive church in our own power. Forms and methods have their place, but without the power of the Holy Spirit they are dead.

Testimonies, Symbols, Paradox, Parables and Stories

Postmoderns like testimonies, symbols, paradox, parables and stories. This is much different than enlightened modern person, who just wanted a clear presentation of the facts. We need to sharpen our abilities to use the story telling arts to reach the heart of postmoderns. This was an art form in which Jesus was a master.

While a postmodern may walk away from us if we give a logical presentation of the gospel, they may very well listen to a personal testimony. But the testimonies they are most interested in are not salvation testimonies but stories of how we have personally experienced God. This could be a testimony of divine healing, answered prayer or God’s leading. The important thing is, that they see God interacting in the life of the believer. Postmoderns want a personal encounter with God, so they want to hear of others who have had these kinds of encounters.

Symbols are artistic expression with precise meaning. In the last 500 years, we have stripped the church of much of its symbolism. There are two reasons for this. First, some people mistake the symbol for the reality. It is not the act of taking communion that saves, but rather the act of communion that commemorates the salvation that has already taken place. Still, some have come to believe salvation takes place as we commemorate the symbolic act of communion. Second, since the modern enlightened mind was not particularly drawn to symbolism, we learned to communicate in a more exact way. However, we now live in a time when symbolism has again regained its ability to transfer powerful meaning. We need to be clear that it is merely a symbol, but a symbol that communicates an important truth.

One postmodern sensitive church has re-instituted a second century Christian custom of placing a pinch of salt on the tongue on a newly baptized person as they come out of the baptismal waters. The pastor reminds the person that we are the salt of the earth and our lives are meant to spiritually season the community around us. We could give small candles to every one in a church service. Then the room could be darkened and one candle could be lit. This one candle could light others and as the light of the flame begins to brighten the room the pastor could remind the congregation that we are the light of the world. The natural state of our world is spiritual darkness and our lives are to chase away that darkness. A new custom among second generation postmodern Christians is to wear WWJD bracelets. The letters in English stand for What Would Jesus Do? This is used as a reminder to the wearer that their life is to reflect the life of Jesus, even in difficult situations. All of these are examples of the use of symbolism to communicate a message into the heart of a postmodern believer.

Paradox is another powerful communicator to the postmodern mind. Many of us find paradoxes confusing, yet Jesus used them effectively to communicate profound truths. As Christians, we learn that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. In leadership he who is greatest must serve. We come to understand that God’s strength is perfected in weakness and that God keeps treasure in weak earthen vessels. It is on meditating on these paradoxes, that the believer gets a deeper understanding of the Christian faith. Some have tended to avoid paradoxes or explain them to avoid confusion. We need follow the example of Jesus, who knew that some of the deepest truths need to be expressed in paradox so we can ponder them.

Jesus was the master of parables. We again live in an age where a story with a powerful spiritual punch can communicate into the heart of believers. Jesus gave us many parables, which will stand on their own. They still communicate powerful truth. Jesus used common customs, activities and objects and invested them with spiritual meaning. What Christian can drink wine from a wineskin, without thinking of Jesus’ parable of new wine in old wineskins? How many of us have found a lost coin and were reminded of the parable of the lost coins? But Jesus’ parables can also be models for new stories that teach us important truths. We can use the customs, activities and objects around us to tell new parables, which teach old truths. We can tell the parable of the computer, or the parable of the used car or the parable of the soccer coach. Our challenge is the same challenge Jesus had, to take common situations and imbue them with uncommon meaning. For an example of this see The Parable of the Different Harvests at the end of this report.

As Christians, our eyes should be open to those special times when God intersects our lives in obviously supernatural ways. These stories have a particular power to communicate to postmoderns the truths of our God. We also need to tell the truths of the Bible in dramatic story form. Stories can be much more than sermon illustrations. A friend of my daughters’, Charis Gonzalez, once did a dramatic presentation of Mary’s Prayer by Max Lucado[5]. By draping a shawl over her head and shoulders and through the dramatic use of voice and gesture, Charis told an unforgettable story with spiritual power. Our God is a good storyteller and we should be too.

Two Waves of Postmodern Sensitive Churches

So far there have been two waves of postmodern sensitive churches. Both have had significant success in reaching postmoderns. The first wave has been among the generation that has its feet in both worlds, the world of enlightened rationalism and postmodernism. These first wave churches reflect their generation. They have some aspects to their way of doing things that are modern/rational and some that are postmodern.

Modern aspects of first wave churches

· Emphasis on clearly defined models
· Highly organized
· Emphasis on programs
· Tendency to become mega-churches
· Tendency to have traditional hours for their church services (but not always)
· Highly structured worship services
· Sometimes have traditional church buildings
· Sometimes have liturgical services
· Leadership structures tend to be hierarchical, but less so than modern churches
· Tendency to use marketing techniques

Postmodern aspects of first wave churches

· Emphasis on creative artistic expression
· Emphasis on gifts of the Spirit (not exclusively the “sign” gifts)
· Emphasis on members using gifts in ministry
· Evangelism through webs of relationship
· Tendency of drawing to a vibrant community
· Often started through a small group
· Tendency to avoid denominational names
· Tendency to be computer literate and to have at least one church web page
· Use of the communication media when possible

Some first wave postmodern churches have become very famous. This is because they have become highly effective in reaching people for Christ. Two famous first wave churches in the United States are Willow Creek Community Church, near Chicago and Saddleback Community Church, near Los Angeles. Both of these churches are huge and both have had explosive growth among the generation of Americans who are part modern and part postmodern. This generation in the United States is called the Baby Boomer Generation. A European model of a first wave church is Holy Trinity Brompton, in London from which the Alpha groups come. A French model is the Taize Community, near Taize, France. This model is so different it is hard to place in the first or second wave, although it is clearly postmodern. There are also first wave churches in Australia and other parts of the world.

The first thing to note about these churches, and many which are similar to them around the world, is that they follow the general outline of postmodern evangelism. They have a vibrant church community, full of creative artistic expression, and they draw to that community through webs of relationship. In fact, this type of church has been called the “seeker sensitive” model. In other words, they are sensitive to the spiritual longing that exists among postmodern people.

But they are not fully postmodern in their model. They place a high emphasis on structures and methods. They are formulated on the idea that the “seeker” would want to remain anonymous until they felt comfortable in the community, which is true of first generation postmoderns, but not necessarily the second generation. Their worship service is often highly structured. And they often look a lot like a modern church in architectural structure.

Interestingly enough, these first wave churches are finding that they are struggling to reach second generation postmoderns. These postmoderns appreciate the creativity and other postmodern forms but are still uncomfortable with the modern aspects of the first wave churches. Yet, this second generation of postmoderns is still open to spirituality and is “seeking” every bit as much if not more than the first generation of postmoderns. For this second generation, a new type of church has evolved.

Second Wave Churches

In some ways, the second wave churches reflect the first wave, or “seeker” churches, but in some ways they are decidedly different. This is because this second generation is fully postmodern in value structure.

Ways in which the second wave churches resemble first wave churches

· Emphasis on creative artistic expression
· Emphasis on the gifts of the spirit (not exclusively the “sign” gifts)
· Emphasis on members using gifts in ministry
· Evangelism through webs of relationship
· Draw to a vibrant community
· Emphasis on small groups
· Avoidance of denominational names
· Tendency to be computer literate and to have at least one church web page
· Use of the communication media when possible

Other tendencies of second wave churches

· They are usually started with a small group.
· They view God as the leader of the church. Human leaders are merely exercising organizational or leadership gifts.
· They focus on ministry rising out of the body through giftedness, not on models developed by the leadership.
· Leadership focuses on encouraging people to participate in ministry in which they are gifted, not in volunteering to help with programs.
· There is a tendency to have very non-church-like names, such as Mars Hill Fellowship or Warehouse 242.
· Churches tend to meet in homes as a web of cell groups until they become big enough to have corporate worship.
· There is a tendency to become a web of smaller churches instead of a mega-church.
· Corporate worship is much more like a theater production than a classroom; it is highly focused on music and theater arts.
· Church buildings are often set up like theaters with stages.
· Churches are often filled with art, the front being set up like a theater set.
· There is a tendency to meet at non-traditional hours such as Friday Evening at 9:00 P.M. (Rom. 14:5-6a).
· There is a tendency to have loosely structured worship services, which can respond to the movement of the Spirit within the church.
· There is a tendency to have frank sermons which speak directly to sin.
· At the same, time they are open to visitors who live alternate lifestyles such as homosexuality. While they are clear on the sinful implications of such lifestyles, they also emphasize that the sinner is loved and welcome among God’s people.
· There is a tendency to distrust marketing techniques

Mars Hill Fellowship a Case Study

Mars Hill Fellowship started in Seattle, Washington USA, is a classic example of a second wave church[6]. Mars Hill started as a discussion group among postmodern believers in 1995. This grew into a Bible Study, which turned into a core group, which turned into a church. As they state on their web page, “our original desire was for a church focused on immersing itself with the gospel in the emerging postmodern world and upcoming generations”[7]. They intentionally focused their efforts on second generation postmodern students at the University of Washington. The group started as a Bible study for people between 20 and 30 years old. By October of 1996, they formally organized as a church of 200 people. In the last few years, since the founding of the church, they have planted a number of churches and intend to continue planting churches. The emphasis of the church is not on programs but on experiencing God and allowing him to work in the community of believers and add to the community of believers. Pastor Mark Driscoll comments how to plant a second-generation postmodern church:

Everything begins in trinitarian community. The bottom line of our faith is love of God and love of neighbor. It seems like most things that have changed the world began like Jesus did, with some people gathering over a meal and trusting God to guide them together on a journey of faith into an unknown future. The days of marketing and promoting the church are very short. Postmoderns are no longer lured or impressed by the business approach to dispensing religious goods and services that many modern, boomer, and suburban congregations have so widely embraced. God always builds ministers before He builds ministries, and so our character, wisdom, prayer, silence, solitude, faith, love, etc. cause people to trust us, and trust those they love to join us in community[8].

Pastor Driscoll pretty well sums up the second wave view of church planting. One begins with a small community of faith. This community builds up its individual members in the Lord, and in love, while expecting God to add to the community through the web of relationships. The small group becomes a web of small groups and that web of small groups eventually meet together for corporate worship. When they meet together for corporate worship the emphasis will be on frank teaching and the expression of faith through creativity, particularly contemporary music and theater arts. The corporate worship service does not replace the web of small groups; it enhances what is already going on in those groups.

Cultural Expression in the Postmodern Sensitive Church

Postmodern culture has become predominant in Western Europe, the United States and Australia. It is having a significant impact in places like Japan, Eastern Europe and the Muslim world. It has not yet had as significant of impact in places where the ancient worldview has predominated and where the modern worldview did not have a strong hold (Spain and Portugal are clear exceptions here). Such places as Latin America and Africa have not moved to the postmodern worldview as quickly as the Western world has. However, postmodernism is very similar to the ancient worldview with a few significant exceptions. One of them is the acceptance of pluralism.

Different areas of the postmodern world will have different expressions of the postmodern sensitive church. While it would be reasonable to expect that the basic outline of how to minister to postmoderns will remain the same (attract to the vibrant community through webs of relationship), there will also be differences. The cultural differences between Spain and Sweden should be reflected in differences in church models. There are significant differences between Saddleback Community church is Los Angeles and Holy Trinity Brompton in London, for example. While both come from postmodern Anglo-Saxon cultures, those two cultures are distinct. The regional differences between Galicia and Andalusia should also probably be reflected in ministry models. Finally, there are the issues of personal preference. Some people will be attracted to one kind of church and others to another kind. This is just as true in Spain as it is in Australia.

It Is Time to Experiment

While cultural differences exist, the basic outline of ministry to postmoderns seems to remain constant. There is creative expression, the emphasis on community, the emphasis on small groups and the evangelistic outline of drawing to the vibrant community through the web of relationships. This helps us by giving us an outline. But we should not try to directly copy models developed in other cultures. These models are a mix of postmodern worldview issues and local cultural issues. We should also pay attention to the generational aspects of postmodern churches. We can use both the “seeker” or first wave model as a starting point to strategize on new evangelism and church models, and we can look at the second wave model as well; but only as starting points. We need to keep in mind the unique aspects of Spanish culture and the reality that Spain transitioned from a traditional culture to a postmodern culture very rapidly, without really having been fully modern.

The truth is, we need to experiment. We don’t really know what will work in Spain and what will not. We need people who understand the postmodern worldview, the general outline of how ministry works in postmodern cultures and have a good feel for the Spanish people and Spanish history, especially Spanish Church history. We don’t know if postmodern Spaniards are less open to the gospel or more open than other postmoderns are. They have shown themselves more open to postmodern models than to modern models. We know this because of the relative success of such postmodern sensitive models as Asembleas Cristianas, in Jerez de la Frontera and Amistad Cristiana, in Madrid.

But due to the excessive abuse of power in the name of religion in Spain, it is possible that they could be less open than other areas. But again, we don’t know because we have not experimented very fully with different postmodern models. It would be easy to give up and say the Spaniards are just too hard, when in reality we may have just not spoken to them in their new cultural language.

Again, due to the historical abuse of power in the name of religion in Spain, we should be very careful how we express leadership inside the church. Use of coercion, guilt, duty, force, or brusqueness in leadership will be counterproductive. We should do everything we can to show our leadership as people oriented and facilitative. It should avoid giving the perception that the people are being forced to fit the program or the organization. Instead, whatever organization there is within the church, is there to help people get to know Christ. We need to prove that we are different. It will be assumed otherwise until demonstrated. This does not mean that a leader can’t lead or that he has to do anything the other person wants. Leaders speak truth into the lives of those they are leading. But, they speak the truth in love and with graciousness. It is clear from the way it is done, that it is an act of love because the leader wants to see the person grow in Christ, not merely force them to fit the organization. Jesus Christ himself is our model for this kind of leadership.

We need to be as anti-institutional as possible. To the postmodern mind, institutionalism and spirituality are opposites. The more rigid forms we have, the more denominational we are, the more we try to make everyone fit into the forms instead of meet people were they are, the more we will be rejected. As stated above, this can be reflected in our style of leadership. It can also be reflected in a worship service that is overly rigid or lacks creativity. It can be reflected in the architecture or even the hour when we meet.

There is a reason that many postmodern sensitive churches meet at non-traditional hours. It is precisely because they are non-traditional hours. Most western postmoderns know that the institutional Christian church meets on Sunday mornings. Therefore it seems more non-institutional to meet on a Tuesday or Thursday evening. Since this is not breaking a biblical imperative, many postmodern sensitive churches do so to avoid the institutional barrier. Small groups meeting in homes, break the stereotype of the institutional church. Many postmodern sensitive churches, therefore, invite to a small group before inviting to the larger corporate setting. Again, the more stereotypically traditional we are, they more barriers we have with postmoderns. It therefore becomes our responsibility to clearly think through the biblical issues and know what we can set aside (traditional forms) and what we can not (biblical functions).

What do we do with churches that have already become accustomed to the modern evangelical model?

Christian Schwarz, in his book Natural Church Development,[9] talks about eight qualities of healthy churches. He has done exhaustive research all over the world to find what kinds of churches are healthy and which are not. Schwarz holds that a church anyplace in the world is healthy if it has these qualities to a significant degree and will grow no matter what the context. While not everyone will be convinced of this thesis, I am in agreement with much of the content. When one looks at the eight qualities Schwarz mentions, one realizes he is describing the postmodern sensitive church. The eight qualities are:

· Empowering leadership
· Gift-oriented ministry
· Passionate spirituality
· Functioning structures
· Inspiring worship service
· Holistic small groups
· Need-oriented evangelism
· Loving relationships.

One of the analogies that Schwarz uses is the concept of the “minimum barrel”, where each of these eight qualities is viewed as the stave of a barrel. Each stave is of a different length. The barrel will only hold water to the level of the shortest stave. In the same way a church can only grow to the level of the weakest of the eight essential qualities. Schwarz has developed some very helpful concepts and materials for helping churches to grow from where ever they are to health in these eight areas. His basic paradigm is that a church evaluates which of its areas is the weakest and concentrates on that area until it becomes strengthened and habitual. Then they focus on the next weakest area. This is a continual ongoing process always focusing on the area of weakness. Over time, the church will deal with each of these areas a number of times, each time prayerfully growing in their ability to express these eight essential qualities.

In describing this process, Schwarz is also outlining a plan for a church that has been founded and is comfortable in modern methodology, to become a postmodern sensitive church. It would be too disruptive to try to change everything at once. This process would be healthy for any church to undergo and if it were aware of postmodern issues it would slowly become a postmodern sensitive church.

Lessons to Learn

There are a number of lessons to learn from the experience of postmodern sensitive churches around the world. The first lesson is that there is a general outline for doing ministry among postmoderns. It is distinct from the outline that was effective among moderns. As stated above, this general outline can be described as the vibrant community growing through the web of relationships.

Postmoderns around the world seem to be open to the gospel when ministered to in postmodern sensitive ways. At the very least, they seem to be more open than modern generations within the same culture.

There seems, to this point, to be two generational expressions of the postmodern sensitive church. The first corresponds to the transitional generation that is partially modern and partially postmodern. These churches are commonly called “seeker sensitive” churches. They are very effective in reaching this transitional generation. When a fully postmodern generation came along, the “seeker sensitive” churches struggled reaching them because of the number of ways that these churches were still modern in style.

When new fully postmodern models were developed, these second wave postmoderns responded as much, or more than, the first generation of postmoderns. But they were resistant to models that had modern elements.

It would have been easy for the “seeker” churches to declare that the second generation of postmoderns was resistant to the gospel because they weren’t responding to their methodology. But this is not the case. This generation continues to be receptive to the gospel, it is just much more allergic to modern forms than was the first generation. To the credit of seeker churches, many have shown flexibility and are trying new ways of ministering to second generation postmoderns.

Fully postmodern sensitive churches are highly spiritual in their outlook. Some analysts have called postmodernism “neo-paganism” and there is reason for this. We can no longer assume that people will have a general knowledge of Christianity and be drawn to Christian values. However, out of this neo-paganism a highly spiritual form of Christianity is developing. It is an expression of Christianity that places a high emphasis on prayer, obedience to God, and a strong dependence on God to help them grow. They are quite skeptical of man made programs and marketing, yet they grow without them. These are churches that are in tune with the postmodern desire for spirituality and are expressing Christianity in a supernaturally powerful way.

Second generation postmodern sensitive churches look very much like what we know of the first century churches and their growth. This is probably because postmodernism is very similar to, but not exactly like, the cultural reality of the first century Greco-Roman world. We need to remember that the Church was highly successful in this context, and that it suffered in this context. Both are probably true of the coming generations of the postmodern sensitive church; we will be successful and we will suffer for the name of Christ.

Models to Experiment With

Are current Spanish postmoderns more like first wave postmoderns, second wave postmoderns or are they divided by generations, as in other areas of the world? I do not have the answer to that question, although I suspect that they are somewhat generationally divided. We do know from the sociological research being done in Spain, that the younger Spaniards are, the more they tend to express postmodern values.

Some churches should experiment with the first wave “seeker” style models, but with sensitivity to Spanish cultural distinctions. This may be a project for churches that are transitioning from modern models to becoming postmodern sensitive. This is because the transition from a modern model church to a seeker church is much less abrupt than to transition into something more like Mars Hill Fellowship. Again, Christian Schwarz and his materials could be helpful in this process. Evangelism should be done through some type of evangelistic home Bible study. One good method to experiment with would be the Alpha courses in Spanish.

Some who are preparing to start new church plants should experiment with the basic outline of the second wave churches. Start with a small core group. Focus on the spiritual growth of those within this group. Make this group a vibrant spiritual community that expresses itself creatively. At the same time, they should make contact with the non-Christian community around them and minister to their social needs. Through the web of relationships that develop in the non-Christian community, they should expect God to add to their number as a response to prayer. As the group grows, it becomes a network of small groups. When this network becomes of sufficient size (100-150), a church is formed. It might be wise to not try to become a public corporate worship service when the network is smaller than this because small public worship services tend to be a cultural barrier in Spain. As God blesses, the church becomes a network of churches, just as a small group became a network of small groups.

Starting Churches in Places with No Evangelical Witness

How does one start a postmodern sensitive church from scratch in a place that doesn’t have an evangelical witness? There are two basic answers to this question. If one is starting with one family or even one person they will need to make friends and start an evangelistic home Bible study with the friends they make. Again, the Alpha course might be a good place to start unless the person feels competent to develop his or her own material. Emphasis should be placed on starting a group in an emotionally warm creative, non-confrontational environment. The weakness of this model is that there is no community to invite to initially. This is a weakness but it is not a fatal flaw. Saddleback Community Church started with a group of three, Pastor Rick Warren, his wife and his daughter. It is now one of the largest churches in the United States.

Another method that starts with a community is to plant a group of people in a town without an evangelical witness. This has two advantages. One is that there is already a small community to draw to, even if it is five or six people. The second is that a few people can make contacts faster and with a greater number of people than one person can. One good way to make contact is to join a number of programs sponsored by the town government. Many Spanish towns have art classes, dance classes, sports competitions and any other number of activities that people can join. These are great ways to make friends. From that point, the model would look the same, some type of evangelistic home Bible study as explained above.

Evangelistic home Bible studies have important strategic advantages. They can grow through the webs of relationship and are therefore almost infinitely reproducible. They are non-institutional. They do not look like a church. They do not require special facilities and they can be linked to each other in a web of small groups. This allows for a significant number of people to be involved before the new church plant becomes public. The only limit to the growth is the limit on leadership to lead new studies, so there needs to be planning done on developing new leadership. This is built into the Alpha course model, for example.

Evangelistic home Bible studies could fail with postmoderns for two reasons. The first is if we were too forceful with our presentation of our truths. We need to clearly and graciously present truth without being pushy. We need to draw people into our truth, not try to convince them. The biblical word is persuade, not convince. The second is if the study were not creative, interesting or fun enough. Postmoderns will walk away from anything that is boring. The object then is to make something clear enough that they understand how to begin to follow Christ and interesting enough that they want to invite their friends. We should not fear being spiritual or sounding spiritual. Postmoderns are interested in spirituality; they just don’t like institutional religion. The more “churchy” a study is, the more likely it will fail.

Another model that has been proposed to start churches in towns without an evangelical witness is to plant a small business. This small business would be manned by Christians trained to not only work in the business but to minister among postmoderns. If there were a group of Christians, they would act as a missionary team and do ministry as proposed above. If it were a single person, he or she would have to start by themselves, as explained above.

Planting a church by first starting a business answers two important strategic issues. When new people move into a small town with no visible means of financial support and no real reason to be there, it can create suspicion. By having a business, there is a reason to be in town. There is also a potential to have financial support for the ministry. However, in reality it is often many years before small businesses become financially stable enough to support a ministry, especially if they need to repay a business startup loan. New businesses are also often a useful service to the town. By starting a needed business we are expressing Christ’s love for that community.

The down sides to this model are the following. That it requires a significant amount of money to found the business. The business will take time away from the ministry. And there is a risk that the business will fail. A strategic decision needs to be made on whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in each case.

The age group of 18 to marriage seems to be a spiritually responsive group in Spain. Orizo notes that there is a rising interest in the meaning of life as Spaniards age. It is the oldest people who are the most spiritually minded. However this trend has one variation, the 18 to 24 year olds, who are also highly spiritually minded as they begin to ask transcendental questions. Older people tend to view spiritual issues through the lens of the Catholic Church, called orthodox Christianity in the study. But, the younger group did not tend to make such clear doctrinal distinctions.[10] Starting with a ministry to youth and singles might be a good way to start a postmodern sensitive church. Again the emphasis should be on creativity. In this case, the idea might not be to start an evangelistic Bible study but rather some type of activity or a series of activities that meet the needs of youth, while having a spiritual focus.

God has called us to live in an interesting age. He has called us to live in this age of transition to the postmodern world. He has placed, on our shoulders, the responsibility to find out how to faithfully take the gospel of Jesus Christ to people who have a new set of values and a new way of looking at the world. We can not do this in our flesh. We are not capable in our own abilities and intelligence to accomplish this task. But we have a God who can guide us through the process. There is a lot we still don’t know about ministering to postmoderns in Spain. But we can move from the known to the unknown. We can start with what we do know and ask our living God for guidance. We are moving to a time of experimentation, not scientific but spiritual experimentation. We are going to have to trust God to take us into this new unknown ministry world.

Since postmoderns love stories and parables, let’s end this report with a story and a parable, both of which come from a friend of mine who chooses to remain anonymous.

A Story From Argentina

A church in Argentina went around its neighborhood asking non-Christians what one prayer they would want God to answer. They then offered to pray for this issue specifically. At first, the non-Christians were skeptical, some even mocked the Christians. A few asked for requests like winning the lottery. The Christians responded by asking them, “Is this really what you would want from the God of the universe?” When the non-Christians realized the Christians were sincere, many gave honest prayer requests. After all, it couldn’t hurt. At this point the Christians said there was just one condition. Many non-Christians responded “What? Now I suppose you want us to go to your church.” “No,” said the Christians, “going to our church isn’t part of the deal, all you have to do is call me when God answers your prayer”. God began to answer these prayers, many in miraculous ways. So the non-Christians called the Christians who were praying for them and told them of the answered prayer and wanted to know if they could come to church. “No,” said the Christians, “just give me another prayer request and I will pray for you because my God loves you and wants to answer my prayers for you”. So they prayed again, and again God answered prayers and again the Christians were called. By this time, the non-Christians really wanted to know more about this powerful God who answered prayers. In many cases, whole families and groups of friends were curious. Again they asked if they could come to church. Again the answer was no. “But”, said the Christians, “we are going to have a time when many people who have had answered prayer, just like you, are going to share their stories. If you would be willing to come and tell what God has done for you, then you can come to this celebration service. You will also get to hear what my God is doing in the lives of other people just like you. And, just like you, they are not members of our church, just people we are praying for and people whom our God loves. Bring any friends and family who would like to come.”

How would you like to have been in that testimony service? How easy would it be to plant a church among those who came to that testimony service? Answered prayer is exactly the kind of practical spirituality that postmodern people are looking for.

The Parable of the Different Harvests

A great man, Lord of an abundant land, left early one morning to visit the different fields in his domain, to observe the fruitfulness of his harvest. Along with him, he took his various managers who were responsible to know the different seasons and to watch for the times of the harvest.

First, they walked through the plains where he had planted wheat, barley and other useful grains for the benefit of the citizens of his land. They also went through the well-attended vineyards bursting with grapes. Finally, they went to the hills where they observed all kinds of orchards and olive groves, each one with an abundance of fruit according to its kind.

In the evening, when they returned to his mansion, the Lord called his managers and asked them about what they had observed, saying “In which of the fields will there be a harvest?” They began to say one after the other that “The times and conditions of the harvest will be different for each field, but certainly there will be a harvest in each one. Some are grain fields, and they will be harvested soon, others are grapes and we will need to wait longer. Still others are fruit trees and olive groves that will have to wait until the end of the harvest season.”

The Lord responded to them and said “Excellent! You have said well that each harvest will come in its own time. Blessed is the wise man that understands the rhythm of the different harvests and prepares himself to reap and store the produce so that none of my harvest will be lost.”

Another time, the Lord of the harvest called his managers and put them in charge of the responsibility of reaping all of the produce of his domain. He gave them instructions to look after each crop according to its nature and take care of the produce until his return. Then he went on a journey to work with the managers of his other domains.

In his absence, the managers began to consult with one another about the different aspects of the harvest. They observed that clearly the wheat fields were ripe unto harvest. So they went out with their great and powerful harvesting machines. In a short time they reaped an abundant harvest of wheat, barley and other grains. Therefore, they concluded, the other fields must be just like these were. But when they came to the vineyards they discovered that the harvesting machines didn’t work like they had at first. On entering the vineyard, they damaged the plants and they lost the fruit of the vine, reaping little of the harvest. On seeing the difficulty of the harvest in these places and the lack of effectiveness of their machines to reap this harvest, they decided to return to their warehouses and concentrate on tuning up their machines and making their wheat storehouses bigger.

When the Lord of the harvest returned from his trip, he called his managers to account for the harvest he had left under their care. They began to speak with great joy of the harvest of the grain, of how they had powerful harvesting machines and of the great wheat storehouses they had constructed. But when the Lord asked them about the harvest of the more delicate and difficult crops, they became strangely silent. On observing their silence, the Lord was moved with great sadness saying “Every part of the harvest is precious to me and useful for my domain.” He reproved them for being so zealous for one kind of harvest and for forgetting the importance of reaping each part of the harvest according to its own nature.

Good and faithful is the manager that understands and practices the wisdom of the parable of the different harvests.

May God imprint on our hearts: Good and faithful is the manager that understands and practices the wisdom of the parable of the different harvests.

Annotated Bibliography

1. Allender, Dan ed. Mars Hill Review (Bainbridge Island, WA: No. 12, Fall 1998),

This entire issue is dedicated to postmodernism. It has eleven essays and studies on postmodernism’s encounter with Christianity. These issues touch on presenting the gospel in postmodernism, the philosophy of postmodernism, postmodern hermeneutic, postmodern counciling and theology. The cross-disciplinary essays give a fuller understanding of the profundity of the cultural shift from modernism to postmodernism. Brief annotated bibliographies in the margin.

2. Artacho, Juan del Pino and Alastuey, Eduardo Bericat. Valores sociales en la cultura andaluza, Encuesta Mundial de Valores. Andalucía 1996. (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1998).

This is part of the same worldwide study as Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90. It is focused on Andalucía. It is helpful in that it shows that postmodernism in Spain is not just an urban phenomena but has reached conservative rural Spain.

3. Cruz, Antonio. Postmodernidad, (Terrassa, España, Editorial CLIE. 1996).

This is the only book I know about that is written from the Spanish Christian perspective on the issue of postmodernism and its potential ministry ramifications. Cruz does a good job of outlining the basic issues of postmodernism, but his suggestions for what to do about it tend to come from a modern perspective.

4. Cymbala, Jim. Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire. (Grand Rapids, MI Zondervan Publishing House. 1997).

This is an exciting first hand account of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. The Brooklyn Tabernacle is a postmodern sensitive church, in its growth and practice. Particular notice should be given to the emphasis placed on prayer, the use of creative artistic expression, the flexibility of the worship service and the use of testimonies. Cymbala does not use the word postmodern, nor does he even seem to be aware of the issue, but the Brooklyn Tabernacle fits the postmodern sensitive pattern.

5. Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.1996).

This is one of the best books written on postmodern thought, from a Christian perspective. Grenz clearly understands postmodernism, its dangers and its potential advantages for Christianity. He does not fall into the trap of condemning postmodernism because it is different. I suggest reading the introduction through the end of chapter 3 then read chapter 7, which is the last chapter. The section in the middle is only those who are highly interested in a history of philosophy and more specifically the philosophy of postmodernism.

6. Hunter, George G. III. How to Reach Secular People (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992).

Hunter uses the term “secular people” but he is touching on the issues of postmodernism. He wrote his book in 1992 before the term postmodernism became readily known. Hunter discusses the broad issues of western cultural change through six watershed events in the last 550 years, and how that affected the Church. He profiles secular people, gives themes and strategies for reaching them, talks about communication with them, and discusses what kind of Christians and churches reach them. Hunter also has an extensive bibliography.

7. Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997).

Long uses the analogy of the two types of winds encountered in a hurricane as an analogy for understanding Generation X. This is the second postmodern generation in the United States. The intense winds inside the hurricane are Generation X; the steering current that determines where the hurricane will go is postmodernism. Long gives a sociological analysis of the Church, Generation X and postmodernism. He gives a theological foundation for dealing with Generation X and by proxy postmoderns. Finally he gives a framework for ministry in dealing with Generation X. He has an extensive bibliography.

8. Lucado, Max. God Came Near. (Sisters, Oregon, Multnomah Publishers. 1986).

This is a series of short, dramatic vignettes or semonettes. They can be used as a source for dramatic readings, skits and plays for the creative postmodern worship service.

9. Mardones, José María. Para comprender las nuevas formas de la religión, La reconfiguración postcristiana de la religión. (Estella, Navara Editorial Verbo Divino. 1998).

A sociological work written for a Catholic audience. Nevertheless, it has a lot to say about why new religious movements are taking hold in Spain because of postmodernism (called postchristianity). After reading this book I had the strong impression that we are living in an hour of opportunity for the Evangelical Church in Spain if we can learn to minister to Spanish postmoderns in postmodern ways. He is saying in much more detail what this paper has set out to say.

10. McGrath, Alister E. Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, (Grand Rapids, Michigan.: Zondervan Publishing House.1993).

McGrath’s book is on apologetics. He has a brief section in Chapter six, A Clash of Worldviews, which deals with postmodernism. He makes a good point that in dealing with postmoderns, “we must adopt a tactical approach in order to gain a strategic advantage.” (page 177). He goes on to explain correctly that with postmoderns it is not wise to start with doctrinal truth but to introduce it later. His weakness is that as an apologist he still fights the battle by arguing about what is true and right. Most postmoderns would turn this off as noise. He seems to have not yet grasped that this type of argument is almost always counterproductive with postmoderns. See also his section on “The New Age” in the same chapter. New Age is religion based on a postmodern worldview. He is actually more helpful in his comments on how to speak to New Age believers than when he talks about postmodernism.

11. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1989).

Newbigin thinks clearly and very well about postmodernism. However, he never actually uses the word in his book. Instead, he uses pluralism or pluralist society. Nevertheless, he is talking about postmodernism. He actually sets up a defense of the reasonableness of postmodern understanding of reality, then uses postmodern argument to defend why postmoderns have the worldview they have. He does not, however, buy into postmodernism wholeheartedly. He understands its strengths and weaknesses and deals with them. This is an excellent book.

12. Orizo, Francisco Andrés. Los nuevos valores de los españoles, (Madrid, Fundación Santa Maria. 1991).

This is a synthesis of the ongoing European research, focused on Spain, which Orizo is participating in. It is of an earlier date than Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90 and he was not yet ready to declare Spain “postmodern”, although he indicated that it seemed that Spain was going that direction and time would tell. In his work five years later, Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, he clearly states that Spain is a postmodern society. His analysis for Fundación Santa María tends to have a Catholic point of view.

13. Orizo, Francisco Andrés. Sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1996).

Francisco Orizo is a non-Evangelical, Spanish sociologist who is participating in an ongoing, worldwide sociological research. He has analyzed the Spanish portion of the research and also compared it to European-wide trends. He clearly talks about Spain being postmodern, explains in minute detail what that means. He talks, for example, of the spiritual longing of postmodern Spaniards and their feelings and, for the most part rejection, of the Catholic Church. One interesting statement he makes is that Spain appears to have gone from a “traditional” (read pre-modern) worldview to a postmodern worldview without really going through modernism. This is an excellent source of data on the Spanish sociological condition.

14. Schwarz, Christian A. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches. (Carol Stream, IL, ChurchSmart Resources, 1996).

I highly recommend this book for churches that want to prepare themselves to be postmodern sensitive. Because most postmodern converts will not stay in a modern church context, it is strategically important to prepare the church to receive those converts. In fact, it is strategically necessary to change the church before seriously undertaking postmodern evangelism, because we might very well win the converts, but lose them when they come to our churches. Schwarz provides a reasonable way to go through a process that helps our churches become postmodern sensitive.

15. Sweet, Leonard I. Aqua Church. (Loveland, CO, Group Publishing, Inc. 1999).

Sweet has written a trilogy of books focused on postmodern ministry. Each book focuses on a particular scenario. This, the second book in the trilogy, focuses on the postmodern church. Sweet has compiled a tremendous amount of information in his three books. There are a lot of quotes, facts and tidbits. Some may find his writing style a bit glib or even sarcastic. However, while some may bristle at Sweets style, all three of his books are excellent sources of information.

16. Sweet, Leonard I. SoulSalsa: 17 Surprising Steps for Godly Living in the 21st Century. (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House. 2000).

This is the third book in the Sweet trilogy. SoulSalsa focuses on personal spirituality for the postmodern believer.

17. Sweet, Leonard I. SoulTsunami:Sink or Swim in New Millennium Culture. (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House. 1999).

This is the first book in the Sweet trilogy. SoulTsunami focus on the realities of the postmodern sociological shift, and its spiritual implications, from a Christian perspective. This book has an extensive and excellent bibliography.

18. Tornos, Andrés and Aparicio, Rosa. ¿Quién es creyente en España hoy? (Madrid, PPC, Editorial y Distribuidora. SA. 1995).

A sociological work written to help one understand the Spanish view of the Catholic Church, both from an insiders point of view and from the outside. Of special interest, was the table on page 39, which describes four types of Catholic Christians: Christians looking for an existential adjustment, Moral Christians, Interdependent Christianity, and Vocational Christianity. They define these terms and then show why each is being rejected by the Spanish society at large. The most strategic insight is that, while “Vocational Christians” who have found a true spirituality are respected and even admired, the Spanish society at large feels that these spiritual people are somehow so special as to be beyond reach for the average person. This should encourage us. If we can show that we can be truly spiritual and at the same time normal people we should have a hearing from many in Spanish society.

19. Veith, Gene Edward Jr. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Though and Culture (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.1994).

In my opinion, this book is not to be recommended. Veith has a good grasp of postmodernism but fails on two strategic points. He fails to see the modern tendencies of evangelicalism and fundamentalism and therefore fails to grasp why postmoderns are reacting negatively to us. He only sees liberal theology as modern, which it is, but fails to see his own philosophical foundations. Secondly, he attacks postmodernism because it is different than his own worldview. This is reactionary rather than helpful. We can not stop postmodernism, we must learn to have a vibrant, spiritual and biblical Christianity within postmodernism without accepting its counter biblical tendencies. It is better to read Grenz who did not make these strategic mistakes.

WebPages of interest:

1. http://www.alpha.org.uk/
This is the Alpha course webpage. You can use it to order material and find information on Alpha and where Alpha courses are located.

2. http://www.aquachurch.com/
A web page to go along with his AquaChurch book. It is basically an interactive study guide with web resources.

3. www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo/html
This is a five-page essay on postmodernism as a literary phenomenon and as a sociological phenomenon.

4. www.jordoncooper.sk.ca/
A ministry resources for postmodern sensitive churches. As the homepage says it is “a place where church leaders and those engaged in ministry in a postmodern world can come, hang out, and hopefully find some tools that help them along their spiritual journey.” It even has a section on books associated with postmodern ministry and a bookstore to buy them on line.

5. http://www.leaderu.com/
A resource page for scholarly research from a Christian perspective. It is basically a Christian University on line. It has good articles on postmodernism.

6. www.next-wave.org/
Resource on line magazine for second generation postmodern sensitive churches, called “Gen X” churches in the webpage. Articles from past issues are available.

7. www.next-wave.org/dec99/new_wave_of_gen_x_churches.htm
The underlining may not show up on this webpage address. It should read new_wave_of_gen_x_churches. This article from Next-Wave outlines the difference between first and second generation postmodern sensitive churches. The article uses the title “Babyboomer church” for first generation postmodern sensitive churches and “Gen X churches” for the second generation churches.

8. www.shootthemessenger.com.au/
Australian resource page for second generation postmodern sensitive churches. It tends to focus on music, television and literature. It does have some articles.

9. www.shootthemessenger.com.au/u_jan_98/infowism/i_trailgenx.htm
This should read jan_98_/infowism/i_trailgenx. This is a good article from a Australian postmodern sensitive Christian perspective on how to reach postmodern people.

10. http://www.soulsalsa.com/
A study guide for the SoulSalsa book.

11. www.theooze.com/
This is a resourse and information webpage for postmodern sensitive churches. It is particularly focused on second generation or Gen X churches.

12. http://www.soultsunami.com/.
A study guide for the SoulTsunami book.

List of webpages of postmodern sensitive churches.

1. http://freespace.virgin.net/adam.baxter/grace/
Webpage for St. Mary’s church in London.

2. www.abbess.demon.co.uk/visions/
This is a webpage for St. Cuthberts Church in York, England.

3. www.axxess.org/
Axxess is a postmodern church plant of Pantego Bible Church in Arlington, Texas. They actually planted another church to reach postmoderns using the same building. This is an indication of how significant the difference is in ministering to postmoderns. The webpage starts out as a black screen. You will need to scroll down to find the rest of the page.

4. http://www.churchoftheapostoles.com/
Webpage for Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, VA.

5. http://www.evergreen.com/
A postmodern sensitive church in Charlottesville, VA.

6. www.ginghamsburg.org/
Webpage for Ginghamsburg Church in Tipp City, Ohio.

7. www.insearch.org/
A second-generation postmodern sensitive church in Cleveland, Ohio.

8. www.kairosonline.org/
Webpage for Kairos Church Falls Church, VA .

9. www.marshill.fm/
This is the webpage for Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle, WA. It is a prototypical second-generation postmodern sensitive church.

10. www.purposedriven.com
This is the webpage for Saddleback Community Church. Saddleback is a prototypical first-generation postmodern sensitive church or as others call them a Babyboomer church.

11. www.quest.nu
This is a postmodern sensitive church in Woodinville, Washington USA. Go to the “Searching” section of their webpage and see how they draw a “seeker” into a search for God. You will find that it is much different than preaching the Gospel as a message.

12. www.sandalschurch.com
A second-generation postmodern sensitive church meeting in the building of a first generation church in Riverside, CA.

13. www.sayingyes.com/pinnacle2.shtml
This is the webpage of Pinnacle Church in Amarillo, Texas. This is probably the best webpage to get a feel for what a second-generation postmodern sensitive church looks like, feels like and how they think. Take a tour on their “Virtual Tour” and you will see photos of the church environment. Read the captions and you will get a feel for how these churches think.

14. http://www.solomonsporch.com/
This is a second-generation postmodern sensitive church. See their photo album to see what the physical setting of their church looks like. Also read the Associated Press Report ‘Postmodern’ Ministers Reshape Protestantism which can be accessed from the Solomon’s Porch home page. The pastor, Doug Pagitt, was the youth pastor at Wooddale Church, a large and famous Evangelical church in the Minneapolis area.

15. www.souljourn.org/index2.cfm
SoulJourn is a very cutting edge second-generation church. See their PowerBrunch ministry for a way of combining evangelism, teaching, creativity and meals. Note to how much trouble they went in being non-coercive in their invitation to join them and how they make invitations to join them a spiritual journey.
16. www.warehouse242.org
Warehouse 242 is a second-generation church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

17. www.waves.ca/index.htm
Waves Community Church is a Chinese second generation postmodern sensitive church in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
[1] Francisco Andrés Orizo, Los nuevos valores de los españoles, (Madrid, Ediciones SM, 1991.) Page 138.
[2] Francisco Andrés Orizo, sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1996). Page LV-LVI.
[3] For more information on Alpha courses in Spanish write to: Mary Fortier Klein, Apartado de Correos 303, Santa Gertrudis, 07814 Ibiza. Tel/Fax 971 187 19.
[4] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire. (Zondervan Publishing House. 1997)
[5] Max Lucado, God Came Near, (Sisters, Oregon: 1986), pp. 33-35.
[6] http://www.marshillchurch.org
[7] http://www.marshilllchurch.org/secondarypages/who_we_are/FAQs.htm p.2
[8] http://www.marshilllchurch.org/secondarypages/who_we_are/FAQs.htm p.5

[9] Christian A. Schwarz, Natural Church Development a Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches, (U.S.A. edition: ChurchSmart Resources, 390 East Saint Charles Road, Carol Stream, IL 60188) 1996.
[10] Francisco Andrés Orizo, sistemas de valores en la España de los 90, (Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociolóicas. 1996). Page 183-184.